War, human suffering, industralised land clearing, climate change, over population...the list goes on and on and on and one thing unites them all. They're caused by money. I'm sure when money was introduced it seemed like a good idea, a standardised unit of value to create a "universal" valuing system; and in that purist form it's a brilliant idea. The problem is it's a system which doesn't account for emotions like greed.

Humans have a huge tendency toward greed and it never ceases to amaze me how even a relatively small sum of money can absolutely change an otherwise kind, generous person into an arrogant, selfish monster. Oh yes, the statement money is the root of evil is entirely true. Think about it.

Ever war in recent history was fought over money, heck some of those wars were only fought so the arms dealers could stay in business. Think about how many 100s of MILLIONS of lives have been lost due to wars fought over money. Not freedom or defending territory or anything like it's made out to be, but pure cold hard cash. This Iraq war being fought at the moment for example, all over oil and keeping a few big name arms dealers in business. It makes me sick to think all those soldiers are dying or coming up with mental disorders, all their families worrying and suffering, so a few rich blokes can make some more money. That is disgraceful and disrespectful to the soldiers and their families.

And climate change, geez. Industralisation occurred to produce products in greater numbers so the business owners could make more money. From Industralisation green house gases were released setting in effect a chain reaction for which we are seeing the beginnings of the results now. Massive land clearing, logging, mining and so forth, all spurred on by money, all adding to the climate change effect. And when presented with the climate change data over the passed 40 years the excuse to not do anything about it? "It will to strongly negatively impact on our economy" or in other words, money.

Without money there would be no poor, homeless or starving people in the world. Not less! NONE! Think about it. If you got rid of money over night what that would mean for these people. Even over population has it's roots in money, for with money as an incentive larger and larger farms have been developed making an abundance of readily available food. As food becomes easier to obtain population booms. It's basic biology 101. Yep, there really aren't many problems humanity is having today that don't have their roots in money.

Now defenders of money might say "it's not a perfect system, but it's all we have". That is a complete cop out. Before money it was barter, if the advocates of the barter system had copped out like that money would never have been invented. What we need is to develop further on the system of money, to advance forward in our system of trade. I mean money, as a system was created thousands of years ago, isn't it about time we brought our trade system into 2010?

Yes you read the title right, being a vegetarian is bad for the environment. I've long stated this fact to any vegetarian and vegan continuing their doctrine that it's better for the environment. Well now I have scientific back-up in this department by way of a study commissioned by environmental group WWF; but more on that later.

The vegetarian/vegan argument goes something like this. 1 cow used to produce meat will produce [x] amount of methane and consume [y] amount of food and take up [z] amount of space. On contrast vegetarians argue that a wheat plant takes up [a] amount of space and doesn't produce methane and doesn't eat food.

This on the surface when said quickly and not thought about to much might sound like a reasonable statement. But just think about it for a moment, actually read over it again and think about it. It's actually a rather illogical statement, in that you're comparing a whole cow which will feed 20+ people to a single wheat plant which will feed, wait for it... NOT EVEN ONE (1) person. Add to that the pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals required to grow any large sized crop and it quickly becomes clear that, being a vegetarian is more harmful then good.

While you're at it take this on board as well, it takes 14.5 KILOGRAMS of broccoli to equal the same amount of iron content as 500g of steak. Not only is it near impossible to eat that amount, but can you consider the amount of land it requires to grow 14.5 KILOGRAMS of broccoli? Let alone enough for everyone in a country to eat that amount of broccoli every day! But there is more and this is where the study kicks in.

UK's Cranfield University was commissioned by the WWF to conduct an independent study on the effects of a vegetarian or vegan diet on the environment. The study found that meat substitutes such as soya, chickpeas and lentils where MORE harmful to the environment because they are imported into the UK from other countries. This is also true for countries like the USA, Australia and New Zealand. The study found that the carbon footprint left by importing these products was far greater than the environmental harm caused by livestock.

The study, agreeing with my argument also concluding;

"A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK."

and went on to say that meat substitutes are often highly processed foods, requiring vast amounts of energy to produce. Energy which runs on coal power. So here you have a raw product which was imported from overseas, was then processed using vast amounts of energy, and it's apparently meant to be more environmentally friendly then a cow in a field? A cow which I might remind you is an animal which is meant to exist. When you really think about it, it's laughable that anyone ever really thought being a vegetarian or vegan is better for the environment.

So now with the claim about the diet being beneficial to the environment gone, and piles of other evidence that the diet is also really bad for your body; one can only wonder why anyone is continuing this diet, let alone promoting it. I've included some interesting links at the bottom of this post which may help you to see clearly when next a vegetarian friend tries to guilt you into their way of life.

Links;

Telegraph Article on WWF study
The Independant Article on Vegetarianism making you ill
29 Common Reasons Why Your Vegetarian Diet Isn't Working
Beyond Veg
Pavlina: Why Vegetarians are unhealthy
Disadvantages of going Veg

I recently seen a guy by the name of Jonathan Safran-Foer (No, not John Safran the mega awesome comedian, another guy), on The Colbert Report and again at 1am on Big Ideas on the ABC. He's written a book, which I must say I have not read, and he has started on a bunch of keynote addresses as part of a book tour. It's from these keynote addresses that I want to talk about today. See Jonathan has decided eating meat is really bad, but instead of taking a confrontational stance like PETA would, he's trying the buddy buddy, logic path to try and turn people vegetarian.

A vegetarian human race would be a terrible thing, and I hope I don't live to see a day when the majority of people are sustained on a vegetarian diet. I've actually downloaded one of his keynote addresses, and I'll prove you with a link to download it yourself and watch it. Does Jonathan seem like a nice guy? Sure, he seems like a great, normal guy. Does he present a halfway logical argument, sure I'll concede that too. But that doesn't mean some of the things he says aren't lies? No, it certainly doesn't. Does that mean that his way of thinking is the only way of thinking, the most logical or the best way of thinking? No. And I also MUST point out that MOST of his arguments are for things happening either solely in the USA or only in small scale in other parts of the world.

So the major thing Jonathan talks about is how bad Factory farming is. How it's bad for your body, bad for the environment, bad for the animals involved. I'm not arguing that point, in fact I agree totally with him, factory farming is bullshit and should be banned. But that doesn't then mean the only option in vegetarianism, nor does it mean that vegetarianism is better or healthier or that the same sorts of problems don't exist in the fruit and vegetable farming world. I don't know how much research Jonathan has put into fruit and veg, but he certainly isn't talking about all the bullshit happening there.

He makes great repetition of the fact that turkeys can't reproduce naturally anymore because their bodies are so distorted; but fails completely to mention that MOST of the fruit or vegetables you buy in the supermarket now days (and this IS a global issue) are genetically altered so they can't reproduce anymore. Their seeds are sterile, due to what is known as a terminator gene which has been introduced to all the grains and most fruit and veg so that farms have to continue to buy seed each year.

He talks about how animals in factory farming require antibiotic shots to survive their conditions, but fails to mention the genetically altered crops which now produce and excrete their own insecticides and herbicides. For a man who claims to want a balanced discussion on the issue, he doesn't seem to be talking much of a balance argument. Indeed there are countless genetic modification to the fruit, veg and grains you eat every day and in much larger quantities than you do meat. It is a LIE to say that fruit, veg and grain is healthy for you when there is evidence starting to come through connecting these wide spread genetic modifications with numerous health issues.

And while there MAY be a couple of factory farms in Australia I know very confidently they are very uncommon. I know extremely confidently that when I go to woolies, coles, IGA or even my local butcher that the meat I buy will come from an animal which has been able to graze, which was fed grain and grass/hay. I've seen the process, I know how it works over here.

Which leads me to my first main point; Just because factory farming is a bad idea, doesn't make eating meat a bad thing. In fact as I've talked about in previous posts meat, particularly red meat is an important part of your diet. Your human body has evolved in an omnivorous way, and without meat in your diet there are loads of things that can go wrong. Your iron levels plummet (unless you eat huge amounts of veg; eg 14.1Kg of broccoli has the same iron content as 500g of steak), you won't have any animal protein in your diet (which actually your body has evolved to use best), amongst a number of other things which I've already talked about in previous posts.

To me a FAR more logical stance to take to factory farming, far from deciding to not eat meat anymore (which lets face it would be nothing more than some sort of deluded protest) is to fight to have those commercialised and industrialised farming practices BANNED. THAT is the logical conclusion, to fight for farming returned to sustainable ways. Jonathan touches on that for only 20 seconds in response to someones question and remains impartial to it.

It is a LIE to state that humanity needs to become vegetarian in order for our continued existence. We don't. What we DO need to do is control our population and our wastage better. Explain to me how ANYONE thinks it's reasonable that 1/3 of the global human population lives in the tiny country of India. Clearly over populated countries like India and China need to look at how to stop their population problems (and no immigrating to other countries is not a solution, we need LESS births). Explain to me also why ANYONE thinks it's reasonable that the USA uses 1/4 of the GLOBAL resources, and WASTES in the quantities it does.

Drop the population to sustainable levels and the amount of wastage to almost zero; if not zero itself; and you immediately need to produce far far less food to feed them. And the thing is that over population of humans plus wastage are major problems not just for food production but in every part of the environment. If we don't fix those 2 fundamental things then the earth will die taking us and every other creature along with it. So it is a MASSIVE lie to say if we all turn vego everything will be ok, because that simply isn't the case.

I also reject entirely the comment made by Jonathan that humanity is the stewards of the earth. That is perhaps the BIGGEST lie propetuated by humanity, particularly animal rights groups. It is a LIE to say that humanity is special, different (in a way that makes us superior) or separate from other animals. And is certainly a lie to say that humans are the only animals capable of choosing what their diet will contain. My best example of why that particular point is a lie is that my dog is currently experiencing a moment in time where he is choosing NOT to eat the dog food I provide him and instead trying to get hold (by whatever means necessary) foods like crisps and pizza.

That is a conscious choice HE has made. In fact I have no doubt that any animal when presented with a seemingly endless choice and variety of food would be capable of making dietary choices on their own accord (and yes sometimes good choices and sometimes bad choices, just like humans). The biggest lie ever invented is that you're somehow special. You're NOT! If for example human only disease wiped humanity off the planet tomorrow, no other creature would blink an eyelid, except perhaps in relief. The fact of the matter is humanity is as far from special as it gets, humanity is also as far from good for the planet as it gets too.

Humans have NO extra rights, no special responsibilities, none of that. It's all LIES! We do not have the right nor responsibility to "cull" (which is a polite way of saying massacre) the populations of other animals; especially when ours is so over populated. If we want to cull animals, lets start with ourselves. If everyone who thinks culling other animals simply picked up a gun, stuck it to their head and pulled the trigger, then we'd at least be on the way to getting our population in check . That isn't to say I think we should cull humanity, but we certainly shouldn't be culling another species. The day that humanity realises just how far from special they are, how intelligent other animals actually are and honestly how stupid and insane humanity actually is will be the day the earth moves forth.

I also reject Jonathans idea that the only reason humans hunt is for thrill. That's absolute bullshit. THAT IS A LIE! What's to say a hunter doesn't grow his own fruit and veg? In fact hunting is natural, it's how humanity was built. It's fairer on other animals, much fairer than penning animals in and then killing them. It also means you can get close to nature, close to your roots. You can most certainly kill to eat. Think of it this way, a vegetarian or vegan makes a conscious decision to only eat plants, even when that means going out of their way, even when there is plenty of other food down at the local supermarket. A hunter can be the same, in that they may sure have a supermarket within shopping distance, but they can make a conscious decision to hunt their meat instead of buying it from the supermarket.

In fact Jonathan Safran-Foer introduces NO new arguments to the table. He is the same old vegetarian coming with his arguments why everyone else should be the same way as he is. He pretends to not try and get other people to be like him, but if this was truly the case there would be no book, there would be no keynote addresses and this post wouldn't exist because I would never have heard of him. Fact of the matter is, yes the people who operate factory farms lie and yes the state of the food system (like basically EVERY OTHER SYSTEM) in the United States of America is broken. But it's also fact that Jonathan Safran-Foer is trying to convert you, it's also fact that he (like all vegoes) tells as many (if not more) lies than the people who run the factory farms.

Links;

Jonathan Safron-foer's keynote @ Sixth & 1

Have you ever noticed that everything in our increasingly overly capitalist society can be assigned a monetary value? If a fall over in the street and break my ankle I can sue the council for money. If at work I lose a finger I can sue for money. In fact there is actually a list which the courts go by stating how much you can get for different injuries.

We buy and sell other animals, assigning them a dollar value; when lets face it they're actually another intelligent (much more so then most of us give credit for) sentential being. Heck we even assign our own lives a dollar value through life insurance and funeral insurance. It seems nothing is without a dollar value these days, think about it.

But how can you assign dollar values to some of this stuff. I watched an ad on TV for funeral insurance that said if your "loved one" dies in an accident you'll get $45,000 extra to "ease your pain and suffering". Yep, even your pain and suffering has a dollar value now days. But lets be honest, if you just lost you partner, the mother or father of your kids, they're dead, gone forever. Is any amount of money, let alone $45,000 going to ease your "pain and suffering"? It certainly wouldn't mine.

If Sarah died I can tell you no amount of money is going to make that good with me, nor should it be able to. Sure with Life Insurance the money helps you survive, but lets be honest here...if you have kids and a mortgage even half a million dollars isn't going to last you to long. No matter what, if you lose the bread winner in your family, your lifestyle is going to change. You will eventually need to go out and work, the amount of life insurance you receive only dictates how long you can delay it. It certainly doesn't ease the pain of losing your "loved one"!

So why do we do it? Why as rational but emotional beings do we attempt to assign a dollar value to everything in our world? And more importantly how do we expect that our children will grow to have good morals and values, as well as being emotionally well adjusted if they live in a world were everything is defined by how much money it's worth? What do we think happens to our attachments to each other, our attachments to the environment, our self value and emotional state if we have money attached to everyone? Together, we as a community design our own society, so we need to start asking these questions of ourselves before it's to late. Remember, extremism, regardless of it's reference is always a bad thing.

In the whole of Australia's history until 2009, terrorism in our country has been limited to 1 single plot to assassinate the Queen during a visit in the 1970's. Beyond that we have always lived in a safe, happy country, free from extremist views and forth coming violence.

In late 2009 that all changed when at least 5 Arab immigrants conspired to attack and take over hollingsworth military base. Fast forward to today and you'll note that two acts of terror occurred! First we have an attempted hijacking of a Sydney commuter bus by an immigrant man trying to escape police. While over in Darwin an Insurance building has been bombed! And while thankfully no one was fatally injured in either of these events, they do certainly highly a growing trend.

Here we have persons whom have immigrated into our country, committing acts of terror on our soil. A country which was previous a sanctuary from terrorism now exposed to it on our own soil. And I blame Kevin Rudd and his ridiculous approach to immigration. The simple fact of that matter is that it's precisely because of situations like this that until Kevin Rudd came along Australia had always maintained such a minimalist immigration policy.

Honestly, what does Australia need with 260,000 Indians a year? How does that help our country? It's time we took a real hard look at our immigration policy and set things right. The way things were, whether you agree with it or not, worked. It kept us and our way of life safe. Enter Kevin Rudd and his extremely liberal immigration policy and suddenly we have a growing trend of terrorism inside Australia. It's not racism, it's common sense. Large numbers of immigrants, especially when they can get in without proper security checks through student visas, will cause extremists to enter our country. We need to take a good hard look and decide if we want to continue our peaceful way of life, or whether we'd much rather plummet into a country plagued by terrorist attempts and inevitably terrorist successes. I know which I'd prefer, how about you?

So I thought I'd start doing a weekly wrap-up by way of vodcast. We've had a bit of a problem getting the video on YouTube as it runs for 13 minutes and YouTube apparently don't want to know you if your video goes over 10 minutes. So contray to what the video says, currently you can't want this episode on YouTube. I will keep you posted as to developments on whether we decide to trim future vodcasts to fit youtube, or just give them the flick.

The Australian Labor party announced the terms of their new proposed CPRS, which looks set to be implemented as early as this week. Labor of course are all hearts and smiles about the package, selling it as if it's the best thing since sliced bread. The greens however aren't so pleased. Senator bob brown has emailed me twice in as many days about the scheme and has revealed the scheme will see another $5.8 BILLION of tax payer money going to privately owned companies.

That basically means we're paying these companies money just to run their business in accordance with laws being set in place. To me, this doesn't seem very fair, or in accordance with the ideas of the capitalist society we live in. An economy built on debt and on robbing other vital projects of funding, is an economy destine for collapse. As I've said before, the only real reason we had any consernable dip in our economy during the "global financial crisis" is because of the scare tactics the government deployed. It's highlighted by just how quickly the economy has bounced back.

Now after placing us in such significant debt, the government is asking us now to take our tax dollars and give them to privately run companies. This is money that should have gone towards other government funded programs OR to paying off their ridiculous debt. Meanwhile, while these massive polluters in industry with their millions and even billions of dollars in profits get a tax payer hand out, what about the Average Australian?

Well the Labor website has said:

Voluntary Action: The Government will ensure the CPRS takes into account voluntary action by households. Voluntary action by households will now allow Australia to go beyond our 2020 emissions reduction target. In addition, the CPRS will be amended to ensure that all existing and future purchases of GreenPower will be counted, and allow Australia to go beyond our 2020 national targets.

So the current subsidy scheme will now let you buy solar panels and junk like that beyond what is needed to meet your 2020 targets. Great, so the average aussie who is cashed up and wants to go beyond their legal requirements will have some subsidy to their purchases. Meanwhile private companies like those in the coal industry, get everything paid for by tax payer money. Nice.

And why is it the coal industry is even in there? Surely the government realise here that the coal industry, has to die in order for us to actually affect climate change.

But the big kicker? We're paying 1.1 BILLION dollars of tax payer money towards ELECTRICITY bills for these private companies. Seriously, not only do we pay for their shiny new stuff that they'll over charge us to use, but we're paying their electricity bills as well. Remind me, how are these private companies still if everything is publicly funded?

If they're going to introduce funding for these companies, then it should be solely on a LOAN basis! I as a tax payer expect that my money will be used wisely in the best interests of the nation. If I'm going to have to prop up an old world company trying to change for the new, then I expect a return on my investment as should all Australians.

Links

Labors webpage on the CPRS
Detailed changes to the CPRS (PDF)

The Rudd government is one step closer to realising their dream of having an CPRS in place before going to Copenhagen next year. The government announced changes to their proposed CPRS today after talks with the Coalition. While some Liberal front benchers still don't back the CPRS, the wider Coalition now seems too which means it is likely to be voted through when it is next introduced to parliament.

The government promises the new changes should mean individual Australian's who volunteer to cut their carbon use will "be rewarded". It furthermore goes on to promise Industry will be compensated. Hold on a moment, what? More tax payer money promised to be forward to privately owned companies? I get they're trying to protect jobs here, but seriously you're either going to do something about climate change (which means massive lay offs in certain industries, or you're not going to do anything which is basically what this CPRS does).

The big thing I can't get my head around is what the labor parties rush to have an CPRS through is. What is so important about having one in place before Copenhagen? Seriously, does Kevin Rudd think the rest of the world leaders will see it and go, oh yeah Ruddy you're awesome?

Passing an CPRS through before Copenhagen is an idiotic move. No other developed country is doing this, so why is Australia rushing? Climate change can not be fixed by one (1) nations actions. Australia having even the most stringent of CPRS policies in place won't really have very much of a lot of an effect on climate change, unless all the other nations follow suite. That is the whole point of the Copenhagen conference, to discuss what we as a planet will do to stop climate change. And here Kevin Rudd goes rushing his CPRS through before Copenhagen. This could be very easily seen as arrogance on Australia's behalf viewed from the world stage.

We need to discuss the issues as a planet and come up with a global decision. Anything less than that is simply wasting time and money. I mean lCPRS think about this, we get the CPRS in place, industry start spending money, tax payer money starts following into these privately owned companies. Then Copenhagen comes and goes and we find the rest of the world is doing something else. Oh great one there Kevin Rudd, now industry will have to pay even more money to change over yet again, even MORE tax payer money will pour into these companies and you'll get even more job losses.

Yeah, this sounds like a seriously terrible idea to me

Founder of the "Animal Liberation Movement" in Australia, Christine Townend would have us all eating salad instead of Meat. Veggies instead of eggs. Her complaint is that animals, bred for industrial farming are kept in appalling conditions. And while most of us can agree with that, her solutions are simply unreasonable.

Sure it'd be nice if these animals had better conditions, but lets face it, at the end of the day they're being bred to die. Do you really think it matters too much if the animal is sad at the time? In an interview on talking heads this evening, she admitted that in the 15 years she's been involved with the "Animal Liberation Movement" they haven't managed to change much of a lot. She blames this on heartless people, and evil big industry.

But did she and her do gooder friends ever stop to think that this just might be the price paid in full, for feeding the over populated abundance of humanity? I mean sure, it's not for the squeamish, but then nor is hunting. I'm not saying it's right, only that it is necessary.

She feels we can all just live on plants, as do a bunch of do gooder freaks. But what they fail to realise in the science behind it. It takes 14.2 Kilograms of broccoli to give you the same amount of iron as a 250 gram steak. Claims that it's better for the environment to just eat plants are just insane. To feed the population with just plants we'd have to multiply our agricultural area by a factor of at least 500%. The use of pesticides would have to increase. It's completely unsustainable.

Not to mention the fundamental flaw in the argument that it's "cruel to kill living creatures thus we should leave other animals alone and just eat plants". Did these do gooders stop to think for a moment before they started waving their banners and chanting their bullshit? Of course not, they're do gooders, on their emotional driven band wagon. Plants are living creatures too.

Creatures whom are incapable of running away from a predator, unlike say a cow whom is not only capable of running away, but also of giving a mighty good kick to the head (which can kill a human). Should we ignore the suffering of one type of creature simply because it's incapable of making sound?

It's a flawed argument just like all the rest of this hippie nonsense. Red meat fuels our brains, it is what kick started the flames of evolution. Red meat fuels the mind and the body, it's protein aides in the repair of damaged cells and production of new cells. We need meat, especially red meat.

But Christine Townend hasn't stopped there. No now she's gone to live in India and is forcing them to change their habit. She has in-sighted several laws in regards to the keeping, use and work of elephants. These are animals which have a large tie to their religion and fundamental culture, and here Christine Townend thinks she can fly in from Australia and change it all. No, no, you can't use that saddle on the elephant that has been used for thousands of years, the elephant might be uncomfortable.

No, no, you can't use the elephant for work during summer, even though the use of elephants in such conditions is something that helped build India in the first place, the elephant might get to hot. Wake up you hippie freaks! Stop trying to change the world, when you have no right to do so. Humanity has no special purpose. Humanity aren't the guardians of jack shit. Humans are simply animals trying to carve out their own existence. It's a dog eat dog existence people... get used to it because mother nature isn't the forgiving, second chances type.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has his sights dead set on having an emissions trading scheme in place before the Copenhagen conference on climate change later this year. Like a kid who wants to have a toy before the other kids, Mr. Rudd is pressuring the federal opposition to pass the proposed emissions trading scheme. But all non-government senators have blocked the bill, and with good reason.

While there are a few countries in the western world considering an emissions trading scheme, and even a couple ready to implement one they are doomed to fail on both an economy and environment front. Economically, as Australian steel manufacturer OneSteel points out, an emissions trading scheme will cost jobs. The rise in costs will cause companies to do business off sure in countries which do not enact such trading schemes. With the relaxed laws it will be business as usual, smog and all.

This leads us to the simple fact that without global consensus on an emissions trading scheme, then you end up with mighty large holes in your trading scheme. If some countries, regardless of how small fail to enact an emissions trading scheme they stand to gain from increased business flowing into the region.

With a global economy which is already in the toilet, can we really afford to lose our major industry to smaller, less environmentally friendly countries? I mean it's all good and well to think of the environment, but only as long as you can afford to feed yourself. We have painted ourselves into a corner so to speak. On one hand we love our capitalist society which equates the ability to survive to how much money you can manage to earn. On the other hand we have to transition to an environmentally society.

At some point we in the west need to realise that the time for nationalism has passed, as has the time for such extreme capitalist society. We must now find a way to work together as global partners, not just with the large nations, but the small developing ones too. We must now find a way to benefit our selves, our countries and our neighbors, while not harming the environment. It is a harsh lesson we have been set, but one that is much overdue.

Links;

ABC news story on OneSteel

Australia's annual water report card has warned water prices will rise in all of Australia's capital cities over the next 5 years. This comes as a result of strategy change for civil water from dams to waste water systems and desalination plants.

In dams we had a relatively cheap source of water, fed by rain; the power required was minimal compared with these newer sources. Desalination plants have been traditionally expensive to run, and not a lot has changed now. This is due to the enormous amounts of energy required to strip sodium from sea water.

As we find ourselves in a position where electricity prices are rising, and will consider to do so dramatically over the next decade, we can expect water prices to follow. We have set ourselves into this position through a society of pollution and ignorance toward the environment, and not much has changed.

As climate change continues to have an effect on our country, and thus our water supply we can further expect prices to rise. And in the rising price of water we can of course expect a flow on effect into all products which require water. Yep, your grocery bill just got higher...

Links;

ABC News story

With the government uncoupling the Renewable Energy Targets bill(RET) from the Emissions Trading Scheme bill (ETS) the RET is expected to be passed through into law quite soon. The bill will legislate that energy providers supply 20% of their energy from renewable energy sources by 2020. But the big question for most people is, while it's all great that the environment is being helped, what does the RET mean for the average Australian? And you won't like the answer.

The coalition have joined the government in support of the energy sectors plan to rise energy prices in order to pay for the installation of renewable energy sources. It seems the major parties have taken on the interests of a minority, let rich business sector; above those of their wider constituents. The energy sector stands to gain dramatically from the drastically cheaper cost production associated with renewable energy sources.

Greens deputy leader Senator Christine Milne commented on the greens party website yesterday;

"While this is a disappointing move, the critical point is that we bring on the renewable energy target legislation as swiftly as possible, to unleash the tremendous potential of renewable energy to re-energise Australia and create tens of thousands of jobs.

"Modeling has shown clearly that the renewable energy target will reduce the pool price of electricity because it will smooth the most expensive peaks. Under this deal between the big old parties, the polluters will get windfall gains from cheaper electricity without having to pay to install the renewable energy in the first place. How is that fair or reasonable?

"Both the big old parties have been using Australia's clever and clean renewable energy industry as a political football. Both old parties bend over backwards to sandbag the old polluters, but neither is willing to give priority to the renewable energy powerhouse that the Australian community wants."

I agree with Senator Milne in that the energy sector are somewhat double dipping so to speak. They will on one hand gotten infrastructure for free, by forcing we the consumer to pay for it. On the other hand, their bottom line will increase as a result of the cheaper priced electricity, and the increased cost to consumers. Not only is this not fair, but it's completely un-australian.

Links;

Greens website

Live in another country? Sick of it and want a change? Perhaps you're being persecuted, or maybe your country just sucks. Think living in Australia would be great? Awesome, no need to fill in those pesky immigration forms to get permanent residency buy your way in! Yes dear reader there is a back door into Australia and it is the source of the Indian and Asian flood.

Legislation was passed awhile ago which made it guaranteed & easy to get permanent residency in Australia if you are an international student who studies here. The legislation which has no caps placed upon it, is now being exploited. In a move which is nothing more than people smuggling fake colleges are being set up around the country for the purpose of allowing people to buy there way into the country.

Students whom enroll in these fake colleges simply pay their money to the "college" then are told to go on holiday and they'll be marked as attending classes. We have a situation where people are not properly screened when becoming a student, nor are they screened when becoming a permanent resident as a result. This has caused a situation where-by persons whom would not ordinarily gain entry to Australia, let alone permanent residency are doing so.

Can you smell the hypocrisy? On one hand we are told "boat people" are evil and should be imprisoned. The cold truth about "boat people" is they are often simply people whom have undergone tremendous adversity and persecute in their own country and have paid to flee to somewhere "safe". Yet Australia is building an international reputation for mistreatment of assimilate seekers, as we imprison them without charge nor defined length of imprisonment, in appalling conditions.

Meanwhile on the other hand, we are now letting random people from anywhere in the world enter and gain permanent residency without effective screening, simply because they came to Australia to study. It looks to me that your treatment in Australia depends on where you spend your money. Perhaps someone should let the "boat people" know all they have to do is pay to become a student and they'll get to fly legally into the country.

We need to plug this hole which left as is, will crumble our country and our culture under the feet of Indian and Asians. We need to set clear limits as to numbers of persons whom can study in Australia as an international student. We need to set clear legislation as to what constitutes an educational facility, and create a body capable of monitoring and enforcing said legislation. And while access to permanent residency should be made easier for international students in order to keep their skills in the country, they should not be exempt from the proper immigration process. Furthermore, permanent residency legislation in regards to students should be confined solely to Universities and TAFE colleges. Private college students should be exempt.

There are numerous countries around the world whom by way of immigration policy, their society is crumbling. The UK and America are examples of which. We need to heed the warnings which these examples demonstrate and create an immigration policy which protects our way of life, our culture and our society.

In 1992 the comet Swift-Tuttle crossed earths trajectory in space leaving behind a cloud of debris, and every year since when the earth moves through this debris we are left with a meteor shower. The Meteor shower named The Perseids will be coming to it's peak tonight. This should make for some spectacular astronomy and certainly something to show the kids. I'll be outside with my family checking it out, I'm sure bro will love it.

Links;

NASA
Wikipedia
National Post
EarthSky

There has been much discussion on whether amalgam fillings are safe or not due to their mercury content. The fear is that the fillings which contains about 45 to 54 percent mercury are poisonous, causing all manner of medical problems; and this fear is causing Americans to flood into dentists to have them removed.

Many people, even some dentists themselves question why amalgam fillings are still used, as such a wide variety of other materials to use, but for many people it comes down to price. Amalgam fillings are cheaper and quicker than other composite dental materials. The American Dental Association (ADA) insist that amalgam fillings are safe, and pose no health risk as elemental mercury is used.

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) have also offered a report which references anecdotal evidence (from dentists) to state as a matter of scientific fact that amalgam fillings are not harmful. But the question is, with this claim resting on anecdotal evidence alone, where is the science? When tested dentists who work with amalgam fillings are found to have raised levels of mercury in their blood/body, but this is not thought to be at the levels of toxicity.

There is however a difference between handling the stuff for a few moments and having it installed into ones mouth. Proponents of amalgam fillings site that while the fillings do release a small amount of vapor it is not harmful when swallowed. But those on the other side of the argument site how easily element mercury is able to convert into methylmercury under conditions inside the mouth. Methylmercury is a highly poisonous substance, and while there is much anecdotal evidence from dentists that the fillings are safe, there is also a similar amount of anecdotal evidence from patients who have suffered illness since having amalgam fillings.

It seems we have a situation here where a health organisation is putting their bottom line, before the science and before patient health. Amalgam fillings may, or may not be safe as anywhere in medicine we find anecdotal evidence that tell of illness after treatment. The problem with anecdotal evidence is it is often misguided, and unrelated. People go to the doctor and receive medicine and become ill, failing to take into account something they have done earlier, or later in the day.

Anecdotal evidence in science is not to be relied on and it is amazing to me that organisations as highly respected as the American Dental Association and the Federal Drug Administration would rely entirely there on. The bottom line is, where is the science? Where are the tests, the short and long term studies? There is no scientific research here to definitively say, yes these are or are not safe. Until such a time as actual scientific research has been carried out and we can say conclusively that they are or are not safe, I personally would suggest opting for the more expensive composite fillings if you are able.

We need tests done on mercury levels found in dental patients with amalgam fillings, who have had them fitted over the short, medium and long term. We also need to see tests done which monitor what health affects might occur from exposure to small levels of mercury. A study should also be done on the affects of amalgam fillings in pregnant women, on the development of the fetus. Indeed there are many more things which need to be tested, and we should not constrain the testing solely to physical illness; as mercury is known to affect mental health (thus the expression mad hatter). The health and well being of the community should come far beyond the bottom line, yet sadly in a capitalist society it does not.

The Coalition and the Greens have joined forces in pressuring the Government to unlink it's renewable energy target legislation from it's Carbon trading scheme legislation. Both the opposition and the greens back the renewable energy target legislation, but are heavily critical of the governments planned Carbon trading scheme.

In response Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has been quoted on this mornings Insiders program on the ABC as saying

"Even with the increase in renewable energy, Australia's emissions will continue to rise, our carbon pollution will continue to rise," she said.

"So you need the CPRS, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, if you actually want to turn emissions around, if you wan to turn Australia's carbon pollution around.

"We need both pieces of legislation."

But how accurate are her comments? Well the opposition and the greens both disagree with her, and I have to say I disagree with her to. It makes very little sense that if you dramatically increase renewable energy, that you will continue to have an increase in pollution.

Given that the vast majority of air pollution comes from the mining or utilisation of fossil fuels how does Ms Wong expect that by replacing these sectors with renewable energy, pollution will continue to rise? Yes, the renewable energy targets are at the moment minimal but they are at least a start, and can be built on as infrastructures are established and costs enviably come down.

Even with this argument to the side, Ms Wongs comments demonstrate how the government like to shift blame. Her comments are those of a woman who knows her Carbon Trading Scheme will never be voted through parliament. She knows she has gotten it terribly wrong and so, she has tacked it on to a piece of legislation that can be supported as a start to somewhere.

This is a government of fraudsters, more obsessed with their ego then protecting the nations interests. But this legislation goes far beyond the interests of Australia and affects the entire world. It is clear that Humanity has polluted the planet far beyond levels which can be sustained and it is effecting the environment in a dramatically negative way.

But instead of bowing to pressure the government are holding fast that their now linked legislation will remain so. Instead of getting at least some of the environmental legislation through parliament and then working with the other parties to come to an agreed model for a new Carbon Trading Scheme, they are playing it stubborn. And amidst it all Ms Wong has accused the Greens as playing politics, saying

"Today we see Senator Milne on television basically talking up the Greens prospects of a success if there were to be a double dissolution," she said.

"So if we want to talk about people playing politics, [are] we seriously suggesting it's a good thing for the planet, to vote to ensure that Australia's emissions continue to rise, but then talk up your electoral prospects?"

But Penny, who is truly playing politics here? The Greens whom are standing up for something they believe will harm the environment? Or you, who refuses to unlink it from your Renewable Energy Targets?

Links;

ABC News

As we head ever closer to the Digital TV switch, consumer demand for lower cost LCD televisions has born a reduction in prices and I predict it's only going to get better. This week Big-W announced a price drop of $200AUD on their Sanyo 40" LCD 1080p televisions, now retailing for $996AUD it's capable of receiving and viewing True HD Digital TV all for under a grand.

Previously to get a TV of that size, for that price you had to buy Plasma, but as we all know Plasma is a poor investment as the gas runs out within 6 years and you're just left with a rather expensive paper weight. We are finally seeing the beginnings of a reduction in LCD prices such that the average Joe Blow can enjoy the technology previously only available to the wealthy or debt inclined.

In an economy which is springing back to life again after a government induced downturn, the timing for LCD prices to drop couldn't be better. And I predict it's only going to get better as we draw closer to the deadline. Over the next 12 or so months, as Digital TV take up increases and the Movie studio's push Blu-Ray expect the price of LCD TVs to drop in general another 2-3 hundred dollars if not more.

This will put the average 40" LCD TV at around $800AUD, which is a very reasonable price and inside the budgets of the average Australian (even if they do have to lay-by it). As the pushers of these new technologies get evermore desperate to upgrade everyone, expect some good things to come.

The story of your bottled water starts millions of years ago with the death of organic matter which then, over time, turns into oil. Yes, the same crude oil which goes into fueling your car also goes into, amongst other things producing the plastic which forms your water bottle. And as you can imagine this is a relatively energy hungry process, which results in as yet unusable bi-products.

In a world where we are running out of oil (we hit peak oil in 2006) it seems somewhat silly to use the stuff to create containers which lets face it are ultimately going to be used by the consumer for 20 minutes max before being thrown away as landfill. Indeed the water these bottles contain from popular brands like Coke-a-cola amatil brands Pump and Mount Franklin being simply filtered tap water. This is the same for most bottled water, unless you're willing to pay something like $25+ per bottle. You would get the same result buying one of those Brita sports bottles and filling it from the tap yourself.

By consuming bottled water, you waste oil which could be used else where; an estimated 50 Million litres of oil is used each year in the production and distribution of bottled water. You waste electricity with an estimated 60,000 tonnes of green house gases being emitted yearly by the production of bottled water. And you create vastly more landfill as only around 36% of plastic PET bottles end up recycled yearly, which leaves the remaining 64% left to degrade over 1000 years, wasted completely after only 1 use.

And most of all, if you have no concern for the environment...buying bottled water is wasting you money, it is the same thing you get out the tap, just 1000%+ more expensive for you. 1000% more expensive just to have it in a throw away container Makes you think doesn't it? So next time you're thirsty, don't go to the store and buy some water, instead get a reusable drinking bottle, or a filter jug for your fridge and use that instead.

Links;

Tappening
Bottled Water Alliance
Bottled Water Blues

The Australian Government where our multicultural society as a badge of honor. I on the other hand see it as a disgrace. Every country on the planet has, over time developed their own sense of identity; a culture which is unique to the country. Wars, including the current one in Iraq and Afghanistan are being and have been fought in order to "keep our way of life" which is simply another way of saying our culture.

To allow someone to immigrant into our country from another country and then continue to practice the culture of their old country in ours is a travesty which spits in the eye of every solider whom every fought for "our way of life". And at the end of the day why does anyone want to continue a culture from a country they have left behind?

If your culture was so fantastic then you wouldn't have a need to leave your country in the first place. You chose to leave your country because you dislike it, and you chose to move to another country which you do like. So if you like our country so much, then assimilate. I love my country, sure the government is a bit off and some of the laws are crazy, but overall I love my country. If I ever decided to leave Australia however, it would be for a country where their culture was either just like Australia, or where assimilating would be pleasant.

While obvious cases of people not assimilating are people like those weird Africans who circumcise their women, it isn't just limited to the extreme. Refusing to speak English when living in Australia for example is NOT ON! I don't care why you don't want to speak English, if you're not going to rack off back to where you came from. It's the slight as well, things like mannerisms.

Western cultures are under threat of going extinct before white men do, because we simply allow cultures to mix and form some weird disjointed mess. Our freedoms and way of life are indeed under threat, but it isn't from some far off middle east land, it's from our own immigration department and those they let into the country. I like to think of countries like clubs. If for example you where a member of the wine tasting club, but then decided to leave the club and move over to the heavy metal appreciation club, you wouldn't sit around drinking wine now would you? If you tried, you'd more than likely be kicked out, or forced to leave out of shame and embarrassment.

Same goes for cultures and countries. We have our way of doing things, if you aren't open to doing things the same way as we do them, and forgetting how you did them in the past DON'T MOVE COUNTRIES! It really comes down to something that simple that is causing massive problems in all western countries. The answer could be assimilation programs, or perhaps being more selective on who comes in. But one thing is sure, something must be done and quick..

On a daily basis it seems increasingly harder to "spot the aussie" inside our own country. For a country which once has a Whites only policy there sure are a hell of a lot of Asian's, Africans and Arabs running about the place. So what's going on and is it isolated to Australia?

Sadly this trend is happening in all developed countries and it comes down to pure numbers. As the rate of education increases, especially the education of a woman, the amount of children that will then be born decreases. For this reason in the developed world we are seeing increasing numbers of white people having one or even no children in their life time. While this is brilliant for the plant; given there are far to many humans about as it is; it isn't so great for the white man as a species.

People in developing or undeveloped countries do not have access to the same education, and their culture; especially to women is usually rather different. Their numbers continue to swell, indeed India alone accounts for over 1 BILLION of the 7 Billion people on the planet and they're still rising dramatically. It is not unusual for a woman in these types of countries to have 7 to 10 children in her life time. 7 to 10 children, verse 0 to 1 child... wait on somethings going wrong here.

At this rate it's easy to see why it's becoming increasingly difficult to "spot the aussie". As far as white people go, we're an aging population; that is to say we aren't producing enough people to replace those that are already here let alone grow the population. When a population turns into an aging one, this causes major problems on the economy. The economy is supported by people of working age paying their taxes, if they isn't enough growth in the population then the economy WILL collapse.

In Australia the Howard governments first real go at trying to fix this was the baby bonus that we still enjoy today. It was aimed at stimulating white Australians into having more children. As Peter Costello said at it's unveiling "Have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country". And while this gave a small surge of increased white babies it didn't do the job. And so as most developed countries around the world are being forced to do, we have had some pretty inventive immigration laws passed. Their design is about letting enough people into the country to make up for the lack of people having babies.

White men ARE an endangered species I'm afraid, one which unless they start having more babies will go extinct at some point. So white people unite and to paraphrase Peter Costello "Have one for mom, one for dad and one for your species" I've had 4... how about you?

American government science administration NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ) has released a damning report on climate change. The report finally recongnises that it is undeniable that we are already seeing climate change in action, and that it is down to human actions that these climate events are occurring.

The Obama administration is hoping the report will win over support in congress to pass through a carbon reduction scheme by the end of the year. This comes as other governments around the world, including Australia's continue to bicker over petty targets to be reached by 2020. The leading negative argument is always the economy, and more over the loss of jobs which would result.

But what both sides are failing to realise is that we don't have nearly as much time to deal with these issues as they seem to think. As NOAA has finally acknowledged climate change is already occurring and while it has so far been a gradual trend there is a tipping point where things speed up dramatically. One CSIRO scientist has already said we're past the point of no return, but I don't necessarily agree. We have at most 20 years to have carbon emission levels in the negatives, not 2000 levels, not 2005 levels, negatives.

This means a dramatic change in thinking, doing business and organising society, NOW. It means massive investment into research of technologies which will capture and store carbon, CFC's and other pollutants from the air and atmosphere. Arguing about whether we'll reduce carbon emission levels to 2000 levels by 2020 is not only useless, but counter productive. We do not have an eternity to deal with this problem, and it won't go away on it's own. Humans simply CAN NOT continue to live in the way they currently do, nor continue to rape the planet of it's "resources". You've been warned, don't say you didn't know.

Links;

CSIRO 2007 Climate Change report
CSIRO / Business round table report
NOAA FAQs Page
NOAA early action report
NOAA weather events report