I think we can all agree the environment is in an advanced state of disrepair; and likewise I'm sure most rational people can, irrelevant of cause conclude that our climate is changing. That the polar ice caps are disappearing, that permafrost is melting and global weather is acting at best a little bit odd.

WARNINGIf you're one of the minority of people whom still hasn't come to terms with these basic and observable occurrences then I'd say there isn't much point in you reading this post as you haven't caught up with everyone else yet. If you fall into this category I suggest you do a little research or even better go outside and see for yourself.

At this point for most rational thinking people, climate change has become a very real thing; the argument now seems to be centered around what is causing the problem, and how long is left before everything goes extremely pear shaped. To this argument I pose the following ideas which I hope might spur people to get passed arguing and into action.

(1) Science has been warning us about climate change since the mid-70s. That means we've had almost 40 years to argue, fuss and debate out the issue. 40 years is a long time for inaction, in fact its a longer time period than I am old! I find it sad that it's only really in the last 5 or so years, when the effects have become extremely apparent, that the mainstream and governments have actually started to take climate change seriously. I am concerned that it will take “doomsday”, when it's too late before everyone stops arguing about it and is prepared to actually take action.

(2) It seems to me that climate change has become the new religious debate, where people are more worried about the differences, rather than the commonalities. If a meteor was plummeting towards the earth, would we all sit around debating what caused the meteor to plummet toward the earth? Or would we simply trust the scientists whom specialise in the area and I don't know, at least do something, based on their advice to attempt to stop the meteor? I mean would we honestly sit around using the economy as an excuse as to why we can't act against the meteor? It seems to me that we have thousands of climatologists, geologists and other assorted specialising scientists whom are warning about climate change. Doesn't it make sense to listen to the people who go out and research these things, whose job is to know about this stuff? The same people whom warned us almost 40 years ago, that the stuff that is happening with the climate now would happen?

(3) To me, it makes absolute perfect sense to realise that look the climate is stuffed, there are some big changes happening that in all likelihood will effect the land masses (and thus all life upon those land masses, including humans) of this planet in multiple ways. And under such conditions we need to put our own insecurities and arguments to the side and look just do something to fix the problem. It seems insanely logical in such a situation to trust and look to the people for whom not only is it their job to know about this stuff, but whom have predicted, through science everything that has happened climate wise so far.

(4) Does action mean, in part, we need to do things that affect the economy in a negative way? Sure, but take the following into consideration. The economy will be negatively effected regardless of what we do. If we act against climate change with regard for this theory about solar flares, we still would need to take steps which will cost jobs and negatively impact the economy. If we act against climate change with the theory it's a natural process through which the earth is continually undergoing, guess what, still will cost jobs, still will negatively impact the economy. And if we do nothing, if we don't act, people are not only going to lose their jobs, but whole sections of countries (their homes) and even for some, their lives. How do you reckon that is going to impact the economy? We need to be sensible here, the economy is going to be negatively impacted, people are going to lose their jobs whatever we do. With that in mind doesn't it make sense it minimise the damage to both our economy and our planet?
(5) Ultimately what is the point in arguing about this? How does it benefit us in any way, shape or form? The global economy as we know it needs to collapse before we can rebuild it stronger and more environmentally friendly. Heck, even without climate change this needs to happen given currently we have a global economy running on oil, and we passed peak oil in 2005. Think about how much money could be made from a clean, and more importantly unlimited energy source? Particularly when the cost of producing the energy is a mere fraction of what energy costs to produce now. Think of how many jobs that single industry would create in maintenance, research and development, installation and infrastructure and so forth. Research and Development alone would be a massive employment sector for decades to come as we develop new and more efficient ways to extract neutral energy from our environment. Now thing of all the industries such a change would touch, and all the new industries that would spring up because of it. I guess what I'm essentially trying to say here is that in the long term tackling climate change could mean more jobs then we have in our economy now.

I would really like to hear a logical, well thought-out argument for inaction on climate change, so I'm throwing out the challenge, someone please, convince me why we should sit around with our thumbs up our butts from another decade while the planet crumbles around us. But if you're unable to meet the challenge, then you have no choice but to concede inaction is stupidity, arguing about this is stupidity and NOT listening to those whom have been warning about these events occurring for near on 40 years is stupidity.

Links;

ABC.com News

Recycling, it's sold as one of the potential saviors of our planet. The idea of taking old things, reducing them to base resources and creating new products; sounds like a plausible solution in theory right? Wrong! Recycling doesn't make economic sense, nor does it make total environmental sense. But let me explain myself a little better.

Economically speaking manufacturers normally would pay for their raw materials. A drink bottle manufacturer for example would normally either pay per ton of plastic pellets or (if they process their own plastics) the going price per barrel of oil. Now throw recycling into the mix; suddenly the bottle manufacturer has a way of recovering their product without cost, then reworking it to produce a new bottle. Due it doesn't stop the need for raw materials, but that's down to lack of recycling volume, not concept. Essentially recycling means we, the consume provide to the manufacturer their raw materials, for FREE, which they then sell back to us. Can you name one other example of where a company is able to get product legally for free?

This I feel is the single biggest reason for lack of total adoption of the recycling schemes. If however the manufacturers were willing to pay for their product, that is to say they buy off of us the raw materials, this not only makes more economic sense, but would mean a greater take up of recycling. Think about it, if you knew your drink bottle, newspaper, catelogs, tin cans or other recyclables had a dollar value, you'd be more likely to recycle now wouldn't you? You'd also be less likely to litter. This simple change to the scheme would make a massive difference and would see landfill shrink dramatically.

Environmentally however, sure recycling cuts the amount of new raw materials needed, but it doesn't cut out the need for new raw materials all together. Even with 98% - 100% adoption of the recycling scheme we still need to use new raw materials in order to manufacturer recycable products; at best it slows the problem down it however solves nothings. Beyond that, recycling doesn't change the pollutants industral manufacturers produce; if anything it increases it. So on an environmental front, it only slows the consumption of new raw materials and does nothing to fix the problems caused by the manufacture process itself.

Recycling, a scheme that makes big claims, but makes no economic sense and little environmental sense.

Stephen Conroys great internet filter is clouted as the only of it's kind in the western world, and whilst that very well may be true (I'd like to hear from someone who knows), Australia isn't by any means the only country in the western world talking about censoring the internet. In fact, it seems we're a little late to the table with the U.S.A and Britain already censoring.

As free press reports, the fight for net neutrality is underway in the U.S.A with public figures on both sides of the debate. Interestingly however unlike in Australia where it is the government leading the charge on censorship through an ISP level filter, in the U.S.A it's the ISPs themselves who are leading the charge, with LIVE monitoring and blocking of undesirable content. That's right, for Americans their ISP is able to have a real live person look through your personal messages (including Instant Messaging and email), look at any websites you own &/or run, the people you communicate with, etc and determine whether action should be taken.

According to evidence given at the Federal Communications Commission by Michele Combs, American ISPs have been speed throttling and blocking content of political &/or social nature which the ISP itself doesn't approve of. For Americans there is no spin that it's "for the children" like it is here in Australia. There are no delusions about making a safer internet being propagated, nope it's just flat out social control and censorship by corporations held in broad daylight.

For the British it's worse, as ISPs have willingly teamed up with the Government to invade privacy and provide censorship. Calling no line ISPs will log every website, email, download and upload you make in a named account which is then passed to government. The ISPs are happy, they uses the data to better send you advertising, both through the browser and through email. In fact Britain has one of the highest rates of spam on the planet, and it's all down to this ISP level snooping.

The argument for a lot of people against the Australian filter seems to be that in other developed countries that filter internet, it is a voluntary system on behalf of the ISPs, but the fact is, in countries like the U.S.A and Britain these voluntary actions are being taken up by all the major ISPs in the market, giving the same blanket effect to the community that our Australian filter is meant to achieve through being mandatory. It seems in fact that ISPs and their corporate partners see the benefits to their organisation of such controls and censorship.

Imagine a world where no corporate entity, no government, no military, no public figure ever had to worry about a scandal or cover up story again? A world where if something, be it a download, a news article, a blog, a fan page on a social networking site, a video and any other material, was placed on the internet which exposed wrongful actions of a corporate entity, government, military or other public figure they could simply and explicitly block the content from being seen by anyone.

A world where the richest, most influential political parties are able to block out from national view, what opposing political parties have to say. A world where websites such as wiki-leaks can be blocked from view at an ISP level across the countries for which such websites are trying to expose wrong doings. A world where the giants of business can simply block out their competition, instead of having to beat them in the market place. That is the world we are fast moving toward. The days of freedom of speech and zero censorship on the internet are coming to an end.

So here is my prediction, one of two things will happen, either we will continue into this world of censorship, continuing to rely on and connect increasingly more of our lives to the internet, resulting in an incredibly ill informed, fascistly controlled community, bound into bondage and slavery to corporate brainwashing. OR, we as a people will decide that censorship and invasion of privacy is to high a price to pay for the "convenience" and "improvements in our lives" the internet has provided, and thus there will be a mass disconnect. Both of these options have their pros and their cons, so we as individuals, families and neighbourhoods need to decide which option best suits us.

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?

As the number of obese and morbidly obese persons begin to rise and the United States of America even have to create a new category called SUPER morbidly obese for those people who weigh in the vicinity of a TON (that's as heavy as a small car!) you have to wonder, does the government have a roll to play?

While we all like to think we're in charge of our on destinies, our past influences our decisions far more then we'd like to think. If for example you grew up in a household where it was junk food every night and sports weren't encouraged, then guess what you're likely to be like as an adult? Even more so, guess what you're likely to be like as a parent?

I do agree that the individual needs to make their own decisive changes in their life. Over weight and obese people need to exercise, with an active lifestyle. If you feel self conscious about exercising in public or like Sarah you have in your head that walking places is "scummy" (which of course it isn't, I walk a lot and I'm certainly not scummy) then you could always buy a treadmill or other at home exercise equipment until you feel more self confident. The families of Morbidly and super morbidly obese people; people who can't even get out of bed due to their shear weight; need to stop enabling their food habits. If you can't get out of bed then you'll eat what you're given. People need to get up and move around, they NEED to exercise, daily and develop an active lifestyle so that exercise becomes a part of every day things instead of a chore they have to schedule in separate to everything else.

But I also think government has a role to play. It is clear at this point people are NOT going to change on their own, they need a good hard kick in the right direction which is where government comes in. There are several measures governments in the western world need to take.

(1) P.E. before school for pre-school, primary school and high school students. That used to be a part of schooling in the 70s and it worked well. Governments cut it to free up money, but it was actually a very valuable tool. Not only will it mean every child exercises daily, but it means they will be able to concentrate better in school, be more confident and are far more likely to carry on the approach into adulthood.

(2) The development of more Parks and sporting fields. There are some areas where there is a distinct lack of these sorts of facilities and without them people are unable to include certain activities in their lifestyle which would aide in the weight-loss problem. Sports are a major part of combating obesity, so without a facility to hold sporting events people can't expect to be healthy for very long.

(3) Proper dietary and exercise education. For far to long people have been going on about diet. About cutting foods out and limiting calories. This is a MAJOR factor in why we have the obesity problem the western world is facing today. Our bodies have evolved in a way that requires us to move around and use energy. But our society has evolved in such a way that we don't really move around and use energy anymore. This is the BIGGEST systematic problem of all and the REAL cause for the obesity problem.

You can attempt to blame fast food all you like, but the fact of the matter is the average diet in the 50s contained FAR more calories and FAR more cholesterol then we consume today. Our lack of movement is the huge problem. Food isn't the enemy it has been made out to be, it's simply food. ALL food is perfectly find in MODERATION. Too much of anything even carrots will cause you problems. In this way government should educate at the primary school, high school and adult levels about the importance of MODERATION and ACTIVE LIFESTYLE.

(4) Legislation making it a crime for gyms and weight loss services to give INCORRECT information on weight loss or to misrepresent the facts should be brought forward. It should be a crime for a weight loss service to continue the lie that it's all about diet and you need to cut out foods and calories.

(5) Cooking classes should be reintroduced to schools. One of the biggest reasons fast food has become so popular is people have lost the skill of home cooking. If we teach it to our children in a proper way they are more likely to make good food choices.

(6) Amendments to the child protection laws to include obesity. Children can only become obese through ineffective and neglectful parenting. If you are teaching your child the correct eating and exercise habits then there is no possible way you child can become obese.

(7) Legislating more strongly about the advertising of food. NO FOOD products of ANY kind should be advertised during children's television viewing times for example. Children shouldn't be in the drivers seat, that's the parents job, therefore children shouldn't be advertised to.

(8) Parenting classes, perhaps mandatory, for people with new babies. These classes would address general issues like diet and exercise, conflict negotiation, basic first aide, child development, looking at things through your kids eyes on their level and ideas about games that can be played with your child at different stages of development.

(9) The banning of gastric bypass surgery. It doesn't do anyone any good in the long run and is bound to have some undesirable long term side effects.

The data coming out of the United States is showing the economy is beginning to improve, but what does this mean for the average joe? The unemployment rate is showing it's first real signs of beginning to fall, which I can only assume means it's becoming easier to find a job in America. I have no doubts however that there are still a lot of people hurting financially having lost everything.

I find it appalling under those circumstances that the board members of banks and financial institutions who caused this whole mess, the same group of companies that the US government had to bail out in the the order of trillions, received bonuses at the end of 2009. Bonuses for what exactly; crippling the global economy and causing financial distress to billions and causing millions to become homeless? It's moments like these that make government regulation of financial services sound like a good idea.

None the less there are signs of hope on the horizon. Things are improving, and regardless of the distress and pain being caused now, and the loss of the past, the future looks bright. Now is when things can really start to be rebuilt for the individual. With work comes hope and the promise of a better tomorrow. We can only hope.

The Australian Film and Television industry have lost a class action against West Australian ISP iiNet. The brief charged iiNet with authorising it's users to breach copyright laws by allowing them to use bit torrent software.

With common sense on his side Justice Dennis Cowdroy ruled that iiNet was not responsible for the breach of copyright. Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft who launched the action are of cause very upset with the decision with their spokesman Neil Gane stating
"It's very difficult for the movie industries to compete with a free alternative which is perpetrated by theft"

You're right Mr Gane it is difficult to continue to make billion dollar returns on movies you make when people can download them for free. But with movies like Avatar making 1 billion dollars at the box office in the first 3 days of it's US release I hardly think the industry is in any real danger. What the industry needs to understand is that regardless of what laws the bring in, someone will always be offering free copies of the latest movies. And people will continue to download them, and that isn't always a bad thing. Most of the time these downloaded copies are of poor quality, and certainly never anything approaching High Def.

If people want to see a movie in good quality, their only real choice is to purchase it. So the Movie and Television industry need to look at these downloads as a way for people to preview a movie by watching it in low quality, then if they like the movie they'll of course be much more likely to go out and buy it. That said however, the price of cinema tickets and DVDs certainly doesn't help the piracy issue. Honestly why pay $20 each to go see a movie at the cinema when you can download the movie for free?

Heck, even if you couldn't download it for free, there would still be an almost equally sized amount of people not going to see movies at the cinema simply because they don't want to pay the exorbitant prices. At the end of the day, movies were invented as the working mans pass time, they were meant to be affordable. But instead modern studios have increased prices to unbelievable levels and they're still going up. Here's a hint for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, drop the prices and you'll immediately see more people buying your products legitimately.

Thankfully todays judgement by Justice Cowdroy is likely to be adopted in the US, EU and UK as we all share and model copyright law from each other. This means ISPs a likely to remain without blame for the piracy issue.

Links;

ABC News Article

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

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

The consumption of goods and services, even when they are unneeded and sometimes even completely useless to us has steadily increased since the 1940s. As media has encroached ever more into our daily lives, so forth has advertising. The first major revolution in advertising came with the introduction of Television.

Suddenly with a television or a "TV", advertisers found a direct route into our living rooms. By linking their ads to popular TV shows or personalities, advertisers caught us while we had those warm fuzzy feelings associated with something we like. In doing so, we then associated their products and brands with those same warm fuzzy feelings. And so was born the age of the consumer, and we were set on a path which would have implications for social structure, mental health and even the environment.

With this new found power to creep into our homes, advertisers managed to con us into some pretty dodgy deals over the years. But as the years have moved on from the introduction of television, so has legislation and indeed the consumer. When advertising first appeared on TV, merely being associated with a program or personality was enough to send thousands running for the nearest stockist. As immunity to this approach grew, advertisers changed tactics, instead listing on the neat things the product can do or how great it will taste. We were shown fake images and told things which boarder on fraud. Again, the consumer changed, and so did the advertisers tactic.

Today, we find ads which instead of insisting a product is brilliant, we're simply told it will make us "cool", more popular or happier. These claims again are of course untrue and it is again only a matter of time before the consumer becomes impartial to such advertising campaigns and things have to change once more. But no matter how these ads are delivered, the core message is always there, and has been since the word go. It is the core message which ultimately drives consumerism; that being one needs all this "stuff" to be happy. That your life will somehow go unfulfilled without these products, and you will struggle to ever find happiness. Indeed we know this to be a complete and utter lie, and yet still the mass population fall for it.

In sheep like behavior, the mass population simply follow directions and purchase what they're told to. But indeed this is having the opposite effect than had been intended. There is much evidence to show consumerism actually decreases fulfillment and happiness, for it is simply an incarnation of materialism. Through consumerism we are fostering an "I" society; that is to say, a society focused inwardless in selfish need to make their own pile of "stuff" larger. We have a society which has over complicated itself in the aid of gathering said "stuff". Think about it, we go to work daily, to earn enough money to buy the never ending conveyor belt of "new stuff". We do this without thought or wonder, indeed like a trained monkey we feel happy about doing it.

The costs of which are our sanity and the environment we live in. For the many of us incapable of buying the "coolest" new toy, we feel less of a person, incomplete, after all that is the message the advertisers would have us believe. These feelings can lead to depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, even obsessive compulsive behavior. We are bombarded to buy ever more "stuff", to the point that obesity has hit epidemic proportions. It is strange to think, but the very thing that keeps capitalist economies running could, through over indulgence, break the economy all together.

But perhaps before that even occurs, our environment is at the brink of collapse through pollution caused by consumerism. Our waste has caused the environment to wither and die. The only solution for which is to cease our consumer behavior, and removed the products from which, from our society. But, human behavior what it is, I can hardly see that happening. Greed runs rampant in this modern capitalist world. If you are what you buy, then truly, what are you?

--edit--
Part 2 in this series will appear on Friday the 21st of August 2009. I apologise for any confusion

Chinese authority the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets claims Rio Tinto; a company the Chinese government recently attempted to buy majority control of; has been spying on Chinese steel companies. The National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets alledges that Rio Tinto was able to over charge a total of $122 BILLION dollars as a result of spying on steel companies by four detained Rio Tinto staff, including Australian Stern Hu.

Rio Tinto maintains no spying ever took place on it's behalf by any of it's staff; and furthermore that all if their detained staff are innocent of the charges. While I certainly would not put industrial espionage passed a company as large as Rio Tinto, this sounds much more like sour grapes. The fact remains that the Chinese government are still rather pissed off at their failed bid to purchase majority ownership of Rio Tinto earlier this year. This sounds far more like the sort of thing China is likely to do as a result thereof.

The legal system being what it is in China means it likely that these poor soles will be charged and either imprisoned or killed, regardless of their guilt. Just another hard learned lesson about doing business with a country like China. And truly, while they may have the largest economy in the world today we certainly shouldn't base our economy on theirs as we currently do. Indeed if the Chinese economy went bust overnight Australia would be in a real pickle, and that is certainly not how we should be. Certainly now with a culture and politic manner that China holds.

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

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