Wednesday, October 12, 2011





Australian parliament passes divisive carbon tax
By Madeleine Coorey (AFP) – OCT 12,11

SYDNEY — Australia's lower house on Wednesday passed a contentious new tax on carbon pollution to combat climate change which has angered many voters and threatens Prime Minister Julia Gillard's hold on power.After years of heated debate, the government won the count on what it said was the most important environmental and economic reform in a generation.Today is a significant day for Australians and the Australians of the future who want to see a better environment, Gillard said ahead of the parliamentary vote which must now win approval in the upper house Senate.The deeply divisive levy will mean the nation's biggest producers of carbon emissions will be forced to pay to pollute from July 1, 2012 -- initially at a fixed price before moving to a market-based trading scheme.Government ministers embraced and clapped after the vote, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard exchanging kisses with the man she ousted to become leader, Kevin Rudd, in the celebrations.The tax bills are expected to pass in the Senate next month with the support of the Greens.

Australia, one of the world's worst per capita polluters and a major exporter of coal, has long grappled with how to combat climate change but previous bills to introduce emissions trading schemes have been defeated.While Gillard managed to get her Clean Energy Bill 2011 through parliament 74 votes to 72, it is bitterly opposed by the conservative opposition which argues it will be ineffective, cut jobs and increase the cost of living.The row over climate change has brought down former prime minister Rudd and two leaders of the opposition in the last two years and made Gillard extremely unpopular with voters.Thousands have protested at rallies nationwide against the levy, accusing Gillard of lying when she said ahead of her narrow August 2010 election win that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led.The parliamentary win comes as speculation that Rudd -- who is far more popular with the electorate than Gillard, whose approval rating has hit record lows in recent months -- will mount a challenge to her leadership.And it follows the government's embarrassing failure to introduce its plan to send boatpeople to Malaysia, after the deal was rule invalid by the High Court.The prime minister, who leads a minority government with the Greens and three independent MPs, defended the government's campaign in favour of its carbon tax, which opinion polls show is opposed by a majority of voters.When there is a significant change like this one, we have to keep explaining it, she said.But opposition leader Tony Abbott pledged to repeal the tax if elected to government at the next national polls -- not expected until late 2013.I am giving you the most definite commitment any politician can give that this tax will go, he told state broadcaster ABC.This is a pledge in blood. This tax will go.Environmental groups welcomed approval of the tax, which they hope will help secure the future of national treasures such as the Great Barrier Reef and encourage greater global action on climate change.Today our MPs have voted yes to creating a stronger economy, yes to new jobs in clean industries and yes to giving our wildlife a fighting chance, WWF-Australia chief executive Dermot O'Gorman said.The greening of Australia is well under way, added Greens leader Bob Brown.

Australian MPs pass carbon tax-Lower house approves bill to cut emissions and senate almost certain to follow – but opposition would repeal if elected Alison Rourke in Sydney, Wednesday 12 October 2011 02.39 BST

Julia Gillard, Australia's Labor party prime minister, has succeeding in getting a carbon tax through the lower house of parliament. Photograph: Scott Barbour/Getty
The Australian government has cleared the major hurdle towards bringing in one of the world's biggest carbon emissions trading schemes after MPs passed two bills that are expected to be voted into law by senators next month.The carbon tax aims to cut Australia's emissions by 5 per cent from year 2000 levels by the year 2020, and bring emissions down 80% by 2050. The prime minister, Julia Gillard, hailed the bills' passage through the lower house of parliament as a historic reform.This is a significant day for the Australian nation, not just for today but for the generations to come, she said.The carbon tax bill passed by 74-72 votes and now needs to go through the senate, where the Labor government has the numbers backed by the Green party.The Conservative opposition leader, Tony Abbott, a climate change sceptic, pledged in blood to repeal the tax if elected. I am giving you the most rock solid commitment any politician can give that this tax will go, he said.Debate over pricing carbon has been one of the most politically divisive in recent years, claiming the scalp of one prime minister and an opposition leader. Manufacturing and business lobby groups have condemned the tax, which they say will cost jobs.Rightwing shock jocks have rammed home the anti-tax message on radio, arguing that whatever Australia does will make little difference to the world's climate. Scientists who support action on climate change have received death threats.

Australians are some of the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, largely because around 80% of their electricity is generated by coal-fired power stations. Concerns about price rises linked to the carbon tax have filled the front pages of newspapers.It has been extremely damaging to the prime minister who, in the days before last year's election, promised there would be no carbon tax under any government she led. The hung parliament and reliance on independents and a Greens MP to govern meant she had to cut a deal on pricing carbon to get into office.
This backflip has been in large part responsible for Gillard and her government plunging to record lows in the polls. Labor's primary vote is below 30%, which would spell electoral wipeout at the next election due in 2013.The successful passage of the carbon tax is welcome news for Labor. If it passes as expected next month in the senate Australia will join the EU and New Zealand in having national emissions trading schemes. Regional schemes exist in the United States and Japan.The tax will start in July 2012 and require the country's 500 biggest polluters to pay A$23 (£15) per tonne for their carbon emissions. From 2015 the price will be set by the market in a trading system.The legislation guarantees billions of dollars in compensation to trade-exposed and emissions-intensive industries.Households will be compensated for rising prices due to the carbon tax. The average impost is expected to be $9.90 per week and the average compensation $AUD10.10 per week for every home.Agriculture is exempt from the carbon price but farmers will be able to trade in carbon offsets.

Who are Green Police? Answer:
The term green police refers to a broad range of grassroots movements and local law enforcement initiatives with respect to environmental laws. In essence, the green police is a social movement to officially or unofficially enforce local environmental regulations. In its official capacity, the green police is a nickname to a branch of local law enforcement in charge of ensuring environmental protection laws are followed. In its unofficial capacity, the term green police is a term referring to private citizens who report environmental violations to their local law enforcement agency, or enforce environmental rules at special events. The term green police has also been co-opted by companies and groups to promote environmentally-themed agendas and ad campaigns.

Police and law enforcement department around the world have launched green police divisions exclusively in charge of enforcing environmental laws. However, these special units are rarely officially called green police, but rather have been given this nickname to make their mission clear to the general public. For example, New York City's Department of Environmental Conservation has commissioned a team of twenty special officers who are empowered to enforce environmental regulations, such as pulling over vehicles that are violating emission standards. This New York green police can also inspect food vendors to make sure conservation laws are being followed. In the UK, the Environment Agency has a similar special enforcement unit whose main task is enforce the provisions of the Carbon Reduction Commitment. This green police has been given wide powers to search company properties, examine energy use, and issue citations.Vietnam and Israel have also fielded government green police units. In Israel, the Ministry of Environmental Protection has a Green Police (literally named Green Police) to enforce green laws. The Israeli Green Police is charged with making sure water laws are followed, inspecting dairy farms, preventing hazardous waste from being dumped illegally, and ensuring asbestos is removed from buildings. In Vietnam, the Environment Police Department handles such tasks as stopping illegal wildlife trafficking and making sure companies do not violate green laws. For example, the Vietnamese green police prosecuted Vietnam Electricity for illegally selling oil from their transformers.The term green police also refers to anyone reporting environmental violations to local law enforcement. The green police can also refer to environmental watchdogs hired for public or private events. Like any other law enforcement agency, the official government green police rely on unofficial green police informants to let them know a law is being broken. At the Glastonbury Festival, festival organizers are hiring green police to spread environmental awareness and encourage environmentally responsible behavior. This Glastonbury Festival Green Police's duties include making sure festival goers dispose of their cigarettes properly, not urinate in the water and shrubbery, and pick up and recycle their trash. The environmental group Greenpeace is often referred to as the Green Police in their private, non-government sanctioned efforts to enforce whale conservation laws.Read more:

Green taxes could force one in four into fuel poverty
By Sean Poulter Last updated at 8:09 AM on 12th October 2011

One in four households will be driven into fuel poverty if the Government pursues controversial green energy targets, ministers have been warned.Radical policy change may be necessary to protect millions of struggling families from biggest household price shock since the 1970s, according to City analysts.The warning comes as middle-income homes are already suffering an unprecedented collapse in living standards as inflation and poor wages wipe thousands off incomes.Green taxes: The government faces calls to delay plans to push through wind turbines

The Government faces demands to tear up or delay plans to force through a £200billion shift to wind turbines, wave power and new nuclear power stations.
Energy industry analyst Martin Brough, of Deutsche Bank, warned that a quarter of households could be driven into fuel poverty by 2015.He said: Our analysis suggests rising energy bills and sluggish income growth will make household energy less affordable than at any time since the oil shocks of the 1970s.Energy tariffs have leapt by around 20 per cent in the past year, pushing up the annual average bill to £1,293. Deutsche Bank predicts bills will rise by another 25 per cent – around £325 – by 2015, taking the figure to £1,618,
Worried: Families face an increasing squeeze on their finances, says a new study

Fuel poverty: A quarter of households could be driven into the red by fuel costs by 2015

The shift to green energy is being driven by the EU and commitments made by both the last Labour government and the Coalition, based on the support of Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne.But Dr Robert Gross, director of the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology at Imperial College, insists families will be better off by switching from fossil fuels.Cutting support for renewables would slow down the UK’s progress in reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels, he said.Meanwhile, on the eve of the release of the worst unemployment figures for 17 years, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found families are about to endure their biggest income drop since the 1970s.A typical couple with two children is likely to be £2,080 worse off in 2013 terms than they were last year as their real income falls from £30,056 to £27,976, it said.

Unemployment: The number of jobless people is set to hit a 17-year high

The IFS warned that the next two years will be dominated by a large decline in incomes, with median incomes set to fall by 7 per cent after inflation has been taken into account – the sharpest drop in 35 years.Robert Joyce, of the IFS, described it as the delayed effect of the recession. Real earnings didn’t fall for a while after the economy started contracting, partly because inflation was very low, he said. But inflation has risen sharply and earnings have not done so in response.The IFS also forecast that 600,000 more children will be pushed into poverty by 2013, taking the total living in absolute poverty to 3.1million.It says the Coalition’s tax and benefit reforms will drive down incomes, and the new Universal Credit system will fail to make up for the losses of the poor.But universities minister David Willetts said: We have tried to hold down fuel duty, we are freezing council tax, we have increased the income tax allowance, we have tried to do things that help, but you can’t ignore the basic rules of economics, that when you inherit a situation where an economy has shrunk by 7 per cent there isn’t the money there.Figures today are expected to show unemployment is getting worse, with the total number of jobless expected to top the 2,521,000 recorded in 1994.Read more:

Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco-Gulags To Re-Educate Climate Deniers-Finnish philosopher says oppressive and brutal government should exert tireless control of citizens in shocking insight into threat of eco-fascism movement – Linkola openly calls for Nazi-style mass extermination policies to kill defectives Paul Joseph Watson Prison Monday, September 20, 2010

A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate change deniers be re-educated in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.Philosopher Pentti Linkola has built an enthusiastic following of self-described eco-fascists receptive to his message that the state should enact draconian measures of discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression in order to make people comply with environmental dictates.Linkola’s barbaric and dictatorial philosophy has remained relatively obscure but is now gaining traction as the mask of environmentalism is lifted to unveil its true nature – a justification for 21st century tyranny on a grand scale, characterized by eugenics, sterilization, gulags, police states, and total government control over every aspect of our existence.Linkola’s doctrine is more extreme, repulsive, and threatening to liberty than anything carried out by history’s worst dictators, Hitler, Stalin and Mao – combined. Indeed, Linkola laments that such monsters didn’t go far enough in wiping out many more millions of people.

Under Linkola’s proposal to save earth from man-made climate change, only a few million people would work as farmers and fishermen, without modern conveniences such as the automobile.This system would be enforced by the creation of a Green Police who would abandon the syrup of ethics that governs human behavior to completely dominate the population.Linkola calls for forced abortions, while also adding that another world war would be a happy occasion for the planet because it would eradicate tens of millions of people. The environmentalist believes that only jackbooted tyranny can help to save mother earth from the worst ideologies in the world which he defines as growth and freedom.Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy, he writes.There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.

Those who refuse to be enslaved by Linkola’s new eco-tyranny would be abducted and sent to the mountains for re-education in eco-gulags, according to the environmentalist, who says that the only solution lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.As part of his eco-fascist hell, Linkola calls for killing defectives by means of sterilization, licenses for births, tight regulation of electricity, forcing humans to eat rats, the confiscation of private cars, travel to be restricted to members of the elite only, and businesses to be terminated as the economy is entirely handed over to the control of the state.The heart of Linkola’s dark philosophy revolves around the need to slaughter masses of humans. If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die, he writes.Who misses all those who died in the Second World War? Who misses the twenty million executed by Stalin? Who misses Hitler’s six million Jews? asks Linkola.

Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco Gulags To Re Educate Climate Deniers

It is impossible to accurately explain and quantify the sheer level of depravity exhibited within Linkola’s belief system. If these words were written by a crazed mass murderer then we’d at least be able to dismiss their import, but these horrendous doctrines are embraced by a prominent environmentalist whose popularity is growing as the putrid tentacles of the eco-fascist movement grow into more areas of society and public discourse.We will have to…learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves, writes Linkola, firmly entrenching his environmental activism in the political prism of Nazism and Stalinism.Indeed, Linkola’s policies make Hitler and Stalin look like fair-minded humanitarians.Read Linkola’s loving and human overpopulation analogy, which as we have documented, is a contrived problem debunked by the UN’S own population statistics.What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat.In reality, by 2020 population will stabilize and by 2050 the global population will start to decline at an alarming rate, with the replacement rate for humans dropping below 2.1. Linkola’s bloodthirsty desire to see the human surplus brutally culled has more in common with the discredited pseudo-philosophy of Malthus than it does any basis in scientific fact.As we have documented, although not going quite as far as Linkola, the eco-fascist movement is attracting prominent advocates, including James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis. Lovelock told the Guardian earlier this year that democracy must be put on hold to combat global warming and that a few people with authority should be allowed to run the planet.

This sentiment was echoed by author and environmentalist Keith Farnish, who in a recent book called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish’s book.Linkola concurs with Farnish and Hansen, writing, Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.Another prominent figure in the climate change debate who exemplifies the violent and death-obsessed belief system of the movement is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin. During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.The current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocates the most obscenely dictatorial, eco-fascist, and inhumane practices in the name of environmentalism. In his 1977 Ecoscience textbook, Holdren calls for a planetary regime to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.Linkola has outstripped even notorious murder mastermind Charles Manson in his hatred for the human race. During prison interviews, Manson routinely spoke of his belief that around 50 million humans should be slaughtered for the good of the planet, whereas Linkola and his fans simply believe that humanity should cease to exist in its entirety. A fan site dedicated to Linkola includes links to his articles which have headlines like Extinguish Humans, Save the World.

Like Manson, Linkola has become a respected environmentalist guru for a new cult of believers who feel that governments and global institutions are not being ruthless enough in enforcing overdue measures to save the Earth from ecological destruction.
Linkola has built an environmentalist following by calling for an authoritarian, ecological regime that ruthlessly suppresses consumers, writes the Guardian’s Micah White, adding that Linkola has opened the way for a wave of fascist environmentalists who reject democratic freedom.Another Finnish environmentalist writer, Martin Kreiggeist, hails Linkola’s call for eco-gulags and oppression as a solution, calling for people to take up the axes in pursuit of killing off the third world. Kreiggeist wants fellow eco-fascists to act on Linkola’s call for mass murder in order to solve overpopulation.Linkola himself openly calls for violence to further the cause of eco-fascism. A minority can never have any other effective means to influence the course of matters but through the use of violence,he writes.
While governments around the world continue to harass innocent citizens and define peaceful political action as domestic terrorism, people like Linkola, Pianka and others, along with their growing legion of followers, are left alone despite their open call for violence and genocide.Given the fact that cult followers of these extremist fringe environmentalists, people like Discovery Channel building gunman James Jay Lee, are now starting to act out on their guru’s doctrines with violence, it’s high time that radical global warming alarmists who are calling for mass murder and fascism be investigated by the relevant authorities as potential terrorists.

However, it’s a forlorn hope when one understands that Linkola’s tyrannical and abhorrent belief system is merely an extension of the eugenicist doctrines being promoted by some of the most powerful people on the planet who, backed by an equally enthusiastic establishment media, are now brazenly dispensing with tip-toe tyranny and are openly calling for mass death and dictatorship under the guise of stopping climate change.The establishment points fingers all day long at all manner of political groups to smear them as a threat, while monsters like Linkola and Pianka who advocate the most dangerous and obscene ideas imaginable are lauded and afforded respect by their peers and their growing band of lunatic followers, who are all too eager to act out on the barbarian solutions that are being encouraged in the name of environmentalism.

Eco-Nazis Employ Green Police to Enforce Recycling Laws September 10, 2010 By Lonely Conservative

Here in Onondaga County New York we’ve been recycling for about as long as I’ve lived here. The county gives out free ugly blue bins, and everything recyclable gets placed in those bins and picked up at the curb. A few times they’ve slapped ugly bright orange stickers on our already ugly blue bins, but for the most part it’s been pain free. It’s a bit of a hassle, but our town limits how many trash cans they’ll pick up each week. We could get unlimited trash pickup, but that comes with a steeper property tax, so the bins help keep us under our limit. At least we still feel we have a choice, we don’t have to recycle if we don’t want to. That may come to an end our local eco-statists get wind of this.Fox News: Beware the green police. They don’t carry guns and there’s no police academy to train them, but if you don’t recycle your trash properly, they can walk up your driveway and give you a $100 ticket.They know what’s in your trash, they know what you eat, they know how often you bring your recycles to the curb — and they may be coming to your town soon. That is, if they’re not already there.In a growing number of cities across the U.S., local governments are placing computer chips in recycling bins to collect data on refuse disposal, and then fining residents who don’t participate in recycling efforts and forcing others into educational programs meant to instill respect for the environment.One city even received stimulus funds to pay for the recycling bin computer chips.These people are out of control.

EPA Green Police Mount Assault on Energy
By William Yeatman Published April 01, 2010|

This afternoon, the EPA is expected to announce new, more stringent fuel efficiency targets for automakers. The regulations are bad enough—they force people to buy smaller cars, which results in increased vehicular fatalities—but it gets worse. The EPA’s announcement will mark the first time that it has used its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a big deal, because the Clean Air Act is written such that regulation triggers more regulation. Thus, today’s announcement on fuel efficiency is like reaching critical mass in a regulatory chain reaction, and the result is a weapon of massive economic destruction.Here’s how it works. Once the Clean Air Act applies to mobile sources, like cars, it must also apply to stationary sources, like buildings. These regulations, in turn, engender stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standards. And so on and so forth. You get the idea.But the Clean Air Act was written in 1970 to fight smog, not global warming. Greenhouse gases are much more prevalent than smog forming emissions, so the thresholds for what constitutes a polluter are all out of whack. If the EPA adheres to the text of the legislation, then it would have to regulate everything larger than a mansion—your apartment building, your office complex, your small business. It would be a nightmare.Even the EPA admits that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is absurd. To avoid having to shackle the entire economy, the EPA wants to increase the threshold for the regulation of greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act, from 250 tons a year, to 25,000 tons a year. Otherwise, the EPA argues, it will be forced to regulate almost everything, which would be, the EPA concedes, absurd.

But it’s not that simple. The EPA is part of the executive branch of government, and it is unconstitutional for the executive to legislate. The EPA’s attempt to alter the text of the Clean Air Act flies in the face of the separation of powers, one of America’s founding political principles. Environmentalist litigation groups undoubtedly will sue to ensure the full implementation of the Clean Air Act, and if they win, then the EPA will be forced to impose an unprecedented regulatory straightjacket on the American economy.This is why the Congress never voted to subject greenhouse gases to the Clean Air Act. In fact, the Senate actually stripped greenhouse gas provisions from the 1990 Amendments to the Act. Michigan Rep. John Dingell, who authored the Clean Air Act, said that, This [regulating greenhouse gases] is not what was intended by the Congress. Despite this legislative history, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases, not that the EPA must regulate. Former President George W. Bush had the good sense to let sleeping dogs lie. President Obama, on the other hand, thinks he can leverage the Supreme Court’s decision into a political victory. He had campaigned for the presidency on a promise to deliver a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but he is having trouble getting it through Congress. So the President devised a high-stakes game of chicken. He is threatening to unleash the EPA in order to coerce climate legislation out of Congress. Today’s California waiver announcement is the consummation of Obama’s threat.These are hyper-partisan times, but both parties in Congress agree that they don’t like being pushed around by The White House. In the Senate, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has joined with Democratic colleagues Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana to sponsor legislation, known as a Resolution of Disapproval, which would strip the EPA of the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.Due to a procedural quirk, this Resolution of Disapproval (S.J. 26) cannot be filibustered, so it only needs a majority to pass in the Senate. There is a legally mandated time limit before which the bill must be considered, so the Senate will address S.J. 26 shortly after returning from the Easter recess. The vote is expected to be very close.If it fails, get ready for the green police.
William Yeatman is an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and editor of more:


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?