Bottoms Up

Forgive me Rambling Masses, for I have sinned.

It has been over a year since my last ramble.

Do you know the wonderful thing about hitting rock bottom? It's quite liberating, and in a strange way, a very positive experience, albeit a painful one. I recommend it to everyone to try at least once in their lives. You learn a lot about yourself and about those closest to you. As long as it doesn't break you, you come out the other side a wiser and stronger person.

You also realise a great truth when you are sitting on your bottom on the bottom - there is only one way from here, and that's up.

Another thing that I always kind of knew but which I now feel deep within my gut is that life, and the world around us, does not exist as an absolute reality. It is all just layers of perception. For many years now, I have raged and railed at the world of humans for not living up to the great potential that lurks in the wings. I have been offended to the core of my being at the petty injustices and lack of reason. I have hated mankind as a species because I felt that we are a blight on this world.

I have expended emotional and intellectual energy to try and change that which I now see I have no power at all to change, except in minute increments on a local scale. And yet, I have continued to put my happiness in jeopardy by continuing this fight that can never be won, much to my own detriment. Impotent rage has no other path than to eventually turn inward.

My rock-bottom epiphany has begun a positive change within me. One of my favourite sayings has always been "do not worry about those things you have no control over", but I have never truly accepted that ideal until now. As I said before, life is all about perception - primarily our own perception. So now, I will worry about the things that I DO have control over. What happens to us in life is often beyond our control or outside the sphere of our influence. What we can control is how we perceive it.

As far as life-changing epiphanies go, it's a very simple one. But those simple truths are often the most important and the most overlooked. I have it within me to change my outlook on life and the way it affects me by making a shift in my perceptions.

So, bottoms up to you, dear Rambling Masses. Look for the positives - they are much easier to find if you stop focusing on the negatives all the time.

Of course, this won't get in the way of a good old fashioned rant from yours truly every now and then. Helps to clear the bile out once in a while, don't you know.

Stay beautiful, people.

More on the Vast Hordes of Aliens Taking Over Our Country

Hello Ramblers,

Sorry to rabbit on about the whole asylum seekers issue, but it is a matter that I can't seem to let go of. Whenever I am faced with political grand-standing and good old fashioned hate and fear mongering, I have this inner voice that says "Go on, give it a crack. Try to get through to one or two people so they actually see the farcical charade for what it is". It is the one thing that typifies the mediocrity of our major political parties. Both sides of the political divide, along with the vast majority of the blessed media that is supposed to inform us, continue to punch this issue home, playing on our uninformed fears, as if it were a major concern for the 22-odd million people that live here in Australia.

My last few posts looked at some of the more esoteric issues pertaining to the human side of asylum seekers. the following is a direct copy of a GetUp article, attempting to debunk all of the asylum seeker myths using that most wonderful of things - facts. GetUp is an online organisation attempting to mobilise people of liberal thinking (note, not Liberal, but the true meaning of the word, unaffiliated with any political party) to band together and affect public policy through political lobbying.

The GetUp article follows;

Australia & asylum seekers: The myths and the facts

Who are asylum seekers?

The terms 'asylum seeker' and 'refugee' are often confused: an asylum seeker is
someone who has fled their home and is seeking protection from another country
stating that he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been evaluated (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c137.html).

In Australia, asylum seekers must prove they are refugees before they are granted a
visa. They must prove to government agencies that if they return home they face
persecution, imprisonment or harm for reasons of race, religion, nationality, their social group or political opinion.

Myth 1 – Australia takes in more than its fair share of asylum seekers

Contrary to what the media and many politicians are saying, Australia is not being
'swamped' by asylum seekers. From January to August last year, Australia took in
below average numbers of asylum seekers compared to previous years and global
intakes (UNHCR - Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries First Half 2009: http://www.unhcr.org/4adebca49.html).

The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has calculated that the average
number of asylum seekers accepted by a country in the global context is 197 per
million of population. On that basis Australia's fair share for the first 6 months of 2009 should be 4,197 rather than the 3,666 we have taken so far. (Crikey. 'When it comes to asylum seekers, Australia is no Malta' October 19th 2009:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/19/when-it-comes-to-asylum-seekers-australia-is-no-malta/). In comparison Canada, which has a population of just over 33 million compared to Australia's 22 million, received 6 times the number of lodged applications (18,722). (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: http://www.unhcr.org/4adebca49.html)

In a global context, the average rate of asylum seeker intake according to population
ranks Australia 20th out of 44 countries worldwide, behind countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and Malta (which tops the list). (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – The refugee story in statistics: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c4d6.html)

According to another key factor – gross domestic product (GDP) – Australia falls to
24th place when ranked by asylum seeker intake per size of GDP. (Crikey, 'When it comes to asylum seekers, Australia is no Malta' October 19th 2009: Graph 2)

Myth 2 – 'Boat people' are swamping our shores

The vast majority of asylum seekers arrive in Australia by air. Last year, of the 13,500 people granted asylum in Australia only 206 of those arriving without visas came by boat; 2,291 came by plane – well over 90%. (ABC Media Watch – Welfare & Refugees, 26th October 2009: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2724620.htm)

There is also data to suggest that people who arrive by boat are more likely to be
legitimate refugees. Of asylum claims made by people who arrive by aircraft, 55% are
rejected. Only 2-15% of claims made by people arriving by boat are denied. (Crikey: http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/15/latest-wave-of-boat-people-push-or-pull/)

This number is also small when compared to the number of people who over-stay their
visa in Australia each year, particularly those on travelling visas, the majority of whom are English-speaking tourists. Conservative estimates suggest that, on average,
50,000 people stay in Australia without the proper documentation each year. (Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Hartcher 'At last, we have a real leader - pity that it's not Rudd':
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/at-last-we-have-a-real-leader--pity-that-its-not-rudd-20091028-hl00.html)

Some media (ABC Media Watch – Welfare & Refugees, 26th October 2009 – Channel 9 News: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2724620.htm) have been misquoting data that last year 13,500 asylum seekers were granted refugee status. The Department for Immigration & Citizenship has responded that the vast majority of these in fact 'came to Australia on valid visas as part of Australia's dedicated offshore refugee resettlement program or were proposed as special humanitarian program entrants - largely, they were not asylum seekers', with over 11,000 visas granted before entry to Australia through proper processes. (Response from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to Media Watch, 22nd October, 2009: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0938_immigration.pdf)

Myth 3 – the Government's changes in policy have made Australia a 'soft target'

2,504 people lodged asylum applications in Australia from January to June this year,
an increase on the same time last year. This increase is in line with global trends. (The Australian, 'Liberals wrong on refugees' http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25339551-5013457,00.html)

However these numbers are far below those in 2000 and 2001. In 2000, there were
over 13,000 claims in the first half of the year, with over 12,000 in 2001. (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries First Half 2009: http://www.unhcr.org/4adebca49.html) This highlights the continuing fluctuations globally in the number of people seeking asylum caused by changing world events that force people from their homes.

From January 2008 to June 2009, only 750 people arrived by boat compared to 43
boats carrying over 5,516 asylum seekers in 2001, (Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals.htm) after the outbreak of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Global events dictate how many people are displaced every year.

While some are claiming that the abolition of detention debt (in August 2009) and
temporary protection visas (August 2008) have made Australia look like a 'soft target,' this isn't the case. Since temporary protection visas (TPVs) were introduced in 1999, they have had very little impact on the number of people seeking asylum in Australia.

In the two years following its introduction over 8,455 asylum seekers arrived in
Australia by boat (Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals.htm) compared to the 2,504 people this year.

They have also had very little impact on the number of people being granted refugee
status. According to the Department for Immigration and Citizenship, nearly 90% of the people allocated temporary protection visas were granted a visa that gave them
Australian residency. Only 3% (or 379 people) granted temporary protection visas
departed Australia. (Response from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to Media Watch, 22nd October, 2009: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0938_immigration.pdf)

Myth 4 – Refugees are a burden on our economy

Refugees offer potential for our economy – they are not a burden. Claims that
refugees cost the taxpayer $628 million were made by some media sources in the last
week, but they are baseless, with Centrelink, the government department in charge of
providing welfare, stating that there is simply no data to support this figure. (Response from Centrelink to Media Watch, 22nd October 2009: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0938_centrelink2.pdf)

Centrelink also highlights that 'only about 3% of Centrelink customers who were in
receipt of a Newstart Allowance income support payment at 30 June 2009 held a
refugee and humanitarian or permanent protection visa'. (Response from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to Media Watch, 22nd October, 2009 – 5. Centrelink: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0938_immigration.pdf)

The Department for Immigration and Citizenship states that immigration currently
provides 60% of our population growth, but within the next few years it will be the only source of net labour force growth in Australia. (Department of Immigration & Citizenship - Fact Sheet 15 - Population Projections: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/15population.htm)

Myth 5 – Boats are bringing terrorists to our shores

Some opposition backbenchers have recently stated that arrivals of boats are likely to be a perfect cover for terrorists entering Australia. ('Terrorists .hiding' with boat people', Daily Telegraph, October 23rd 2009: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/terrorists-hiding-with-boat-people/story-e6freuy9-1225790211002) In reality, the threat of terrorists entering the country in this way has been described by counter-terrorism experts as 'infinitesimally small'. (Dr Michael McKinley quoted in SMH article 'Rudd slams Tuckey's 'terrorist' asylum seeker comments', October 22nd 2009: http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-slams-tuckeys-terrorist-asylum-seeker-comments-20091022-hamt.html) Asylum seekers arriving by boat may face years of delay before gaining entry into Australia – as opposed to those arriving by air.

All asylum seekers arriving in Australia undergo thorough security checks from ASIO
in conjunction with Indonesia. Comparisons with the US found that those involved in
the terrorist activities of September 11 arrived on valid US visas. (Dr Michael McKinley quoted in SMH article 'Rudd slams Tuckey's 'terrorist' asylum seeker comments', October 22nd 2009: http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-slams-tuckeys-terrorist-asylum-seeker-comments-20091022-hamt.html)

Myth 6 – Asylum seekers are 'illegal immigrants'

Under the Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed, all people have the right
to seek asylum in Australia. (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html) They may be found to be genuine refugees, and they may not – but seeking asylum is not illegal under Australian law or international law.

The term 'illegal immigrant', just like the term 'queue jumper', is designed to make
asylum seekers seem alien and unworthy of sympathy.

Boat People, or How We Lost Our Charity

Greetings Dear Ramblers,

After a rather mediocre political discussion with my father, who seems to be of the opinion that "boat people" are criminals, I could not help but to put my thoughts into words. As this rather non-event policy issue seems to be soaking up more than its fair share of the limelight in this particular election lead-up, it seems topical to discuss it, and to dive beneath the superficial surface presented by our politicians and media outlets.

Firstly, let me start by defending my father's point of view. I see where he is coming from. As first generation voluntary immigrants to Australia, we were not escaping oppression. Instead, we were just wanting to start afresh in a country that provided so many more opportunities to live the lives of our hopes and dreams. We had to fight through a very difficult and lengthy process of some two years of paper-shuffling to finally be accepted into this country. My mother, father and I value the opportunities we have been given to make something of our lives in Australia.

It would only be natural to look askance at those "queue jumper" boat people. We had to tick so many boxes to be let into the country, so why should other people be allowed to waltz in just because they arrived by boat on our northern shores? It seems rather unfair. Criminal, in fact. These people are breaking national and international laws by arriving unasked at our borders.

Now, that's all well and good as an argument, and I feel the visceral undertow that the mass media and vapid politicians have tapped in to. However, it just doesn't cut it. I realise that there is a lot of complexity here - but first we must identify the real issues, and prune away all of the rhetoric and bullshit.

The whole "queue jumper" thing misses the point. The real point is this - we need to establish if the people arriving at our shores are genuine refugees or genuine free-loading queue jumpers. To label them all as queue jumpers is a gross over-simplification. So, I agree that we need to detain people arriving illegally at our borders, whilst we are determining whether they are genuine refugees or not.

However, the whole media and political spin has gone way beyond this. By default, we are labelling all of these people as criminal queue jumpers from the very outset. This sets a very negative vibe, and makes it so very easy for the xenophobes amongst us to score cheap political points (just look at the latest meandering bullshit spouted by that old-school race expert and White Australia throwback Philip Ruddock). It is hard for us to feel any of the ordinarily human emotions for these people, such as pity, empathy or solidarity, when they are drawn, caricature-like, in the media as criminals willing to throw their own children overboard.

Now, I don't want to fall into the trap of over-simplification myself. There are a few more angles to be explored before a proper understanding of this issue can be obtained. The role of people smugglers is a case in point. One way of looking at people smugglers is that they provide a lifeline for utterly abject and desperate people who have nowhere else to turn. Another way of looking at it is that people smugglers are criminals of the first order who profit from the misery of others. Both of these points of view are true.

The detainment and processing of asylum seekers is costly and time consuming. At current levels of approximately 2,500 boat people a year, we are at the limits of what our facilities can cope with. If 10,000 boat people arrived each year (or perhaps 40,000 as arrive by boat in Italy each year) we would quite likely have some major problems. The tyranny of distance has shielded Australia somewhat from the refugee problem - it is difficult to get all the way to Australia by boat.

The other issue of boat people is this - Australia currently caps its refugee intake at 13,750 people per year. The boat people are counted in this total, along with the people who have applied for refugee status through official channels. These official refugees are the lucky ones of a sad lot of humanity - people stuck in temporary refugee camps on non-hostile soil who have legal recourse to throw themselves at the mercy of international law. So, in this context, the boat people could be seen as queue jumpers.

The reality, as always, is much more complex than the rather 2-dimensional picture the media presents in their 2-minute grabs whilst we are eating our breakfasts, or the bile that the radio shock jocks spew at us through our car speakers as we drive to work. Here is my counter argument, presented as a rather simple what-if.

What if China invaded Autralia and made us all their bitches? Might makes right in this world, so we would be in no position to argue. Let's continue this hypothesis and say that the Chinese powers that be decide to impose strict martial rule, and dissenters are taken away and tortured and/or killed. You are a fine upstanding citizen - you used to pay your taxes, you used to do the right thing, only now you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. World events beyond your control have transformed your very existence. You and your wife and your children are exposed to lethal danger every single day. You have no authorities to appeal to, no guardian angels to pray to. There is no migration department where you go into a nice office, press a button to get your number, wait in a comfortable chair, and approach the window to state your case when your number is called. There are no refugee camps to which you can escape and live in squalor as your application for official refugee status is processed.

The only possible avenue of escape lies in you selling everything you own and have worked hard for, bribing some guards or officials, paying unscrupulous people smugglers with every cent that you have, and jumping on a boat to New Zealand.

However, when you get to New Zealand, they all call you a queue jumper and a criminal, detain you, prod you for a while, and then tell you to fuck off back to Australia. You are sent back to Australia, and you and your family are tortured and executed.

This is potentially what happens to genuine refugees. They don't have an office they can go to for migration to another country. They don't have any other option than to break the law in order to flee from oppression to save their lives and those of their loved ones. There is no queue to jump. There are no legal options at all for these people to escape oppression.

Of course there are ingenuine people who attempt to play the refugee angle and try to jump the queue, but we cannot just tar all boat people refugees with the same brush because of this. Each and every person who arrives unasked at our shores should be detained but treated charitably. Whilst they are detained, their application for asylum should be considered fairly, and the appropriate decision to return them or welcome them made. Immigration department figures show that, on average, 85-90% of boat people are genuine refugees.

Australia is a rich country. Our general levels of wealth are such that we can cope with a few thousand poor lost souls coming to our shores each year. Our current annual cap of 13,750 refugees represents about 0.06% of our population. Does our charity really only stretch so far? Anyone who thinks that this is an unacceptable burden on our population and infrastructure has got rocks in their head.

I can only say this - we should treat refugees in the same way that we would wish to be treated if we were refugees. Being a refugee is not a matter of choice. World events beyond your control could plunge you from a position of privilege and comfort (or poverty as your starting point for that matter) to one of mortal danger for you and your family.

Charity begins at home, and when people have lost their homes, they need that charity all the more. Do not harden your hearts, based on cynical political spin and populist media beat-ups. Do not blindly accept the messages of intolerance that the hate mongers in politics and the media dish up to you. Instead, deconstruct the issue, study the facts, apply emotion, intellect, compassion and logic, and make up your own minds.

And if you still come to the conclusion that all asylum seekers are criminals, I hope for your sake that you are never placed in the situation of being a refugee by events beyond your control. The only option left to you would be to accept your fate and, hand in hand with your loved ones, go quietly to the torture chambers.

Ahhh Election Time

Hello Dear Rambling Masses,

It has been a long time since last I blogged. The reason for this is that I have been swept away by mediocrity. The way in which the fine country of Australia has been governed has been a very steady does it affair. It has also proved to me that no matter what side of the old left-right spectrum of the political divide in which you reside, the modern era does not actually allow for any differentiation. The old adage has now become same shit same shovel. Whether you are labor or liberal does not matter - they both ineffectually stumble towards the same beige washed-out populist policies.

We are living in a time where the possibilities are endless. General levels of wealth are so high in this country that supposedly "unpopular" but needed policies that address such things as environmental sustainability, energy independence, long-term planning of infrastructure in major population centres, and the very concept of what Australia should and could be, could be implemented with only a modicum of forward thinking and political bravery.

However, the two major political parties in this country continue to race each other to the bottom of the barrel, providing no clear alternatives. Instead of viable and well thought out alternative policies, the Liberals continue to founder in their state of "what the hey - how did we lose the last election? Oh, and what promises and scare campaigns can we employ to win the next one?" Labor continues to pander, ever more, to the unions, now that they have gotten rid of Rudd and put the Cath and Kim-esque Julia Gillard in power.

The problem is that, as has so often been the case in this country, there is no forward thinking. There are only policy decisions made as far as the next election. The next 3-4 years in office is the only goal. What this means is that Australia is sold short by the people who are meant to have her best interests as their prime concern. Instead, they pander to what their media trainers tell them is the best bet at winning the next election.

Take for example the current major election platform of boat people. My God, how is it possible that such a non-event could make it on to the public radar, much less be a major policy differentiator? There are, what, 1,000 - 2,000 people that arrive by boat every year. What effect does this really have on the masses?

That is the question I apply to any political policy, and so should you all. I realise that there is only so much pie, and it has to be sliced up in a certain way. So, in the cold harsh light of day, I realise that not everyone will get their wishes whenever policy decisions are made. There is not enough pie to go around to please absolutely everyone. So, things like health, education, defence, public transport and the like should get the lions share of the attention. Most of these areas have fallen into a sad state in the past 20 years or so, and desperately need some REAL leadership instead of just rhetoric to fix them.

So, I ask you, how many people are affected by boat people? I would suggest that about 1,500 - 2,000 people are affected - and these are people who are gainfully employed to look after the boat people currently detained - so that's a good thing, right? They have jobs. This means that this particular issue affects almost 0.01% of the population. Hello? What am I missing. This has been announced as a major election platform by both of the major political parties. So, let's just listen to the scare-mongering cliches from both sides of the political divide, and hope that the government we elect is the best at protecting us from the "hordes".

Why the hell don't they spend their time coming up with some genuine (and I admit difficult) solutions to the problems that affect 70-80, even 90 percent of the population, such as the shithouse medical facilities, dodgy education, crap public transport in major urban areas, energy concerns, unsustainable practices, environmental disasters, etc.?

Because, dear readers, they are modern politicians. Big on promises, but lacking in actual ideas or forward thinking. The problems are many. The solutions are well within our reach to accomplish. They do require a real government, and that is something we haven't had in a long time. I don't hold out much hope, because no matter who wins the next election, it will be same shit, same shovel.

Emissions Trading Scheme (Or How Not To Fix The Planet)

Let me start this post by stating categorically that I am not a climate change sceptic. I believe full well that the human species has been able to harness the ability and power to affect their surroundings to such an extent that it has far-reaching consequences on a global scale. Add to this mix a voracious appetite, almost viral population growth, and the capacity to apply ingenuity, creativity and imagination to overcome obstacles, and I am left wondering how anyone could believe that our actions do not change the planet in a multitude of ways (many of them negative).

I believe we stand at a crossroads or, more accurately, at the lip of a giant precipice. There have been doomsayers throughout history, and all of them have been wrong (we're still here, aren't we?). Humanity has struggled through disaster, calamity and cataclysmic events, still managing to muddle through to our current position at the top of the food chain, masters of all that we survey.

The difference is that the current environmental disaster staring us in the face is the most fundamental and serious one of all. It all comes down to a very simple fact:

The planet Earth is a closed system.

There are several consequences to this, namely:

1. The amount of non-renewable resources at our disposal is finite. Once we pass the peak supply point (peak oil, peak coal, etc.) then, ceteris paribus, we are no longer able to grow at the same ridiculous rate as we did before the peak event.
   
   It is a self-evident fact that peak resource events will result in a need for MAJOR changes in how we conduct our existence on this planet, if we are to avoid annihilation as we fight amongst ourselves for the scraps that are left, face famine, water shortages, etc.
   
   Essentially, imagine the Earth as a very big pie. No matter how we slice it, you can't get more pie out of it.


2. Waste from the way we exploit the resources at our disposal (extraction, refinement, manufacturing, obsolescence, etc.) build up in the various ecosystems, eventually reaching the point where the self-regulating properties of the biosphere are no longer able to sustain life in the same manner, if at all.
   
   There is no magic carpet that we can sweep the unbelievable amounts of pollution we produce under. One need only look at the sorry state of our rivers, our oceans and our air to see the mess we have made of the planet.

Action needs to be taken to set things right. It is not a hopeless situation. Humankind can apply their vaunted ingenuity, creativity, imagination, willpower and plain old hard work to set us all on the right path. The planetary biosphere is delightfully powerful at regulating itself, and with our help, much of the damage we have done can be repaired. But even a biosphere as big as planet Earth cannot continue to cope with the stresses we have put it under. We need to fix things now, not in 50 years, or 20, or even 10.

Having said that, I do not believe for one second that an ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) will do anything to help reduce our ecological footprint.

The major problems with the ETS as I see it are as follows:

1. The ETS only addresses carbon emissions. Whilst this is a major contributor to climate change, it does not even begin to address the larger and much more important issue of general pollution.


2. The ETS will most likely rely on a grossly over-simplified categorisation of the sources of carbon emissions. Do we place a tax on every cow that farts? What about burning of sugar cane during harvesting? How do we propose to identify every carbon emission contributor during the incredibly complex processes of production and manufacture that underlie the fabric of our society?


3. Carbon emissions that are directly under the control of human beings make up a significant but not major percentage of the total carbon emission of the planet. We have no control over methane production of rotting vegetation in swamps, we cannot put a plug in volcanoes.


4. The ETS is a cap and trade scheme. That is, a national cap is placed on the amount of carbon emissions allowed. Greenhouse permits will be allocated, and can be traded by companies if they don't use up their quota. It won't take long for the big polluters (who incidentally are the richest) to step in and gobble up all the permits. This means that they will still be polluting just as much as ever (if not more, as they now have more permits), and the poorer industries and sectors will be left with too few permits to conduct their business. They will simply be priced out of the game. So, how will our already near-bankrupt state government be able to afford to put more and more money into buying expensive permits for the public transport sector? Public transport is just one example, but a very important one. There will most likely be cutbacks, leading to more cars on the roads, leading to more pollution, etc., etc., etc.


5. The ETS is a cap and trade scheme. Hello?? We will have a whole new stock exchange, fuelled by greed, funded by the public purse (i.e. yours and my taxes). Traders, brokers and agents will be skimming their fees and commissions off the top. The ETS market will be prone to the same boom and bust cycles of the regular stock exchanges.


6. How is it proposed to accurately measure the actual reduction of emissions? Will it rely purely on the word of the major emitters? This is hardly likely to be accurate. Will emission measuring equipment be installed in every factory, car, cow, etc.? Hardly. The technology isn't there, and even if it were, it would be prohibitively expensive, and prone to tampering by unscrupulous emitters. So essentially we have no clear way in which to measure the actual reduction of emissions, if any.


7. The cost of setting up and running a regulatory body to oversee the ETS (and to measure/enforce emissions) will be very expensive. There will undoubtedly be the usual baggage of red tape beaurocracy, blame shifting, political meddling, vested interests and lobbying by major polluters, leading to an ineffective system at best, and an actual increase in overall pollution at worst.


8. Emitters will choose the cheapest possible way of reducing their emissions (or reportable/measurable emissions) instead of being forced to adopt a much more efficient and long-sighted systemic change that will have a lasting impact on our ecological footprint. But then that would require the government of the day to have the balls to make some unpopular political decisions and actually make a difference, instead of this watered down tax-funded travesty of a system.


9. The hardest hit will be the poor and those living in rural areas. City dwellers and the well-off middle classes, who are very much the largest slice of the emission pie, will have nowhere near the same level of economic incentive to change their wasteful ways.


10. The ETS, if introduced, will have major and far-reaching consequences to our quality of life, with very little benefit to the environment. And yet, the average person on the street knows sweet dick all about what the ETS actually is, and what it will mean for us. It has been shrouded in secrecy by the politicians on all sides, and the media has focused more on the political turmoil than on actually informing the public about the facts (wow, how unusual). There should be a major education and information campaign about it. It should be brought out into the open, instead of being behind closed Senate doors, so that we can all debate the issue and form our own opinions. Dare I say that, living in a democracy as we do, we should put it to a referendum?

The whole emphasis of the current debate is on reducing emissions. This is doomed to fail, as it is an over-simplified view of things. What we should be focusing on is setting up carbon sinks to soak up the excess carbon. Plant more trees and other vegetation. This will have a much greater impact on the well-being of the natural processes and balance of the biosphere than any arbitrary tax or half-arsed emissions cap by 2020.

Another major benefit of this is that Australia, whilst not being a major emitter in the world scheme, has the potential to be a major carbon sink. We have just about the largest amount of open, unused space on the planet, ready to be greened. This would have flow-on benefits such as changing our weather patterns for the better, improving natural processes, processing and cleaning pollution, allowing for much greater productivity and fertility in our depleted soils, and would just about get rid of our salinity problems.

If you think this is pie in the sky stuff and that I've suddenly turned over a new, naive leaf, then think again. The greening of Australia is eminently achievable well within our lifetimes. It won't be easy, but it can be done.

Most of you will probably not have heard of a guy called Peter Andrews. He is an amazing Australian who has fought most of his life to achieve this very end. He has lost much in his struggles against government, entrenched farming ideas that our forefathers brought with them from Europe, and blinkered science-of-the-day thinking. His knowledge of land and water management is not just esoteric book-learning, but rather a lifetime's work in practicing what he preaches. With his Natural Sequence Farming techniques, he has rejuvenated areas that most had given up on. I urge you to either purchase his wonderful books Beyond The Brink and Back From The Brink (available from your local ABC Shop or all good book stores) or visit the Natural Sequence Farming website. It is an incredible eye-opener.

We would be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, to tend the fields and forests. It wouldn't take much effort to re-skill all of those workers in the heavy polluter industries either.

Yet another flow-on advantage of this is that self-sustainable rural communities could be set up throughout the great wide spaces, away from the coasts. These communities would house the workers and families tending the new green areas. This would solve the wasteful trend of population concentration in urban centres, thus greatly reducing the stresses on the ailing infrastructure of our major cities. The people of Australia would be able to save tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars on increasing infrastructure capacity, and instead spend it on setting up the rural communities.

Also, ask yourself this simple question: would you be happier living a life that is harming the planet or living a life that is healing it? Discontent would be replaced with pride in our actions. Australia would become Mother Earth's green lungs, and we would all be able to breathe easy in the knowledge that we were a major contributor to healing the planet. Now that's what I call progress.

So, what is stopping us? Let's get on with it, and forget all this rubbish about an ETS. The time to act is now, because it is almost too late. This is the single greatest threat we have ever faced, and if we do not act accordingly, we will not survive. Even more tragically, we will take a large portion of the blessed diversity of life on this planet with us. If we rely on our politicians to argue about a new tax and how to protect the big polluters, we will have missed our chance.

And thus I ask the two people who actually read this blog to stand up and be counted, because that's two better than yesterday. We don't just need free thinkers, but free doers. In my oh so small way, I am trying to reduce my ecological footprint, to stutter along the path to self sufficiency, to try to better understand this amazing planet for what it is - a wonder of creation (irrespective of one's religious beliefs or otherwise), and to attempt to place myself in what I believe is our rightful place in that creation - as custodians of all that we survey, instead of as consumers and destroyers of all that we survey.

It is time to shake ourselves out of our comfortable middle-class existence and make some concrete changes to the way we live. If we sit back and wait for the politicians and the "free market" to do something about it, then we deserve everything that's coming to us. Change starts in the mirror. Hey, what do you know? Michael Jackson got it right -

"I'm looking at the man in the mirror,
I'm asking him to change his ways,
No message could have been any clearer,
If you want to make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself and then make a change."

Environmental As Anything

Hello Rambling Masses,

Long time no rant. Time to let off another salvo into the great abyss that is the Internet...

Gone are the days when the world saw free thinkers as mystics, seers, and the founts of wisdom. In the "modern" world, free thinking is discouraged. Half of the world is gripped by rampant capitalist consumerism, designed purely to keep that carrot well and truly on the stick in front of us, anaesthetising us, keeping us docile as we chase that ill-defined elusive happiness that the marketing moguls have sold us. The other half of the world is still struggling with oppressive government - the old-fashioned way of keeping free thinkers and libertines down.

But to my mind, the pervasiveness of capitalist materialism is a much greater evil, purely for the fact that it has slowly and subtly eroded our freedoms without so much as a whimper from all of us who have lost so much, and yet had the choice to say no to it all. Free choice and free will are still available to us, but the modern societal structures have developed to hide these self-evident facts. It is so obvious to anyone with the slightest shred of intelligence and free thought, and yet the vast majority of vapid humanity continues to give up some of the greatest gifts that man has got - free thought and a questing mind. And what do we get in return? A disposable destructive pseudo-society that isolates us, practically takes away our freedoms whilst espousing those very freedoms, and leaves us much the poorer as individuals and as a species. Truly not a great bargain. As they said in that great movie "The Usual Suspects" - "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

We are so much more than we currently seem to be. All we have to do is remove the veil from our eyes and realise the simple truths. Why do you think the so-called primitive cultures are always so happy, despite struggling for survival each and every day? Because they have a clear understanding that they have full control of their lives. They make of their lives what they will. "Modern" men have filled their lives with so much unimportant trash that they have lost sight of the very things that make us human and alive.

Rampant consumption and an overly obsessive compulsion to continue growth beyond all reasonable bounds sounds very much like a virus, not an advanced species. The gears of the capitalist machine are finely tuned to keep us locked on the path. Goods are deliberately made of lower quality, to ensure that they break down rapidly and often. Goods are so cheap that it does not pay to repair them. Instead, throw them out and buy shiny new ones. Capitalism provides us with shiny toys to hide the emptiness and lack of true values that our modern lives have become. This serves to further lock us in to the vicious cycle of consumption that keeps us busy working and accepting of the current system without applying our questing minds, and without seeing how unsustainable the system is in the medium to long term.

As a conservative estimate, I would say that 80-90 percent of everything that mankind strives for and believes in in the modern age is all bullshit, pure and simple. Esoteric detritus that hides the real truths from the vapid masses. That is why "The Matrix" is one of my favourite movies of all time - packaged in a glossy and modern way, this movie and the messages it espouses are the bible of our times. The message is simple - most of what we believe to be important and real is actually crap, designed to keep us docile.

You need only look at the barometers of our times, television and the Internet, to see where this has headed. Television, and as a natural progression the Internet, is all-pervasive in the developed world. Further to this, it is filled with meaningless crap that masquerades as "entertainment" and "information", when what it is really doing is obfuscating the truth. Why do the vapid masses keep tuning in to reality television in such mind-numbingly constant numbers? Why does the news not inform? Why do current affairs shows not tackle the real issues? Why, when we have the single most powerful tool of mass dissemination of knowledge, does the Internet continue to be used primarily for porn, email spam and the latest YouTube phenomenon of someone doing something stupid? Why do politicians continue to fiddle whilst Rome burns?

I guess it's because education has failed us. Instead of improving each generation, it seems that we have either gone backwards or stayed in an alarming and horrible holding pattern. How are we better, more intelligent, than the same apes 10,000 years ago that looked up at the heavens and shouted "Ugghhh"? Well, from where I am sitting, I can't see that we have advanced very much at all. As far as I am concerned, this is just a continual pattern of "same shit, different shovel". Hell, a lot of the time these days, even the shovel is the same.

Getting back to capitalism as one of the main thrusts of my current rant - economic theorists have often espoused the great advantages of capitalism as an efficient machine, always improving itself in a "competitive" environment, always advancing. Those capitalist entities that are inefficient simply die or are swallowed by larger, more efficient entities. However, what has been forgotten are the simple ethical and philosophical elements of this. The question that should be asked is not "how efficient is capitalism" but rather "what kind of efficiency is it?" The answer to this is an alarming one. Capitalism is efficient at one thing and one thing only - making money for the holders of capital. This one true goal of capitalism is to be attained at any cost. Human life, sustainability, the environment, real efficiency, thought, ethics, progress, advancement of ideals and ideas, beauty and soul are all up for grabs, to be trampled on in the great rush to achieve ever higher profits.

Don't get me wrong - I see money as a necessary evil, and would not wish to see it abolished, as it would not serve the interests of the world. Money is a useful, albeit grossly oversimplified, measure of relative value and worth. Without it, we would be living in a confusing world where bartering of goods and services struggles with the eternal question of trying to come to terms with how much "X" will be needed to barter for "Y", assuming that the owner of "Y" actually wants "X". Much effort would be wasted in this difficult and complex process of agreeing on the relative value of disparate goods and services.

As much as I rail against money and capitalism, these are not my main enemy. The great evil is the rampant consumerism and materialism that we have been slowly led to accept as the norm ever since the 1950s, despite the obvious fact that it is totally unsustainable in the medium to long term. Our excesses have been growing ever grander as each generation strives for more of everything.

One way for everyone to mitigate the rampant consumerism that is destroying our world and enslaving us all is to make a very simple shift in our thought patterns. The problem is that money is such an abstract term, and easily allows us to make assumptions and value judgements without truly understanding the consequences. I don't measure value in terms of money - I never have. Instead, I measure it against the one true human currency - time. The one thing of value on the face of this earth that each of us has is time - time to live, time to choose our path throughout our lives, and time to die. So this is the measure of value that I use.

If I look at something to buy, I ask myself whether I actually need it or not. If I don't need it, I ask myself whether I actually want it. If I need it or want it, I then ask myself how much time I would be giving up in order to purchase it. This takes into account what I am currently earning, what my disposable income is, and how long it has taken to amass that disposable income. If it takes me two weeks to earn the money to buy something, it better be worth two weeks of my life that I will never get back, otherwise the purchase is not being made.

In this way, serious judgements can be made on whether I choose to contribute to the capitalist machine or not. More often than not, I end up on the frugal side, choosing not to purchase something. One of my life's goals is not to amass a whole bunch of stuff to fill my supposedly empty life with. Instead, I work when I have to in order to gain the relative financial freedom to choose not to work as a slave to the capitalist machine.

At this point you may be saying to yourself "Who does this guy think he is, ranting about capitalism and yet at the same time enjoying the plethora of great things that have come from it? The mechanisms of capitalism have lifted his life from one of pure subsistence and survival to one of incredible luxury, undreamed of by previous generations." That may well be true, but I strongly feel that what we and the planet have lost and are currently losing is much greater than any gains that have been made.

Now we get to the crux of what I want to try to communicate in this particular posting to the two people who actually bother to read my blog. Capitalism/consumerism was the introduction, the shoehorn that got the foot into the shoe. Now, let's use those shoes to walk just a little further.

The current environmental crisis facing the world, brought on by our rampant consumption, is the real modern battlefield for free thought. Mankind has always seen itself as natural inheritors and owners of all that they survey, ever since that good old opposable thumb lifted us to the top of the food chain. The moment that the first of our distant ancestors picked up a stick and used it as a tool, our fate was sealed. We were destined to become the dominant species on the planet, outcompeting all others. The old adage of "might makes right" holds sway here. We have the power to control all around us, and we therefore assume that we have a right to wield that power indiscriminately, much to the detriment of all life on this planet.

Many wise people have said that there are no rights without responsibility. As the dominant species on the planet, we have a right to all that this entails. However, we also have a responsibility to make sure that we do not destroy it all in short-sighted pursuit of selfish ends.

Environmentalism isn't just about saving a few trees or stopping the giant panda from dying. It isn't just about making sure the paper goes in the recycling bin. It is so much broader than that. But like everything that the mass media gets a hold of, it has to be dumbed down and packaged into neat little bundles, so the "common" people can understand it. What a crock. Environmentalism should be, pure and simple, the struggle of mankind to find their true balance in this world. We have to get over the obsessive view that we own everything from here to the horizon, that the land and sea and everything on it and in it is ours to do with as we please. We have to move past the mistaken belief that nothing has value unless it can be dug up from the ground, cut down, mashed, pulped, killed, processed and packaged to serve our every whim.

The warnings are out there in the public domain, and the science is mostly rock solid, and still the governments of the world continue to drag their feet. Why is this? Because the existing monied powers hold the cards. They decide what policy gets passed, and even what policy gets debated. They dilute the facts and derail the discussions about what should be done by casting aspersions on the validity of the science, and by arguing against what the self-evident facts are telling us. They control the mass media, and the resulting information that should be presented to all of us as a matter of course is only available to the free thinkers who actually bother to open their eyes and ask some questions.

What does it matter that there are disputed claims regarding what one group of (in my view legitimate) scientists are saying about carbon emissions versus what another group (funded by big business) are saying? This is yet another attempt at a smoke screen to hide the fact that the world is going to hell in a hand basket, and we as a species and individually are responsible. On the one hand we have the vast majority of the scientific community and free thinkers of the world, saying that we are destroying the planet with our actions. On the other hand we have a tiny minority of nay-sayers who are in the pockets of the main polluters and exploiters of resources on the planet, arguing and stalling for all they are worth. The scary thing is that the mass media, by paying equal attention to both camps, is presenting a vastly distorted picture of what the truth really is.

Who in their right mind can sit there with their hand on their heart and say that pollution, deforestation, mass species extinctions, loss of biodiversity, etc, etc, are in our best interests? The monied powers can, of course. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, because it's an oh so wonderful and comfortable existence for them. They remain unchallenged in their power only so long as the system keeps everyone repressed. And we stay repressed only so long as we continue to swallow the crap that is getting spoon fed to us each and every day.

The bastards who call the shots are doing so because it makes them rich, and continues to keep them in power. They have no regard for the future, certainly not past their comfortable lifespan. What they care about is wringing every last bit of profit out of the resources at their disposal, and never mind the consequence. This stems from the aforementioned human belief that we have the right to use and abuse everything, just because we can.

A fundamental shift in thinking needs to happen for us to save the planet and ourselves. This isn't bombastic hyperbole - it is the simple truth. To think that we are above and beyond the natural cycles that hold sway on this planet is the ultimate in arrogance and ignorance. If we keep going too much longer on our destructive path, there will be no second chances, no get out of jail free card, no pleading ignorance. We will die, and take a significant portion of the biodiversity of this planet with us.

The fundamental shift in thinking that I mention is not one that will come easily, but it has to come nonetheless. It does not just affect the rich and the mighty. For it to truly work, it has to be accepted by everyone - yes, that's right - every single human being on the planet. Every person that contributes to the capitalist consumerist machine without regard for the planet and our place in it is responsible. We have to make this radical shift to survive, and hopefully save as many species of the overstretched and over-utilised planet as we possibly can.

I for one will be watching with keen interest just how much actual progress we have made in our thinking as a species. This progress will be measured in earnest at the global climate conference in Copenhagen coming up towards the end of this year (6 - 18 December 2009). I really hope I am wrong, but I don't hold out much hope for any actual decisions being made. I would even be surprised if any vague, watered-down aspirational targets were limply aimed at. The political will is just not there, big business holds most if not all of the cards, and we, the masses of humanity, continue to fill our lives with insignificance instead of striving to fulfil our destiny on this planet.

If God or Gaia or whatever ultimate entity you believe in walked up to me today and gave me the power to say yay or nay to the human race, I swear that I would need more than 10 seconds of think music to decide whether it was worth it. Would I decide to end it all and say "fuck it, give some other species on the planet a chance - they surely can't fuck it up any more than we did", or would I decide that we have a genuine chance to change things for the better and assume our natural role as caretakers of this planet? That question remains unanswered...

Given the regenerative power of the planet, I feel confident in the fact that it would recover from our influence in 100-200 years. Everything that we strived for; everything that we believed in; everything that we killed, sacrificed and died for would be washed away in a sea of green and blue, and most likely the planet would be much better off. And what would be lost? Just another species that got too big for its boots.

Ohh, gotta go. Big Brother, Pop Idol and Survivor are on. Wouldn't want to miss them...

One Rule For Some, Another For Everyone Else

Greets Ramblers,

Time for a bit of a rant - too much of this positive stuff recently...

How is it that a druggo like Ben Cousins (or whatever the hell his name is) can be handed the world on a platter? Not only does he get his football career back, but he gets a weekly radio spot, lots of media attention, and I am sure that he will get a bunch of endorsements as he continues his rise and rise.

I am all for giving a person a second chance after a mistake, but isn't this just a little bit over the top? Anyone working a real job (instead of being one of those semi-deified sports stars or musicians) would be well and truly buggered if they got busted abusing drugs. There would be huge obstacles in the climb back from the big fall, not least of which would be a criminal record and a low chance of ever getting a job again.

Erm, am I missing something? If you are a person in the public eye, you get a huge amount of exposure, usually followed by a ridiculous amount of money being thrown at you by all and sundry. The flip side of this coin is that your personal life is open game to the media whores that wait at your door to see what you are putting in your rubbish, and the expectation that, being in the public eye, you will stand as a positive influence to others.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who decides to follow a career that thrusts them into the spotlight should be well aware of the consequences, so there are no excuses when they abuse their rights. I'm an old fashioned kind of guy - I believe that life is all about rights and responsibilities. You pay for your rights with your responsibilities. There's a certain kind of universal balance about the whole thing that appeals to me, and it is one of the cornerstones of my value system in life.

I don't see that kind of balance in the current situation with this particular miscreant. Then again, I don't really care, because I am indifferent to the bullshit that passes for modern media. I only wish that we didn't waste so much time, effort and money on a loser. Why not lavish our attention on someone who is really deserving, like a pillar of the community who helps others? There are plenty of them out there. They just don't make it into the headlines.

Till next time, oh ramblers. The next post will be a positive one... I promise...