Tony Abbott has a Creation Science believer as his top adviser!
Maurice Newman Rejects Climate Change, Because God. In Other Words, by Tom Cummings, 24 April 14 “…….Newman rejects the findings of thousands of scientists from hundreds of organisations scattered across 195 countries, because of the analysis of one man: Roy Spencer.
Remembering that other war: the war against Australian Aborigines
Lest we forget, wars undeclared Canberra Times April 25, 2014 Although war was never declared, armed conflict between Australia’s indigenous people and Europeans was widespread. The consequences echo still. In an extract from his book Forgotten War, Henry Reynolds examines the evidence. Anyone acquainted with conditions on the Australian frontier knew that bloody work had been done. Writing in 1880 the pioneer ethnographers Lorimer Fison and Alfred Howitt declared:
”It may be stated broadly that the advance of settlement has, upon the frontier at least, been marked by a line of blood. The actual conflict of the two races has varied in intensity and in duration . . . But the tide of settlement has advanced along an ever-widening line, breaking the native tribes with its first waves and overwhelming their wrecks with its flood.”
We will never know how many Aborigines died directly or indirectly as a result of the conflict, how wide or how deep was the line of blood. Contemporaries often estimated the death rate in particular districts and a few observers attempted to calculate a more general figure. But then as now problems abound with making such estimations.
We are uncertain of the size of the indigenous population when settlement began. We have no idea how many people died in the smallpox epidemic that swept across south-eastern Australia in advance of settlement. We are unsure what the population was in particular regions when the tide of settlement arrived. We are even unsure of the number of indigenous people alive after localised conflict came to an end. There appears to have been no official estimate of those killed in conflict anywhere in Australia.
Even if a government had sought out such information the task would have been immensely difficult. Much of the killing happened on the edge of settlement in regions remote from the reach of authority. Because there was no official recognition of a state of war any killing was technically murder. Frontier communities were notorious for keeping secret their exploits in the war. Killing was referred to using a lexicon of known euphemisms. Punitive parties may often not have known how effective their attacks were, particularly when they operated in the dark or if they shot at groups some distance away. When the bodies of victims were encountered they were almost universally burnt to destroy the evidence. The long career of the Queensland Native Police was cloaked in official secrecy and most of the records were destroyed. If it is difficult to determine how many people died in direct conflict with the settlers. It is even harder to estimate how many more must have subsequently died of wounds or from the fierce rigours of prolonged and uneven warfare.
There was considerable interest in the question in the late 19th century but as the Aborigines themselves disappeared from the historiography of the first half of the 20th century, no one seems to have thought it an important matter for speculation. With the new interest in Aboriginal history that arose in the 1970s and 1980s attempts were made to assess how many people, both white and black, died in the frontier wars.
Historian and author Henry Reynolds: “Much of the killing happened on the edge of settlement in regions remote from the reach of authority. Because there was no official recognition of a state of war, any killing was technically murder.” Photo: Justin McManus
In my book The Other Side of the Frontier (1981), I argued that it was ”reasonable to suppose that at least 20,000 Aborigines were killed as a direct result of conflict with the settlers”…………
A compilation of regional studies does not allow us to assess the overall death rate in Australia’s frontier wars. But some things are clear. Aborigines were killed by settlers every year somewhere in Australia from 1788 to the early years of the 20th century, and died in disproportionate numbers. The research of the last decade has led most engaged scholars to conclude that the controversial 1981 estimate of 20,000 Aboriginal dead needs to be revised not downwards but steeply upwards to 30,000 and beyond, perhaps well beyond. And the dead do matter. They intimidate us. They force us to reassess many other aspects of Australian history. That is the least that can be done.
This is an edited extract from Forgotten War. It is published by NewSouth and won the 2014 Victorian Premier’s award for non-fiction. Henry Reynolds is a Tasmanian historian. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/lest-we-forget-wars-undeclared-20140424-376r3.html#ixzz2zvtw4pCi
Internet Police – the secret plan to use Internet to enforce the Trans Pacific Partnership
By Global Research News, April 23, 2014 Roots Action
This is urgent. An Internet censorship plan is being finalized in secret meetings right now. We need all hands on deck at this crucial moment.
Here’s the situation: President Obama himself is in secretive meetings with key political figures and lobbyists in Asia to lock the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s Internet censorship plan into place.
We know from leaked documents that this secretive plan will censor your use of the Internet and strip away your rights.[1] If finalized, this plan would force ISPs to act as “Internet Police” monitoring our Internet use, censoring content, and removing whole websites.[2]
It will give media conglomerates centralized control over what you can watch and share online………
– The RootsAction.org team
RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Coleen Rowley, Frances Fox Piven, and many others.
Footnotes:
[1] WikiLeaks: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
[2] Electronic Frontier Foundation: TPP Creates Legal Incentives For ISPs To Police The Internet
[3] U.S. “Bullying” TPP Negotiators Amid Failure to Agree. Source: Inter Press Service News Agency.
The farce that is the Australian government’s Renewable Energy Review
“Farcical” start to Tony Abbott’s renewable energy review, REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 24 April 2014 Tony Abbott’s controversial review of Australia’s renewable energy target (RET) made a “farcical” start to its public deliberations on Wednesday, attracting new accusations of bias and of having a pre-determined outcome.
Clean energy representatives were shocked by the panel’s appointment as chief advisor and modeller of ACIL Allen, a consultancy seen as close to the fossil fuel industry, and whose highly contested research formed the basis of the coal industry’s attempts to dismantle the RET in 2012.
Not only will ACIL Allen do the modelling for the RET Review panel, some of the assumptions that will form the basis of that modelling have also stunned the clean energy industry, and been branded as a farce.
This includes an apparent refusal to measure the benefits of renewable energy – including the health benefits, job benefits, and the network benefits – which the panel has dismissed as “too hard to model” and little more than a “transfer of wealth”, presumably away from the coal generators and network providers. There is concern about how it will model the reduction in wholesale prices – the main complaint from the existing fossil fuel industry.
Around 50 people who attended the RET Review panel’s modelling forum at the Mercure hotel near Sydney’s international airport were also told that the modelling will assume that there will be no carbon price out to 2030, and will not factor in any abatement targets. In other words, it is assuming there will be no carbon restrictions on the sector for another two decades.
John Grimes, the CEO of the Australian Solar Council, echoed the thoughts of many who attended the meeting and were interviewed by RenewEconomy when he said it appeared clear that the RET Review will serve only to protect the vested interests in the current electricity market.
“I’ve got to say – this is much worse than we had anticipated,” Grimes said. “This entire review process needs to be revealed for the sham that it is … we can only conclude that the RET Review process is heading to a biased and predetermined outcome.
“Instead of making customer benefits the key measure of a successful energy market, this review is set to side with big business, giving little or no weight to the benefits of solar for householders, business and the community.
“Clearly any model that fails to consider a carbon price (in any form) up to 2030, in the face of international action on climate change, is negligent and lacks any credibility. “ The RET review was already controversial because of the Abbott government’s decision to by-pass the Climate Change Authority (which dismissed the ACIL Allen modelling and the coal industry’s protestations in its 2012 review), and appoint a panel led by climate change denierand pro-nuclear advocate Dick Warburton.
He will be supported by fossil fuel lobbyist and former ABARE chief Brian Fisher, and Shirley In’t Veld, the former head of WA’s biggest coal generator, Verve Energy. The secretariat will be housed in Abbott’s own department.
Clean energy attendees said they were shocked by some of the statements – including Warburton’s apparent ignorance that the Abbott government went to the election with a “million solar rooftops” commitment, as well as assumptions by the panel that the current 41,000GWh could not physically be met.
The panel reportedly claimed that no large renewable energy projects would be able to be built for another 18 months, and no more than 1,000MW to 1,200MW of wind capacity would be possible in a single year, making it impossible to reach the current target. Both these claims were reportedly vigorously contested by the representative of the Clean Energy Council.
However, it was ACIL Allen’s appointment that confirmed the worst fears of the renewable energy industry……….
Even the Murdoch-owned Business Spectator made a spectacular demolition of ACIL Allen’s research, pointing to its previous reports that claimed that carbon pricing would eradicate the LNG industry, would force the closure of all brown coal generators by 2020, its predictions that geothermal would account for 30 per cent of the Renewable Energy Target, and how on two occasions it grossly miscalculated the uptake of rooftop solar……..
the problem that the renewable energy industry faces – incumbents and ageing engineers and business people who reject the science, simply do not understand or accept that renewable energy sources can be effective and cost competitive, and cannot imagine an energy system any different to the centralised model that has dominated for the past 100 years, and/or who are merely seeking to protect their vested interests.
The problem is that not only do they now have the ear of the current government, they have their hand on the wheels – and their foot on the brakes. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/farcical-start-to-tony-abbotts-renewable-energy-review-14978
Lin Yi-xiong, Taiwan’s brave and influential anti nuclear activist
In Taiwan, an Anti-Nuclear Activist With Unusual Pull WSJ China Real Time, 23 April 14 Jenny W. Hsu.A high-profile Taiwanese anti-nuclear activist began a hunger strike on Tuesday to protest construction of the island’s fourth nuclear power plant, in what could become another challenge for the already beleaguered President Ma Ying-jeou.
Lin Yi-xiong, the former chairman of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party and a longtime anti-nuclear activist, vowed to sustain on only water until the government suspends construction of the northern Taipei plant.
Less than 24 hours after Mr. Lin began his strike, both Mr. Ma and Premier Jiang Yi-hua tried to visit him, only to be turned away. Hunger strikes aren’t uncommon in the oft-fractious island, but Mr. Lin is the first striker who has received personal attention from the president and the cabinet leader…….
Analysts say that given his clout and the public’s already-ballooning opposition to nuclear power, Mr. Ma’s ruling Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang, would face more arduous battles ahead of local elections later this year if Mr. Lin dies as a result of his hunger strike.
Mr. Ma—whose approval rating is currently 14%, according to a poll by Taiwan Indicator Survey Research—relied on his accommodative China policies to win re-election in 2012. But these same policies have also become his Achilles heels recently, with more people questioning whether the warmer trade ties with China have benefited Taiwan’s average workers……At 73, Mr. Lin is regarded across party lines as one of the most influential political figures in Taiwan since the 1970s. As a dissident, he was jailed multiple times during the island’s martial law era (1949-87).
In 1980, while Mr. Lin was imprisoned as a dissident, his mother and his seven-year old twin daughters were found stabbed to death in the basement of their home. His oldest daughter survived the attack with severe injuries. The case remain unsolved, and the house, which has been turned into a church, is where Mr. Lin is staging his fast…….Other anti-nuclear activists plan to join Mr. Lin in protest by staging a demonstration in front the Presidential Office on Saturday.http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/04/23/in-taiwan-an-anti-nuclear-activist-with-unusual-pull/
South Australian scheme to install solar panels at no cost
Tindo Solar will install solar panels free for 5000 businesses and households http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/tindo-solar-will-install-solar-panels-free-for-5000-businesses-and-households/story-fni6uma6-1226893885057 RICHARD EVANS THE ADVERTISER APRIL 23, 2014 A NEW solar scheme could get thousands of SA households equipped with free panels and paying cheaper bills for life.
Mawson Lakes solar panel manufacturer Tindo Solar will install solar panels free for an estimated 5000 businesses and households around the state in the next year.
However, if the scheme proves popular the company says there will be no cap on the number of people able to sign up.
Customers will pay for electricity for an agreed time frame of up to 15 years before owning the panels outright.Tindo business and people manager Richard Inwood said the scheme would be a “game changer” and revolutionise the electricity market in Australia.
“Instead of us selling the system, we’re selling the electricity that that system is generating – that electricity is going to pay off that system,” he said.“We have now become a retailer of 100 per cent green energy that is cheaper than what can be purchased from the grid.”
“SA Power Networks made more than $300 million profit last financial year – that shows how much fat is in there.”
Tindo Solar secured a $30 million loan, under the Federal Government-funded Clean Energy Finance Corporation, last week to install the systems with more money available if demand exceeds expectations, Mr Inwood said.
He said the scheme would provide customers with daytime electricity prices that were 20 to 30 per cent cheaper than most other providers. “Energy has increased around 70 per cent in the last seven years,” he said. “If you look at the average electricity cost per kilowatt it’s 35 to 42 cents per kilowatt – we will provide you with a price of around 25c a kilowatt.”
“Price rises will be no more than one per cent per annum and we want to take the worry around energy price increases away from the public generally and give them certainty. It’s the long term certainty over your energy bills that is exciting.”
Mr Inwood said the company guaranteed its flagship panels had a 240V AC output, with testing at Tindo of other imported panels installed in South Australia revealing the actual output often does not always match the higher voltage promise and brings associated safety compromises.
He said an anticipated upsurge in business for the Mawson Lakes business could mean more jobs for the company.
“Recruiting and on-boarding of factory staff could take as little as four weeks,” he said.
“We currently have 24 staff and would see this at least treble if we are to get the $30 million spent in two years which is what is required.”
Mr Inwood said the State Government also supported the scheme with a tender for 200 public housing homes in the pipeline.
FACTS:
Upfront cost – $0.
Repayment time frame – up to 15 years – longer in some cases. Customer will own the system at the end of the agreement.
Price per kilowatt – 20-30 per cent cheaper than traditional energy providers.
Annual price rises – up to 1 per cent a year.
Expected uptake – 5000 businesses and households in the next year.
READ MORE: Tindo Solar welcomes ACCC probe into solar advertising
Fossil fuel shills to run Tony Abbott’s review of Renewable Energy Target
RET Review : ‘Biased And Predetermined Outcome’ http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4276 The latest on the Renewable Energy Target review indicates more strongly than ever that the best time to go solar may well be now.
The solar industry has grown accustomed to shocks and dirty tactics from corners desperately seeking to cling to Australia’s old approach to energy. The shocks have continued as the RET Review process gets well under way.
In a stakeholder meeting on Wednesday, the Expert Panel and modeling team stated modelling that incorporated benefits to network operators and the reduction of wholesale electricity prices resulting from renewable energy generation was “too hard” and would not be part of the RET Review. Furthermore, the parties stated these types of benefits amounted to a “wealth transfer” as opposed to “true benefits”.
The Expert Panel and modeling team also stated any form of carbon pricing would be excluded from their modelling up to and beyond 2030. Also, the government’s 1 million solar roof policy will not be included in modeling unless funding for it is included in next month’s Budget.
Australian Solar Council CEO John Grimes states the RET Review process is heading to a biased and predetermined outcome. “.. this review is set to side with big business, giving little or no weight to the benefits of solar for householders, business and the community,” he said.
“Clearly any model that fails to consider a carbon price (in any form) up to 2030, in the face of international action on climate change, is negligent and lacks any credibility.”
Another major shock and related credibility issue resulting from the meeting mentioned on RenewEconomy was the Panel’s appointment of ACIL Allen as chief advisor and modeller, a consultancy perceived to be cosy with the fossil fuel industry.
This announcement has added to previous concerns raised as to the suitability of some members of the Panel.
Among many potential negative impacts, it’s feared the outcome of the Review will see the slashing or abolishing of remaining subsidies that currently reduce the cost of solar power systems by up to thousands of dollars. The latest news should perhaps act as a warning signal to those still contemplating installing solar that they might want to act sooner rather than later.
Tony Abbott’s review of Renewable Energy Target – a complete scam!
Coalition’s renewable energy review an ‘unprecedented scam’, industry says, The Guardian, Lenore Taylor,
Review assumes fossil fuel investors won’t need to factor in any risk due to climate policies for decades theguardian.com, Thursday 24 April 2014 The renewable energy industry has labelled a controversial Abbott government review an “unprecedented scam” and a “stitch-up” after learning that it was conducting electricity industry modelling on the assumption there would be no risk or cost to investments in coal-fired power stations in the next few decades.
The review of the renewable energy target – headed by veteran businessman and self-professed climate sceptic Dick Warburton – and its modellers from ACIL Allen consulting held a workshop with industry participants on Wednesday at which they revealed the modelling would assume investors in fossil fuel generation would not need to factor in any risk due to climate policies for decades – neither a carbon price, nor a requirement to invest in emission-reducing technologies, nor any cost from any other government policy or regulation.
Many of the 50 participants said this assumption was entirely unrealistic………
n setting up its own RET review, the government bypassed the Climate Change Authority – which it wants to abolish – but which is required by legislation to undertake regular reviews of the RET. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/24/coalitions-renewable-energy-review-unprecedented-scam
AUIDIO: Australia falling behind in the electricity energy revolution
AUDIO: The price of power ABC Radio Background Briefng 27 Apr 14 With Australian electricity prices amongst the highest in the world, more and more households are going solar. The big power companies say the Renewable Energy Target is undermining their businesses and they want it wound back. The federal government agrees, so who is to blame for the high price of power? Jess Hill investigates……….Mr Abbott’s claim that the renewable energy target is expensive is not supported by the data. The Australian Energy Markets Commission says the renewable energy target adds four per cent to the average electricity bill. For an average household, that’s about a dollar a week.
‘For all of the attention that carbon price has got, from the increasing attention the renewable energy target’s got, the main reason that electricity has been getting dearer is the overinvestment in poles and wires, and the fundamental inefficiency in the way that the national electricity market’s working,’ says Richard Denniss, executive director of the Australia Institute.
Federal Treasury estimates that 51 per cent of an average household bill is spent on network costs. Most of that is going towards paying off the $45 billion network companies have spent on updating our poles and wires over the last five years………Solar rooftops are wreaking havoc on the traditional power industry, says Mr Denniss, because they produce the most amount of energy at the time of day when the power industry makes the most money.
‘Solar panels have got this great trick, they make lots of electricity when the sun is shining; that’s when we like to turn our air conditioners on,’ he says. ‘When everybody turns their electricity on at four o’clock on a hot Thursday afternoon, we have enormous demand for electricity for these short periods of peak demand. And that’s when solar panels are at their best.’
‘Solar panels are actually pumping quite a large amount of energy in during these periods of peak demand, and that’s pushing down the peak price. Now that’s great for everybody, except the so-called baseload power stations. Because the baseload power stations used to be able to sell their electricity for a much higher price at four o’clock on that hot Thursday afternoon. From the coal-fired power station point of view, you couldn’t have a worse competitor, because solar is at its best when the market is at its most profitable.’
What that means is that the big coal-fired power plants are earning less for the energy they produce. That’s because Australia has more electricity than it can use………The chair of the Climate Change Authority is Bernie Fraser, a former Reserve Bank governor. He says that just by holding another review, the government has ensured that the 41,000 gigawatt-target won’t be met. ‘Investment is actually being cut back and delayed, and I think because of that, I think it’s apparent now that the 41,000 gigawatts for large renewable energy power plants, is not going to happen. It’s going to be a lesser figure and I think that’s what the opponents, the critics of renewable energy want to see.’
‘Policymakers need to look beyond short-term economic considerations in the interests of some of the big companies to longer-term community interests. And that’s what governments are supposed to do, but unfortunately it’s not happening at the present time,’ he says.
So it’s a bit… well, it’s more than a bit, it’s very disappointing that we’re falling behind, and we are falling behind what many other countries are doing.’ http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-04-27/5406022
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 