“It may be true, as many say: the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and binding climate change agreement may be beyond our reach – for now,” Ban Ki-moon said.

The UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa, were supposed to end this past Friday night after nearly two weeks of negotiations. But the talks continued long into Sunday night with the delegates desperately trying to come up with at least some sort of agreement to avoid another COP15-style failure. In the very last hour the delegates managed to agree on a deal. This outcome was largely thanks to three powerful women politicians, one of them being EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard.

And so the 17th climate summit ended with an agreement that at least the EU believes commits all major developing countries such as China, USA and India among others, to accept legally binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately these binding targets won’t come into force until 2020, or even later in worst case. So basically, “the deal saves the talks”, but not the climate.

By waiting till 2020 to enforce cuts in greenhouse gas emissions our leaders have successfully ignored the 2 degrees target, which scientists regard as the final upper limit of safety against irreversible climate chaos, and set us on a path towards an increase of 4 degrees in global temperatures. Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, said that “delaying real action till 2020 is a crime of global proportions” and that this delay would mean a 4 degrees temperature increase.

“This means the world is on track to a 4C temperature rise, a death sentence for Africa, small island states and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. The richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%.”

Greenpeace International director Kumi Naidoo said that “the chance of averting catastrophic climate change is slipping through our hands with every passing year that nations fail to agree on a rescue plan for the planet.”

But not everyone agreed that the Durban deal was a failure. Chris Huhne, the UK’s secretary of state for energy and climate change, was a bit more optimistic and said that COP17 was a “significant step forward“.

“For the first time ever we have a process within the [UNFCCC] where there are regular reviews of the scientific evidence and seeing where the commitments of countries are. [...] Up to now we have not even had a commitment to [be guided by] the scientific evidence,” he said. “If you talk to the Russians, they will tell you their scientists say there is no global warming.”

Ban Ki-moon welcomed the outcome and said that the deal is “essential for stimulating greater action and for raising the level of ambition and the mobilization of resources to respond to the challenges of climate change.”

“Taken together, these agreements represent an important advance in our work on climate change,” Ban said, calling on countries to “quickly implement these decisions and to continue working together in the constructive spirit evident in Durban.”

We made it. EU’s strategy worked. We got a roadmap that marks a breakthrough for international fight against climate change. Good night.

— Connie Hedegaard (@CHedegaardEU) December 11, 2011

So what’s in the Durban deal? Reuters has a good rundown on what was agreed on this past week during COP17. If you can handle the dry legal language you can find the final texts here. The text talks about a process to “develop a new protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force that will be applicable to all Parties to the UN climate convention.” What the terms “legal instrument” and “agreed outcome” really means for a future climate deal is still pretty uncertain. It wouldn’t surprise me if countries will use these unclear terms to delay much-needed action on climate as the UN process develops. The delegates in Durban also made little progress on the much-needed Green Climate Fund.

“The Durban talks made headway on agreeing the design of Green Climate Fund to channel up to $100 billion a year by 2020 to poorer nations, but achieved little on establishing where the money will come from to fill it”, Reuters writes.

Celine Charveriat, director of campaigns for Oxfam, said that “governments must immediately turn their attention to raising the ambition of their emissions cuts targets and filling the Green Climate Fund.” If countries doesn’t quickly intensify their emissions cuts “we could still be in store for a 10-year timeout on the action we need to stay under two degrees [of temperature increase],” Charveriat said.

So despite the delegates reaching an agreement in the very last hour, and then some, this was another COP failure. But what would you expect from a summit which received minimal media attention and interest from world leaders? Our climate will die while we’re busy saving the banks and a failed economic system.

Recipe for an oil war

Heritage Oil and Tullow Oil are guessing the 2.5 billion barrel or larger field is the largest onshore field found in sub-saharan Africa in more than two decades. Production of 150,000 barrels of oil per day by 2015 place Uganda among top 50 oil producing nations is planned. The latter company, Irish Tullow Oil, is now accused of having bribed three Ugandan ministers with 100 million USD in July 2010 in return for concessions. The ministers resigned October 2011. Tullow denies allegations, maintain an anti-bribe image and have funded a lake rescue station which they claim have already saved the lives of more than 70 local fishermen. Also in the deal are French Total and Chinese Cnooc. Those corporations are expected to claim 2/3 of the 3-4 billion USD hoped to be made annually.

A leaked US embassy cable (Wikileaks, #08KAMPALA393) reveals Uganda have been asking for help stepping up security in and around the oil rich area. John Morley of Tullow Oil is quoted for saying that as oil activity on Lake Albert increase a security presence would be vital. The cable mention “several clashes on Lake Albert between oil companies and entities from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) demonstrate that oil production has increased local tensions and exacerbated cross-border hostilities”. In 2007 a British drilling platform worker was killed by Congolese soldiers who claimed the barge had strayed into Congolese waters. Although the Ugandan and Congolese governments are talking and are in agreement concerning the precise geography of the border the armed forces on the Congolese side of the border are not always government-related.

An intervention overdue?

Several militias fight in the area and in just recent months thousands have had to fled their homes, hundreds have been kidnapped. Adding to the Congolese militias the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR) rebels as well as the infamous Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) led by Joseph Kony add to the insecurity. FDLR is a Hutu group whose two top leaders are held in France and Germany on charges of crimes against humanity yet whose troops raped at least 154 civilians from July 30 to August 3, 2010, in the town of Luvungi. LRA is the Ugandan theocratic militia of self-proclaimed prophet Joseph Kony, who claims to be acting on orders from spirits sent by God, and whose ranks have been inflated by an estimated 66,000 children abducted for soldiering. October 2005 the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants on Kony and four other leading members of LRA; the 33 charges include murder, enslavement, sexual enslavement and pillaging.

Recently, the Ugandan presiden spent US$780 million on six Russian jet fighters. A decision that raises eyebrows in a country with a GDP of less than 500USD per capita.

“We don’t live in an enemy-free neighbourhood. So, don’t look at the purchase in terms of cost. The Great Lakes region is one of the most unsafe regions.”
- Ugandan presiden Yoweri Museveni

Since 2008 the US have donated more than 40 million USD on supporting the Local counter-militia efforts. And now 100 Green Berets have been sent as military advisers for the governments of the region. They are receiving a warm welcome.

“For 20 years, the government of Uganda has been pleading with our American and European friends to help in the LRA problem, because these are international terrorists. We wanted our friends to help in providing technical support — such as intelligence — because they have the best.”
- Uganda’s acting foreign minister Henry Okello Oryem

“Any support to tackle the LRA is a good move [...] South Sudan is already working with Uganda’s army in operations against the LRA, and we will be pleased to work with anyone who can help us combat the threat [...] We have large communities whose lives are ruined by these rebels, so the sooner we can end this once and for all will be something we will look forward to.”
- South Sudan army spokesman Philip Aguer

“The Central African Republic today more than needs external assistance like that of United States [...] Many hundreds of our people have been killed, others kidnapped or displaced, their homes ransacked, destroyed, their possessions looted. It is unbearable.”
- CAR Deputy defence minister Jean-Francis Bozize

Thus, the link between the US troops and the oil is still a “conspiracy theory”. Obama and the US is simply making friends while helping the world get rid of monsters. Human Rights Watch has advocated for intervention for years.

Yet at home knee-jerk reactions are dominated by right-wing isolationism/grudges and left-wing anti-war sentiments.

The enemy within

A recent report, “Oil Extraction and the Potential for Domestic Instability in Uganda”, warns about other dangers than cross-border guerrilla warfare: the possible side-effects of a sudden large scale resource industry entering a developing economy. President Museveni, who first seems to have orchestrated the addition of a third presidential term to the constitution then won a low turnout election disputed by international observers, is already speaking of “his” oil.

“If Museveni gains access to substantial oil revenue, the combination of considerable oil funds and strong presidential powers could increase the ability of his government to remain in power indefinitely. [...] Increases in corrupt behavior would essentially require secrecy in government dealings. A reduction in government transparency in oil and tax revenue management would then incentivize Museveni’s government to become increasingly autocratic in its relationship with the public and political opponents, as has so often been the pattern in other oil producing states.”

Also, susceptibility to the Dutch Disease should be considered:

“If the government does not reinvest revenues into public works to soften the blow of economic change, domestic instability may ensue [...] The poor and disaffected youths are the most likely to turn to violence in order to redress socio-political grievances. A young, growing, and increasingly urban population indicates the potential for civil strife in Uganda. The added stress of urban migration associated with oil production may only exacerbate the dynamics behind civil strife. [...] If Museveni’s government makes its decisions public and is held accountable, it is more likely to choose anti-corruption policies that are favorable to the public interest.”

The report estimate the risk of civil war in Uganda as 1.96% if the new found resource wealth is handled wisely, 14.05% if not. Dutch Disease effects could be both mitigated and worsened by the fact that multiple industries are likely to boom: in 2010 firms from Russia, China, India, Australia and South Africa started operating in Uganda after finds of copper, iron ore, cobalt, tin, gold and platinum.

“We must be Africa’s Norway. We must manage our oil resources in the stellar manner in which Botswana has managed its wealth from diamonds.”
- Bank of Uganda Governor, Emmanuel Mutebile

We haven’t heard much from the hopeful Iraqi politicians who once voiced similar intentions with their oil. However, it does seem Obama is at least trying to do better than his predecessor(s). And if a US president can’t even go to war against someone as evil as Joseph Kony he truly can do nothing at all – yet, who knows if the Tea Party will side with Kony and his lunatic army?

Learn more: The Independent (Uganda) / Oil could cause war, Capital News (Kenya) / Uganda welcomes US troops to hunt rebel leaders, Sunday Monitor (Uganda) / Here is what is at stake with Uganda’s oil, The Atlantic / Why Is Obama Sending Troops Against the Lord’s Resistance Army?, allafrica.com / Uganda: Scramble for Minerals Begins.

Lord Nicholas Stern, British economist and academic who is most known for the Stern Review said, during an improvised speech at a Cape Town hotel in South Africa, that if we don’t act quickly and determinedly to address climate change the world will face billions of climate refugees and extended world wars in a near future:

“If the world’s nations act responsibly, Stern said, they will achieve “zero-carbon” electricity production and zero-carbon road transport by 2050 _ by replacing coal power plants with wind, solar or other energy sources that emit no carbon dioxide, and fossil fuel-burning vehicles with cars running on electric or other “clean” energy.

Then warming could be contained to a 2-degree-Celsius (3.4-degree-Fahrenheit) rise this century, he said.

But if negotiators falter, if emissions reductions are not made soon and deep, the severe climate shifts and sea-level rises projected by scientists would be “disastrous.”

It would “transform where people can live,” Stern said. “People would move on a massive scale. Hundreds of millions, probably billions of people would have to move if you talk about 4-, 5-, 6-degree increases” _ 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. And that would mean extended global conflict, “because there’s no way the world can handle that kind of population move in the time period in which it would take place.”"

More quotes from Lord Nicholas Stern:
- “I underestimated the threat”
- Green Quote of the Week: Nicholas Stern

Also read:
- More than 6 billion people will perish by the end of the century

“The world faces a global climate emergency. It is now clear that only action by both developed and developing countries can prevent the climate crisis from deepening,” environment minister Martinus Van Schalkwyk said in a statement.

In 2003 South Africa emitted 446 million tonnes of greenhouse gases “and forecasts growth to a maximum of 550 million tonnes a year by 2025.”

South Africa wants the greenhouse gas emissions to stop growing “at the latest by 2020 to 2025, stabilise for up to 10 years, and then decline in absolute terms.” Van Schalkwyk said that “the aim is to limit global temperature increases to two degrees above pre-industrial levels.”

Both environment groups and business associations has welcomed the climate change plan saying it’s a major step “towards galvanising rich industrialised nations into addressing climate change.” Andre Fourie, chief executive of National Business Initiative, a group advocating sustainable development, said that “the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of mitigating the effects of climate change.”

Professor Harald Winkler, from the University of Cape Town climate change department, was also happy about the new proposed climate change plan, especially the carbon tax:

“Our analysis shows that putting a price on carbon has the single largest impact on emissions. By using the price signal, it sends signals to all actors in the economy, and can shift behaviour.”

The proposed climate change plan has already been endorsed by the cabinet in South Africa and finance officials are already “investigating ways of implementing the [carbon] tax.” But the plan must be approved by the parliament before it gets the final green light.

An extraordinary admission by the Australian Federal Government has passed unnoticed by the Mainstream media in the “look away” Land of Oz, the Antipodean Land of Flies, Lies and Slies (spin-based untruths), the Murdochracy called Australia.

However from the Green Senator Christine Milne’s blog of the June 4, 2008 entitled “Rudd Treasury not modelling real climate protection scenarios” we read that “Treasury is only modelling global emissions scenarios with a very high risk of triggering runaway climate change, Australian Greens climate change spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, discovered today in Senate Estimates hearings … On questioning from Senator Milne in today’s [Senate] Estimates hearings, [public servant] Meghan Quinn revealed that her Department [Treasury] is only modelling scenarios leading to global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at 450 and 550 ppm of carbon dioxide equivalent. Treasury had not been asked to model lower concentrations, Ms Quinn said.”

Senator Milne has stated: “If Treasury has not been asked to model safe climate scenarios, I will fill that gap today by calling on the Prime Minister to direct Treasury to model at 350 and 400 ppm as well as 450 ppm and to drop the 550 ppm scenarios as too dangerous for the climate.

“450 ppm gives us a less than even chance of avoiding 2 degrees warming, leading most likely to the complete loss of Arctic summer ice, extinction of polar bears and so many other species in the wild, and potentially setting in train positive feedback loops that could send our climate into an uncontrollable heating cycle.

“550 ppm will send us toward 3 degrees warming, destroy the Great Barrier Reef and almost certainly trigger runaway climate change, leading some to say that there is no such thing as stabilisation at 550 ppm. It should not even be being modelled as it is beyond the point where a safe climate for all living creatures, including humanity, can be imagined.”

Senator Milne is CORRECT – 450 ppm and 550 ppm could be disastrous according to climate SCIENTISTS as set out below.

1. World coral reefs start dying off because of ocean acidification above 450 ppm CO2. Thus coral expert Professor Mumby, University of Exeter, UK: “If we can reduce local stresses and simultaneously curb CO2 emissions to within 450 ppm as argued by the 2007 Bali Declaration by Scientists, then coral reefs and the food and housing security of millions of people could yet be saved”(see: http://www.exeter.ac.uk/…/).

2. Top coral scientists say the “tipping point for world coral death is in the 450-500 ppm atmospheric CO2 zone. Thus in a paper published in the top scientific journal Science, 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1737 – 1742, “Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification (see: http://www.sciencemag.org/…/),the authors O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. J. Mumby and 15 other scientists: “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained. Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse.”

Treasury economists should not be modelling these things with the exclusion of specialist scientists, no more than they should be modelling treatment of sick Indigenous Australians – but they DO and that is why about 9,000 Indigenous Australians die avoidably every year in Australia – see an
article by me entitled “The Awful Truth” in the National Indigenous Times, June 2007.

3. As reported on the prestigious ABC Radio National Science Show, the 10-year study on coral reefs referred to above has concluded and been published as a cover-story in the latest edition of the top US and World scientific journal Science. It demonstrates that global warming and ocean acidification are acutely threatening world coral reefs that have been around for tens of millions of years.

Coral reefs require carbonate ions present in the water at the right concentrations and this only happens with carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere at levels under 450 parts per million. As atmospheric CO2 rises, more CO2 dissolves in the ocean and causes the ocean to become more ACIDIC (higher concentrations of protons, H+).

Other organisms will be affected as carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. Crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters are already developing diseases as the result of poor calcification of their shells (see: http://abc.net.au/…/).

At about 450 ppm atmospheric CO2 corals become sick but survive. Between 450-500 ppm corals become very sick. Above 500 ppm the world corals are heading for extinction.

In addition to the ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric CO2 there is a direct bleaching effect of increased temperature as corals “spit out” the symbiotic zooxanthellae algae (see: http://science.org.au/…/).

4. Top UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS in his recent book “The Revenge of Gaia” says that at at an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 500 ppm CO2 (perhaps the lowest some economists say we can hope to stabilize at given the extraordinary global inaction) there is a crash in the ocean phytoplankton system (that crucially sequesters CO2 , feeds ocean life and promotes cloud formation through dimethyl sulphide production), Greenland ice melts and there is a positive feedback to exacerbate global warming through the “albedo flip” – decreased light-reflecting clouds and ice and increased light-absorbing “black” water (see: http://green-blog.org/…/).

5. The threat to coral refs around the world, including Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, from global warming is spelled out in the latest 2007 IPCC Synthesis Report – this is of course a major tourist asset in an economic sense. As explained above, the recent paper in the prestigious journal Science reveals that at 450 ppm CO2 world coral reefs will start dying from ocean acidification (see: http://abc.net.au/…/). The coal industry (that is helping to destroy world coral reefs) is worth about A$25 billion pa to Australia (A$2 billion to 25,000 workers and at 30% company tax, about A$8 billion to the taxpayer) – as compared to A$7 billion pa from tourism and 63,000 jobs associated with the Great Barrier Reef (Access Economics: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/…a/ PDF).

6. It has been estimated by Balmford et al in the prestigious scientific journal Science (see “Economic reasons for preserving wild nature”) that for a variety of “biomes” (ecological systems) the total economic value (TEV) is about 50% greater when the resource is used sustainably as opposed to destructive conversion. Further, these scientists have found that the economic benefit from preserving what is left of wild nature is OVER 100 TIMES greater than the cost of preservation.

Is Rudd Labor hell bent on destroying not just the Queensland Great Barrier Reef ($7 billion per annum and 63,000 Australian jobs) but the whole planet biosphere?

I have written of these acute concerns and posing this question to Australian mainstream media and politicians but – apart from the Greens – the silence is deafening in climate criminal, Murdochracy Australia, the Land of Flies, Lies and Slies (spin based untruths). Unfortunately Coal is King in Australia, the world’s leading coal exporter.

Earlier this year I sent a Formal Complaint to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court re Australian Government involvement in Aboriginal Genocide, Iraqi Genocide, Afghan Genocide and Climate Genocide (see: http://climateemergency.blogspot.com). In relation to Australia’s involvement in Climate Genocide I documented that Australia is the World’s worst Developed nation CO2 polluter and quoted eminent atmosphere scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS who estimates that over 6 billion will die this century due to unaddressed global warming (see: http://businessandmedia.org/…/).

I concluded my Formal Complaint thus: “I understand that the International Criminal Court may be prepared to make initial investigations of formal complaints by individuals (such as this complaint) but will only act to the fullest extent of its remit in response to formal complaints by National Governments. Countries at major risk from sea level rises due to climate change include island nations in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific (some of which face total extinction) and countries with mega-deltas in Europe, Africa, the Americas and Asia (of which some face catastrophic loss of agriculture and massive population displacements). Such Nations will be receiving copies of this formal complaint and are urged to transmit formal complaints to the International Criminal Court.”

I would reiterate these observations here – all countries with coral reefs threatened by climate criminal, grossly CO2-polluting nations like Australia should take urgent action via the International Criminal Court and by imposing Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands (see “Climate Emergency, Sustainability Emergency”). It is notable that this week Australian doctors, lawyers and politicians are charging the former Australian Government with war crimes in relation to the invasion of Iraq ALONE via a 52 page legal brief sent to the International Criminal Court.(see: http://theage.com.au/…/ and http://abc.net.au/…/).

Sanctions and Boycotts were successful against the racist Apartheid régime in South Africa for denying one-man-one-vote to its disenfranchised non-European African and Indian citizens. Sanctions and Boycotts are surely justified against climate criminal countries like Australia that are hell bent on destroying the biosphere for short-term profit of greedy vested interests. Maybe Sanctions and Boycotts are all that these environmental vandals will understand.

Please inform everyone you can.

Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). He has just published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com);
see also his contribution “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007). He is currently preparing a revised and updated version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a possibly 100-fold greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others).

A few days ago at a social function I was asked by a top US atmosphere scientist – in Australia to work with top Australian atmospheric scientists – what would I do NOW. My answer in short was as follows: Australia has 50 Gigawatt (50 billion watt) electricity generating capacity (85% fossil fuel-driven at present); it currently spends about A$10 billion pa on fossil fuel subsidies; the installation cost for large-scale wind farms is about A$2 per watt of installed capacity; simply diverting this unconscionable fossil fuel subsidy to wind farm installation would yield A$10 billion pa /A$2 per watt = 5 billion watt capacity pa = 50 billion watt (50 Gigawatt) wind power electricity capacity in a mere 10 years, i.e. by 2017.

As detailed below, stated and committed Rudd Government policy means that it will INCREASE Australia’s fossil annual fuel-derived per capita CO2 pollution (already over 10 times higher than the world average if you include our fossil fuel exports) by about 50% by 2050. Every year is important. We must act urgently NOW. “Waiting for Godot” or, with the utmost respect, “waiting for Garnaut” is not an option.

1. Committed Rudd Labor Policy is effective Climate Racism from a per capita CO2 pollution standpoint

In the recent election campaign Rudd committed to “20% renewables by 2020”, “”60% reduction on 2000 greenhouse gas pollution by 2050” and no constraint on fossil fuel extraction for export. What this ACTUALLY means (based on US Energy Information Administration data, assuming current constant coal, gas and CO2 pollution growth rates, constant population and INCLUDING Australia’s fossil fuel EXPORTS) is the following pattern of “total annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 emission in tonnes per person per year” (i.e. “Total Annual Per Capita Pollution” or TAPCP) of 43 (2007), 56 (2020) and 65 (2050).

If Australia agrees to “25% reduction on 1990 domestic levels by 2020” this will mean a TAPCP of 44 (2020); a 40% reduction would mean 42. These values are still about 10 times greater than the “Annual Per Capita Pollution” (APCP) value (2004) for the World (4.2) and China (3.6), about 40 times greater than for India (1) and 160 times greater than for Bangladesh (0.25).

Australia’s TAPCP is already 10 times that of China’s 2004 value and Rudd Labor’s “do nothing, set up a committee” approach means a startling continuation in 2008 of Labor’s 2007 5-fold greater version of the racist Labor Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell’s notorious 1947 declaration: “Two Wongs do not make a White” (see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/17999/42/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Calwell ) – indeed on the above figures, assuming that China keeps its 2050 APCP to something like 2004 figure, Rudd Labor, for all its ostensible Philosinensis (indeed Arthur Calwell had Chinese friends and spoke Mandarin) is heading for a 2050 TAPCP (65.2) 18 times that of China’s 2004 APCP value (3.6).

2. Professor Garnaut’s “all men are created equal” position (December 2007)

Professor Garnaut (ABC, Lateline, 10 December 2007) stated: (from my notes): “Australia will be pulling its full weight”. “Pulling its full weight” means (if one accepts “all men are created equal” ) that Australia achieves APCP parity (including our fossil fuel exports) with the rest of the world – something that Rudd Labor absolutely refuses to do (see #1). One hopes that the finalized Garnaut Report in late 2008 is able to convince Rudd Labor to eschew the Climate Racism of APCP non-parity.

3. Australian Greens policy consonant with non-Bush-ite “Rest of the World” consensus

The Australian Greens policy is to rapidly phase out fossil fuel extraction and to have an “80% reduction of greenhouse gas pollution by 2050”. This yields an APCP of 2.4 in 2050 and consonant both with the IPCC and Stern 2007 demands for “80% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050”, “Pulling its full weight” (Professor Garnaut, 2007) and “all men are created equal” (Thomas Jefferson, American Declaration of Independence, 1776).

4. US Energy Information Administration data and the climate criminal Bush-ite Coalition legacy

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA; see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm ) provides very detailed information about energy usage by all countries of the world for the last 10 years. Back in 1997 the decent world was so concerned about mounting evidence for anthropogenic, greenhouse gas-driven, climate change that it signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. Not only did climate criminal Australia (together with climate criminal US) not sign the Kyoto Protocol, but Australia’s “annual coal exports”, “annual natural gas extraction”, “annual domestic fossil fuel-derived CO2 production” and “annual total fossil fuel-derived CO2 production” plotted versus time yield beautiful straight lines UPWARDS.

Indeed this beautiful linearity gives greater confidence for extrapolation at either end of these graphs. For the convenience of the reader with some graph paper the estimates of “DOMESTIC annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 production” (millions of tonnes) versus time (with per capita estimates of tonnes per person per year in parenthesis, assuming post-2007 population stasis at 21 million) are: 256 (12.2, 1990), 348 (18.2, 2000), 424 (20.2, 2007), 554 (26.3, 2020) and 853 (40.6, 2050); using the same assumptions the “TOTAL annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 production, TAPCP” (with per capita estimates of tonnes per person per year and year in parentheses) is 435 (25.7, 1990), 698 (36.5, 2000), 910 (43.3, 2007), 1,277 (60.8, 2020) and 2,122 (101.0, 2050).

In relation to the above estimates, the Bush-ite Coalition policy of BAU (business as usual) and no constraint on fossil fuel exports would, on the above assumptions, lead to a “total annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution, TAPCP” of 101 tonnes per person per year in 2050, 27 times China’s 2004 APCP value and 2.5 times Australia’s present TAPCP value.

5. Major international comparisons – Australia is the world’s worst developed country per capita greenhouse polluter

Despite the rhetoric, rational approaches to save the Planet are being resolutely opposed by racist, greedy Bush America (the world’s worst greenhouse gas polluter and stand-out Kyoto non-signatory) and previously Bush-ite and presently neo-Bush-ite Australia (the world’s developed country with the worst annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution and the world’s biggest coal exporter).

Thus 2004 data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA; see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm ) reveal that “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution, APCP” in tonnes CO2/person is 19.2 (for Australia; 40 if you include Australia’s coal exports), 19.7 (the US), 18.4 (Canada), 9.9 (Japan), 4.2 (the World), 3.6 (China), 1.0 ( India) and 0.25 (for Bangladesh). Neither Bush America nor Bush-ite Australia will sign Kyoto nor cut greenhouse gas pollution – the countries facing devastation from global warming are the mega-delta, below-World-average polluting countries of China, India and Bangladesh.

Australia is the world’s big country with the highest annual per capita greenhouse polluter and is currently playing “dog in the manger” (together with the US, Canada and Japan) in opposing short-term greenhouse gas pollution reduction targets at the December 2007 Bali Conference.

6. Germanwatch index places Australia #54 in the list of the worst CO2 polluters (#56 being worst)

Of course “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution” is but one – albeit a very important – indicator of climate criminality. The Germanwatch Climate Change Index 2008, a comparison of the 56 top CO2 emitting nations (see: http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm ), takes other parameters into account in ranking. In this ranking of 56 top CO2 emitting nations, Sweden and Germany are #1 and #2 for greenhouse responsibility, while shale-oil-rich Canada (a US satrap), coal-rich Australia (a US satrap), the USA and oil-rich Saudi Arabia (a puppet of anti-Arab anti-Semitic, Islamophobic Bush US ) rank #53, #54, #55 and #56, respectively (see: http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm ) .

7. Annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution for the world and Australia with and without land use change (2000)

The US Energy Information Administration gives a year-by-year summary of fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution for every country in the world (see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/carbon.html ). However greenhouse gas pollution (methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and carbon dioxide, CO2) comes not just from burning hydrocarbons and coal but also from land use – specifically, agriculture, vegetative decomposition and animal husbandry. A 2000 list of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita provides data with and without this land use component (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita ). Land use contributes about 20% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Out of 185 countries Australia ranked 9th worst (with land use change) and 5th (without land use change). The tonnes of “CO2 equivalent” per person per year were 25.9 (with) and 25.6 (without land use change) for Australia, indicating the preponderant importance of fossil fuel burning to Australia’s “score”.

8. Annual per capita GDP is directly proportional to annual per capita CO2 emission

If you plot “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2” (2004) versus “annual per capita GDP” (2003) the data from most countries fall on a straight line (not quite going through zero on the “annual per capita GDP” axis) and with a slope of about 0.3 kilograms/US dollar of GDP or 300 grams per US dollar (300 g/US$). However many countries fall ABOVE this line, most notably the oil-rich Gulf States (2.5 kg/US$), world’s #1 coal exporter Australia (1.9 kg/US$), Kyoto-violator Canada (0.8 kg/US$) and Kyoto non-signatory US (0.5 kg/US$).

This analysis shows that GDP is currently directly proportional to CO2 emission and the consequence is that to cut emissions it is necessary to (a) cut GDP and/or (b) cut CO2-polluting energy generation for GDP generation i.e. urgently promote renewables or suffer a declining GDP.

9. IPCC summary

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has delivered 4 Assessment reports since 1990, the latest being the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. The prognosis of the latest IPCC Report is very bleak but the situation is actually even worse than they state because of (a) the cut off in scientific papers considered and (b) obfuscatory inputs by climate criminal countries such as the US. For a Summary of the Summary of the 2007 IPCC Synthesis Report of the Fourth Assessment Report see: http://green-blog.org/2007/11/21/summary-of-the-summary-of-the-2007-ipcc-ar4-synthesis-report/ .

The IPCC (2000) has defined various possible scenarios which are summarised in New Scientist, with the worst case scenario being the fast economic growth and globalization, fossil fuel-intensive A1F1 scenario in which global population peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and involving the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies (see: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11090). Of various scenarios discussed in the latest IPCC Synthesis Report (see: http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) “Category IV” seems the most favoured in public discussion (e.g. in report by Sir Nicholas Stern) and involves stabilization at 485-570 ppm CO2 , 3.2-4.0 degrees centigrade temperature rise above pre-industrial temperature (2-3 degrees above today’s) and 0.6-2.4 metres sea level above the pre-industrial sea level or 0.4 – 2.2 metres above today’s). However Professor Lovelock (“The Revenge of Gaia”) thinks that 500ppm CO2 would cause disastrous phytoplankton and Greenland ice losses with irreversible loss of major global temperature controls.

Recent data from 2 independent sources (see: “Recent CO2 rises exceed worst case scenarios”, New Scientist) reveal that ACTUAL rates of CO2 emission are the same or worse than in the worst case scenario A1F1 that, according to the 2007 IPCC Summary, will lead to catastrophic, long-term stabilization at (upper estimates) 790 ppm CO2, and a 6 degree centigrade higher temperature and 3.7 meter sea level rise relative to pre-industrial levels i.e. CO2 catastrophically at twice today’s level of 379 ppm , temperatures 4-5 degree centigrade above today’s and sea level 0.8-3.5 metres above today’s.

Thanks to climate criminal, climate genocidal countries, notably Bush America (the world’s #1 GHG polluter) and Bush-ite Australia (the world’s #1 coal exporter) – noting that neither of these will constrain GHG (greenhouse gas) pollution – the world is on track to deliver this predicted catastrophe or even WORSE to our children and grandchildren.

10. The Rudd Labor “Garnaut Report excuse”, “waiting for Garnaut” gambit contradicts the expert, IPCC-endorsed Stern injunction to “Act Now”

Both the IPCC Fourth Assessment report and the Stern Report say “act NOW”. However, stripped of mellifluous rhetoric (e.g. “there is no plan B”) the Rudd Labor position involves a roughly 1 year delay (ONE YEAR DELAY) on any concrete action to constrain greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. After nearly 12 years of sustained upward growth of CO2 pollution under the climate criminal Bush-ite Coalition this is simply not good enough. If indeed “there is no plan B” why won’t Rudd Australia sign up to the “Plan A” endorsed by every country in the world except for the US and its satraps Australia, Canada and Japan i.e. “25-40% reduction by 2020”?

According to Stern as quoted by the Guardian (2007): “The average emissions a head must fall from seven tonnes to two to three tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2050, he says. US emissions a head are more than 20 tonnes each year, with European citizens producing 10-15 tonnes each. In China it is about five tonnes, in India about one, and in Africa less than one tonne each” (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/30/climatechange.carbonemissions ).

Australia is currently producing 43 tonnes each per annum (including fossil fuel exports) and according to the public committed Rudd Labor scenario projects 65 tonnes each per annum by 2050 i.e a 50% INCREASE.

11. Rudd Australia greenhouse pollution scenarios

As indicated above (#1) the “solid”, “committed” Rudd Labor Policy indicates “total annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution (million tonnes per year )” of 910 (2007), 1,277 (2020) and 2,122 (2050).

However it is salutary to consider the scenario if Rudd Labor accepted ”25% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050 – “total annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution (million tonnes per year )” would be 910 (2007), 915 (2020) and 1,371 (2050).

If Rudd Labor accepted”40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050 – “total annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution (million tonnes per year )” would be 910 (2007), 877 (2020) and 1,371 (2050).

Even under Rudd Labor’s “20% renewable by 2020” and “”60% on 2000 levels by 2050”, the “domestic annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution (million tonnes per year )” would be 345 (2000), 424 (2007), 443 (2020) and 138 (2050).

12. Rudd Australia greenhouse pollution scenarios – per capita projections

As indicated above (#1) the “solid” Rudd Labor Policy indicates “total annual per capita pollution (TAPCP, tonnes per person per year)” of 43 (2007), 56 (2020) and 65 (2050);

If Rudd Labor accepted ”25% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050” , “total annual per capita pollution (TAPCP, tonnes per person per year)” would be 43 (2007), 44 (2020) and 65 (2050).

If Rudd Labor accepted “40% on 1990 levels by 2020” the “total annual per capita pollution (TAPCP, tonnes per person per year)” would be 43 (2007), 42 (2020) and 65 (2050).

Even under Rudd Labor’s CURRENTLY PROPOSED “20% renewable by 2020” and “”60% reduction on 2000 levels by 2050” the “DOMESTIC annual per capita pollution (DAPCP, tonnes per person per year)” would be 18 (2000), 21 (2007) and 6.6 (2050) (still nearly twice that of China in 2004).

13. Who pays? Australia benefits from CO2 pollution, the World suffers

I repeat that one of the world’s leading bioethicists Professor Peter Singer (Princeton University and University of Melbourne) is unequivocal in his expert judgment that “We are responsible not only for what we do but also for what we could have prevented… We should consider the consequences both of what we do and what we decide not to do.”

(Singer, P. (2000), “Writings on an Ethical Life”, Ecco Press, New York; ppxv-xvi).

Unfortunately there is a major bipartisan agreement in Australia to ignore the global cost of Australia’s world #1 coal exports. The Australian Green proposal in the recent federal election campaign to rapidly phase out this highly irresponsible and planet-threatening industry was howled down by both the Bush-ite Coaltion and the neo-Bush-ite Labor Party.

At the next elections the Bush-ite Coalition will still have the support of about half the voters yet the former Coalition PM described as “crazy” the Rudd Labor proposal to cut emissions in 2050 to 60% of the 2000 value (a proposal that, as shown in #11 and #12 above, falls so far short of what is needed that Rudd Labor might just as well have not bothered except for the purpose of garnering the votes of the gullible).

According to the 2007 IPCC Synthesis report, unaddressed CO2 pollution and global warming will have a devastating effect on global malnutrition and poverty (see: http://green-blog.org/2007/11/21/summary-of-the-summary-of-the-2007-ipcc-ar4-synthesis-report/ ). According the Professor David Pimentel (2004), global malnutrition and poverty will be an “unimaginable” problem by 2054 (see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb04/AAAS.pimentel.hrs.html ), already pollution of the soil, water and air kills about 40% of the world’s population and 57% of the world’s population of 6.5 billion is already malnourished (see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug07/moreDiseases.sl.html ).

Already 16 million people due avoidably each year (9.6 million being under-5 year old infants) on a Spaceship Earth dominated by a profligate and unresponsive First World (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ) – and Australia is on a per capita basis is one of the world’s worst offenders. As indicated above, according to Professor James Lovelock FRS unaddressed global warming will kill 6 billion people this century – Climate Genocide (“intent to destroy in whole or in part” according to Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention: http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/convention.html )

14. Who pays? The true environmental and human cost of coal-based electricity can be over 4 times the present market cost

According to a Ministry of Energy Report from Ontario, Canada, coal plants kill 668 people per year in Ontario (population 12.7 million), and cause 1,100 emergency room visits, and more than 300,000 minor illnesses per year. These and previous findings by the Ontario Medical Association were behind bi-partisan will to close Ontario’s coal-fired electricity plants. This Report estimated that a “market” cost of about 4 cents/kWh increases to a “true cost” of about 16 cents/kWh (see: http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836 ): “The study estimated that the total net present value of coal-fired generation is costing Ontario $0.164 CAD/kWh. Environmental and health costs accounted for 77% to total generation costs”.

15. “True cost” of fossil fuels versus bearable cost, corporate/government-determined cost and A$10 billion pa subsidies for Australian fossil fuel burning

While the “true cost” of coal-based electricity can be over 4 times the “market” cost, this will be ignored in corporate, government and diplomatic “horse-trading” to set carbon price – just as society in practice ignores the “annual death rate” due to cigarette smoking (about 1,000 per million) or due to cars (about 100 per million) in assessing the “true cost” of tobacco or cars. Extrapolating from Ontario, the annual death rate from coal-fired power generation is about 50 per million.

If the true environmental and human cost of fossil fuel-derived power were taken into account then (a) economics would dictate “keep fossil fuels in the ground” (as advocated by the Australian Greens and by George Monbiot: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2225387,00.html ), (b) subsidies would be immediately removed and (c) compensation ordered by the courts for the victims of this technological perversion (as has happened already in relation to victims of industrial use of asbestos).

16. Renewables are the way – keep fossil fuels in the ground

Here are some estimates of the cost in Australian cents per kilowatt-hour (Ac/kWh) of various sources of electricity (for a detailed discussion see “Renewables: how the numbers stack up” in New Matilda: http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213 ):

3-4 — coal, Australia;
18 — the real cost of coal, taking into account the environmental and health impact; according to a conservative Canadian Ontario Ministry of Energy Report (CAN$0.164);
15 — nuclear via the UK’s newest Sizewell B plant;
7.5-8.5 — wind power, Australia;
15 — concentrated solar power or CSP;
25-45 — standard silicon-based photovoltaics (PVs).

However recent advances means we must add the following to the list:

4 – the price of solar PV is set to fall dramatically to compete directly with the current “market price” of coal due to balloon, sliver and non-silicon PV technology advances. The non-silicon organic thin film technology developed by US Nobel Laureate Alan Heeger and his South Korean colleagues will reduce the cost of installing photovoltaic (PV) capacity by a factor of 20; the Swiss ETH CIGS non-silicon thin film system may be competitive with coal within 5 years (a related US Nanosolar technology is in mass production: http://www.investorideas.com/Articles/050707a_page1.asp ); Australian sliver silicon PV technology will drop silicon solar panel costs threefold. In particular, the Californian balloon solar capture technology is predicted to make PV solar competitive with “market price” coal by 2010 (see “Solar energy & the end of war. US balloon technology to slash solar energy cost 90% by 2010”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/ ).

4 – Australian geothermal. According to Professor John Veevers (“The Innamincka hot fractured rock project” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics”, editor Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007; also see energy cost-related related chapters by Dr Gideon Polya “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality”, Dr Mark Diesendorf “A sustainable energy future for Australia”, and Martin Mahy “Hydrogen Minibuses”): “Modelled costs are 4 cents per kilowatt hour, plus half to 1 cent for transmission to grid. This compares with 3.5 cents for black coal, 4 cents for brown coal, 4.2 cents for gas, but all with uncosted emissions. Clean coal, the futuristic technology of coal gasification combined with CO2 sequestration or burial, yet to be demonstrated, comes in at 6.5 cents, and solar and wind power at 8 cents.”

Further, wave, tidal, biomass and biofuel energy technologies are renewable technologies competitive with the “true cost” of fossil fuels. Australia’s huge reserves of economic geothermal power are expertly assessed to have the capacity to provide most of Australia’s energy needs for the best part of a millennium and Australia is blessed with huge solar, tidal, wave and wind resources.

17. Nuclear is not an option

The Bush-ite Coalition had an unerring knack of being resolutely incorrect or in denial about so many crucial matters – anthropogenic climate change, the reasons for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorist threat to Australia, and the cost of meeting the climate change crisis. They are also incorrect in relation to the nuclear option. As summarized in #16 above the nuclear option is more expensive than current renewable wind and geothermal technologies and as expensive as current concentrated solar technology. Further, the FULL nuclear cycle (from uranium mining and processing to waste disposal and plant de-commissioning) can be as expensive in terms of CO2 emissions as a gas-fired power station – and we still have the intractable security and waste disposal problems.

18. Mandated efficient energy PROVISION as well as USAGE

Australia has mandated replacement of incandescent globes with high efficiency electric lights over the next year or so. If Australia can legislatively mandate efficient energy USAGE it should also mandate the highest efficiency, lowest REAL cost energy PROVISION – currently geothermal, followed by wind with both of these set to be shortly supplanted by exciting low-cost solar technologies.

Failure of Australia to mandate minimum price energy provision simply reflects entrenched dishonesty and corruption in our society. This is briefly discussed further below in relation to the Australian and global impact of fossil fuel burning.

19. Oil, strategic hegemony and 5-8 million post-invasion excess deaths in the Bush Wars in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories

The strategic importance of the Middle East in terms of oil and global hegemony is the core reason for the Bush Asian Wars that have so far been associated with 5-8 million post-invasion excess deaths in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories. This explanation has been argued cogently by outstanding anti-war humanitarian Professor Noam Chomsky (from 63-Nobel- Laureate Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT) in an article entitled “Imminent Crises: Threats and Opportunities ” in which he says of the Middle East : “the huge energy resources of the region were recognized by Washington sixty years ago as a “stupendous source of strategic power,” the “strategically most important area of the world,” and “one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”[reference] 1 Control over this stupendous prize has been a primary goal of U.S. policy ever since, and threats to it have naturally aroused enormous concern.”

Total post-invasion excess deaths in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories now stand at about 5-8 million. There has been a horrendous human cost of the ongoing Palestinian Genocide, Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide (post-invasion excess deaths 0.3 million, 1.5-2 million and 3-6 million, respectively; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.2 million, 0.6 million and 2.2 million, respectively; and refugees total 7 million, 4.5 million and 4 million, respectively) (updated figures from MWC News).

However there is a further huge cost in the US$2.5 trillion accrual cost of the Bush wars (according to 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz) that has recently been updated to $3.5 trillion by a Congressional Report (see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/13099/26/ ) ; the $2.6 trillion post-1956 accrual cost of US aid for Zionist colonization of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria (see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/533/26/ ); the huge human cost of the US-expanded opiate trade – 0.6 million post-2001 global opiate drug-related deaths (about 2,000 in Australia) due to US Alliance restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry from about 5% of world market share in 2001 to 93% in 2007; and huge diversion of financial support from alleviation of global warming-exacerbated poverty (the “War on Terror” has cost Australia alone about $20 billion in corporate and government domestic security measures and billions more in overseas military deployments).

20. Huge environmental cost and environmental economic cost of fossil fuel burning and deforestation for Australia and the World

It has been estimated by Balmford et al in the prestigious scientific journal Science (see “Economic reasons for preserving wild nature”: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950 ) that for a variety of “biomes” (ecological systems) the total economic value (TEV) is about 50% greater when the resource is used sustainably as opposed to destructive conversion. Further, these scientists have found that the economic benefit from preserving what is left of wild nature is OVER 100 TIMES greater than the cost of preservation.

However these estimates are IGNORED by Lib-Lab Australian Governments in the interests of “current jobs” and corporations as we see in the ongoing deforestation of Victoria and Tasmania. The true economic value of State-owned assets are not being considered – these citizen-owned public resources are effectively being given away to private corporations.

These ugly realities of dishonesty and environmental vandalism reach a pinnacle in relation to greenhouse gas pollution. The polluters are not being charged the full cost of what they are destroying. Indeed quite the reverse is happening – fossil fuel burning is actually SUBSIDIZED to the tune of about $10 billion annually in Australia (see: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22873649-12377,00.html ).

A further concrete Australian example is the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from global warming as spelled out in the latest 2007 IPCC Synthesis Report (see: http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) – this is of course a major tourist asset in an economic sense.

21. Biofuels represent a perversion with 57% malnourished, grain production peaking and grain price rising due to Biofuels and Meat

As outlined in #13, According to the 2007 IPCC Synthesis report, unaddressed CO2 pollution and global warming will have a devastating effect on global malnutrition and poverty (see: http://www.ipcc.ch/). According the Professor David Pimentel (2004) of Cornell University, New York, global malnutrition and poverty will be an “unimaginable” problem by 2054 (see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb04/AAAS.pimentel.hrs.html ), already pollution of the soil, water and air kills about 40% of the world’s population and 57% of the world’s population of 6.5 billion is already malnourished (see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug07/moreDiseases.sl.html ).

Already 16 million people due avoidably each year (9.6 million being under-5 year old infants) on a Spaceship Earth dominated by a profligate and unresponsive First World (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) – and Australia on a per capita basis is one of the world’s worst offenders.

Biofuels are formally CO2 neutral and renewable – however in the context of horrendous global poverty, a major decline in grain production, huge increases in grain price and increasing diversion of grain for biofuel generation (see: http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2006/05-06/graintoc.htm ) this is a perversion and a crime against humanity, the more so when alternative cheap, efficient renewable energy options are technically already available (see #16).

22. Oil is the feedstock for sophisticated organic chemical industry – it should NOT be burned

Forty years ago my organic chemistry lecturer told us that we are actually BURNING the feedstock for sophisticated chemical industry, the material used to make pharmaceuticals and plastics that dominate modern life. Today this wanton destruction of an immensely valuable resource is continuing. The “real cost” and the “real value” are ignored because of the political might of fossil fuel burning corporations.

I am acutely aware of this travesty as the author of a huge pharmacological reference text (Gideon Polya, “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds. A pharmacological reference guide to sites of action and biological effects” CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003:

http://www.amazon.com/Biochemical-Targets-Plant-Bioactive-Compounds/dp/0415308291 ).

23. Deforestation can be halved by investing US$15 billion per annum

Further to the points made in relation to environmental impacts of global warming, deforestation contributes about 15-20% to increased net global greenhouse gas production annually. Yet according to Sir Nicholas Stern: “For $10-15bn (£4.8-7.2bn) per year, a programme could be constructed that could stop up to half the deforestation” (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/30/climatechange.carbonemissions ).

In addition to playing a vital role in global temperature homeostasis, forest ecosystems are sources for invaluable pharmaceutical resources (see my recent huge reference book: Gideon Polya, “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds. A pharmacological reference guide to sites of action and biological effects”, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003: http://www.amazon.com/Biochemical-Targets-Plant-Bioactive-Compounds/dp/0415308291 ).

24. Climate criminal countries such as Australia face Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands

The science and technology has been well reviewed internationally (see the 2007 IPCC Reports: http://www.ipcc.ch/ and a recent review of renewable scenarios: http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf ) as indeed has the economic of climate change via the Stern Report (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review ).

The Rudd Government intransigence in not supporting the draft Bali proposal of “25-40% reduction by 2020” is ostensibly because of the economic review by Professor Garnaut due in first draft in mid-2008 and presumably finalized by late 2008.

Yet one boundary condition of Professor Garnaut’s report is already clear – in his own words (December 2007) “Australia will be pulling its full weight” which means (if one accepts “all men are created equal” ) that Australia achieves “annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution” parity with the rest of the world. However the other boundary condition (perceived “affordability” in the light of Australia-specific economic analysis) is completely uncertain for the simple reason that the World may decide to take action against climate criminal countries such as Australia and the US through imposition of Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands.

Indeed a SOLUTION to greedy, climate criminal US, Canada, Japan and Australian intransigence at Bali would be international Sanctions and Boycotts or, more precisely, “Green Tariffs” and Reparations Demands that recognize the REAL environmental and human cost of goods produced by these irresponsible and intrinsically RACIST climate criminal countries.

It is notable that these 4 countries have ANOTHER intrinsically racist and genocidal activity in common – various participation in the genocidal Bush Asian Wars – post-invasion excess deaths in the Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide now total 1.5-2 million and 3-6 million, respectively; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.6 million and 2.2 million, respectively; and refugees total 4.5 million and about 4 million, respectively) (see: “Solar energy & the end of war”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/ ).

What Australia and the US are doing is far more serious and intrinsically racist than the crimes of Apartheid South Africa, a system that was eventually disposed of through international Sanctions and Boycotts. Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands may well be applied to Australia, the US and like climate criminal countries that are threatening the Planet with climate genocide. Indeed a model for this comes from outstanding American academic, writer, editor and economist, Father of Reaganomics Dr Paul Craig Roberts who explicitly demands that the world should stop the “Iraqi genocide” by “dumping the dollar” (see: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02122007.html ). The World is evidently doing just that – and may well act similarly towards an intransigent Australia, on a per capita basis the world’s worst developed country greenhouse gas polluter.

Summary

On a per capita basis and including our fossil fuel exports, Australia is the developed country with the highest greenhouse gas pollution. Thus 2004 data from the US Energy Information Administration reveal that “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution” in tonnes CO2/person is 19.2 (for Australia; 40 if you include Australia’s coal exports), 19.7 (the US), 18.4 (Canada), 9.9 (Japan), 4.2 (the World), 3.6 (China), 1.0 ( India) and 0.25 (for Bangladesh).

The Rudd Labor commitment to “20% renewables by 2020”, “”60% reduction on 2000 greenhouse gas pollution by 2050” and no constraint on fossil fuel extraction for export ACTUALLY means (based on US Energy Information Administration data, assuming current constant coal, gas and CO2 pollution growth rates, constant population and including Australia’s fossil fuel EXPORTS) “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 emission in tonnes per person per year” of 43 (2007), 56 (2020) and 65 (2050).

If Australia continues to refuse to act on both domestic and exported greenhouse gas pollution it will very likely face international action through Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands. The Rudd “Garnaut Report” excuse for inaction at Bali is contradicted by Professor Garnaut’s recent very clear and highly ethical declaration that ““Australia will be pulling its full weight” which, given the equality of all Men, surely means massive reduction of CO2 pollution to per capita parity with countries such as India and China.

Simple notional calculations tell us that Australia could completely replace its current 50 Gigawatt electricity generating capacity with wind power within 10 years by simply investing its current $10 billion annual fossil fuel subsidies into wind farms (noting of course, that other renewable options are now ALREADY much cheaper than the “true cost” of fossil-fuel-based electricity).

In short, the world is facing a Climate Emergency and a Sustainability Emergency that requires urgent action NOW to REDUCE atmospheric CO2 from a current 383 ppm to a level of 300-350 ppm required for biosphere sustainability. The science, technology and economics all instruct (subject to transition and related qualifications) that we should keep the fossil fuels in the ground – indeed we need to have a NEGATIVE atmospheric CO2 growth.

This has been written in the public interest.

This was part two of two. You can find part one here.

Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). He has just published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contribution “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm ).

Truth, Reason and Words having failed in the Western Murdochracies, as an artist as well as a scientist he has painted several huge paintings relating to the Climate Emergency, namely “Terra”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/15671/42/ and “Apocalypse Now”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/17652/42/ .

This submission by a senior scientist is in response to a general invitation for submissions made on the Garnaut Climate Change Review Website.

This is part one of two parts. You can find part two here.

Background

The Garnaut Climate Change Review is an independent study by Professor Ross Garnaut, commissioned by Australia’s State and Territory Governments on 30 April 2007. A new Australian Government under Labor Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was sworn in on Monday 3 December, 2007 and the newly-elected PM Rudd has confirmed the participation of the Commonwealth Government in the Review.

The Review will examine the impacts of climate change on the Australian economy, and recommend medium to long-term policies and policy frameworks to improve the prospects for sustainable prosperity. The Review’s final report is due on 30 September 2008, with a draft by 30 June 2008. A number of forums will also be held around Australia to engage the public on various issues relating to the Review.

This submission to the Garnaut Change Review is by a senior scientist committed to Rational Risk Management that successively involves (a) accurate data, (b) scientific analysis and (c) systemic change to minimize risk (for a detailed, expert exposition see Professor James Reason, “Human error: models and management”, British Medical Journal, vol. 320, 768-770, 2000: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7237/768 ).

Indeed as a responsible pubIic service I have committed a lot of time and effort to informing governments, media and fellow citizens about important matters, of which the most critically important are Australia’s involvement in the ongoing Aboriginal Genocide (90,000 excess Indigenous deaths under 11 years of Coalition rule) , the Iraqi Genocide (1.5-2 million post-invasion excess deaths, 4.5 million refugees), the Afghan Genocide (3-6 million post-invasion excess deaths, 4 million refugees) and prospective Climate Genocide through Global Warming that threatens 6 billion avoidable deaths this century (see: The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock; for detailed and documented analyses see Rudd Australia Report Cards #1, #2 and #3:; Iraqi Genocide; Climate Genocide; Afghan Genocide).

16 million people die avoidably in the world each year (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com) but global warming is already impacting human excess mortality and eminent atmosphere scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS estimates that 6 billion will die this century due to unaddressed global warming (see: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock ).

The world is facing a potential catastrophe due successively to industrial profligacy, greenhouse gas pollution, global warming and declining per capita sustainable resources. This potential problem of environmental pollution and impacts on biological sustainability has been familiar to scientists since the 19 th century research of John Tyndall; was addressed by the Club of Rome in circa 1970; and which was further addressed by successive Assessment Reports of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change since 1990 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change ).

As a chemistry-based scientist for 4 decades, I was aware of the finiteness of the atmosphere, the oceans, arable land and fossil fuel reserves from the start of my career. I was made aware of the mounting atmospheric problems back in 1972 as a Queen Elizabeth II Fellow in the department of one of Australia’s top hydrologists and biophysicists who later went on to be Chief Scientist of Australia.

In 1998 I published a book entitled “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” (see: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ). In short, I argued that history ignored yields history repeated, holocaust ignored yields holocaust repeated and that the ignoring of successive Bengali Holocausts under the British – the 1769-1770 Bengal Famine (10 million deaths) and the 1943-1944 Bengal Famine (4 million deaths) – will permit a horrendous disaster in the 21st century due to industrial profligacy, man-made global warming and destructive inundation of mega-deltaic Bengal. My predictions of holocaust ignoring and irresponsible industrial profligacy are already being realized – recently formerly densely populated Bengali islands permanently disappeared under the waves, and the last major Bay of Bengal hurricane was the worst for several decades.

Indeed at the height of the “forgotten” 4 million excess death WW2 Bengal Famine (experienced and studied by 1998 Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen of Cambridge and thence Harvard universities) millions of tons of wheat were used to run the railways in Argentina due to the WW2 shortage a coal (see: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) – an obscenity now mirrored in the current huge diversion of US grain production to biofuel production with (together with other factors) a consequent steep increase in food prices, the lowest number of food supply days for decades and looming famine for the 2 billion people ALREADY suffering food deprivation.

Climate change is already contributing to the 16 million avoidable deaths (including 9.6 million of under-5 year old infants) that occur each year on Spaceship Earth with the profligate First World in charge of the flight deck (2003 figures; see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ). Worse is yet to come due to DECLINE in agricultural sustainability, potable water, fisheries, tropical and sub-tropical agricultural productivity, drought, developing world nutrition and even safe living space for mega-delta communities subject to sea level rise, storm surges and salinization.

A must-read document for policy makers is the 2007 “Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)” (for a Summary of the Summary see: http://green-blog.org/ and http://green-blog.org/2007/11/21/summary-of-the-summary-of-the-2007-ipcc-ar4-synthesis-report/ .

Sir Nicholas Stern his authoritative Stern report on the economics of climate change states that it will be cheaper to act now rather than later. For example, in a recent lecture Sir Nicholas Stern states: “For $10-15bn (£4.8-7.2bn) per year, a programme could be constructed that could stop up to half the deforestation” (which contributes 10-15% of greenhouse pollution) and after describing climate change as the “world’s worst market failure”, he says that there must be an 80% reduction in rich nations’ greenhouse gas pollution by 2050 if the world is to avoid “destructive” consequences of global warming (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/30/climatechange.carbonemissions ).

Indeed the draft recommendation at the December 2007 Bali Conference was for a developed country 25-40% reduction on 1990 levels of greenhouse gas pollution by 2020 – a position opposed by climate criminal countries the US, Canada, Japan and Rudd Australia (see:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22910382-5013871,00.html ).

Unfortunately Rudd Labor, while having secured an urgently needed victory in the elections over the greenhouse sceptic and greenhouse unresponsive Bush-ite Coalition, is simply not green enough (see: link ). While Rudd Labor has ratified Kyoto, it is using the otherwise sensible need for “evidence before policy change” as an EXCUSE not to commit to short-term greenhouse reduction targets until the final form of the Garnaut Report in late 2008. With due respect to the eminent and respected Professor Garnaut and his Report-in-Progress we ALREADY have the Stern Report (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review ) from a former Chief Economist of the World Bank (endorsed and indeed criticized as too conservative by former World Bank Chief Economist and 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University) and the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (see: http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) endorsed by leading climate change scientists from essentially all countries.

Indeed the likely target of Stern (500-550 ppm atmospheric CO2 ) is a catastrophe for the planet – according to Professor James Lovelock FRS at 500 ppm atmospheric CO2 the Greenland Ice Sheet goes and so does the ocean phytoplankton system that is crucial for cloud formation (through dimethyl sulphide production), planetary temperature homeostasis (through CO2 sequestration) and oceanic food chains (J. Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia”, Penguin, London, 2006).

PM Rudd has stated that before making a decision on short term targets his Government needs to have the “facts”. Well, the World has had the “facts” for a dozen years and what follows is a scientist’s assessment of the “facts” drawn from authoritative American and European technical sources. Unfortunately in the Australian Murdochracy, the politically correct racist (PC racist) Land of Lies and Flies, Australia’s world #1 coal exports that contribute over 50% of Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas pollution are not even a matter for public discussion (except for the ethical and responsible Australian Greens) (for how a mature society regards the matter see George Monbiot’s “The real answer to climate change is to leave fossil fuels in the ground”: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2225387,00.html ).

Indeed any specifically “economic impact” research in 2007-2008 by the eminent Professor Ross Garnaut Climate Change Review will be instantly trashed if the Rest of the World (i.e. other than the US-Australia-Canada-Japan quartet opposing 25-40% reduction in CO2 pollution by 2020) decides officially or unofficially to impose Sanctions, Boycotts or Green Tariffs on the goods and services of climate criminal countries.

Further, what we are facing is a Climate Emergency and a Sustainability Emergency as revealed by the eminent American atmosphere scientist Dr James Hansen who has recently stated that 300-350 ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is the safe, sustainable level for the biosphere and human survival – whereas it is actually 383 ppm now and increasing by 2.5 ppm every year. Dr Hansen is effectively calling not for ZERO EMISSIONS but NEGATIVE CO2 EMISSIONS (see the Friends of the Earth’s ”Climate Code Red – the case for a sustainability emergency”: http://www.climatecodered.net/ and http://climatecodered.blogspot.com/ ).

Australia and the World are already experiencing mass flora and fauna extinctions. Qualitatively, this huge destruction of what we can never replace is utterly unacceptable. This economic barbarism is dramatically illustrated by the Great Barrier Reef of Australia.

A recent paper in the prestigious journal Science reveals that at 450 ppm CO2 world coral reefs will start dying from ocean acidification (see: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm ). The coal industry (that is helping to destroy world coral reefs) is worth about A$25 billion pa to Australia (A$2 billion to 25,000 workers and at 30% company tax, about A$8 billion to the taxpayer) – as compared to A$7 billion pa from tourism and 63,000 jobs associated with the Great Barrier Reef (Access Economics: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/22661/rp_87-GBRCA-economic-contribution-2005-06-final-report.pdf ).

However what is INESTIMABLY more important than a mere circa 1% of Australia’s annual GDP is the prospective destruction of organisms that have been around for half a billion years, the destruction of complex coral ecosystems that have been around for tens of millions of years and the attendant devastation of the ecosystems crucially required for numerous other marine organisms and crucial, humanity-sustaining fisheries.

A crucial paper in the top scientific journal Science of major importance for the Garnaut Review is the seminal, multi-author paper by Balmford et al entitled “Economic reasons for conserving wild nature” (Science, 9 August 2002, 950: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/297/5583/950.pdf ; http://www.envirosecurity.org/conference/working/ReasonsConservWildNature.pdf ). These authors estimate that for a number of ecosystems (biomes) studied the total economic value (TEV) is about 50% greater if the natural resource is used sustainably as opposed to irreversibly and destructively. They have further found that the economic benefit from preserving what is left of wild nature exceeds the cost of doing so by a factor of over 100 (one hundred).

The outstanding Australian bioethicist Professor Peter Singer (Princeton University and University of Melbourne) has stated that: “We are responsible not only for what we do but also for what we could have prevented… We should consider the consequences both of what we do and what we decide not to do.”

(Singer, P. (2000), Writings on an Ethical Life (Ecco Press, New York; ppxv-xvi ). Accordingly we must act NOW in the face of what can be reasonably decribed by sober, informed, economically conservative scientists as a Climate Emergency and a Sustainability Emergency.

This was part one of two parts. You can find part two here.

Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). He has just published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contribution “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm ).

Truth, Reason and Words having failed in the Western Murdochracies, as an artist as well as a scientist he has painted several huge paintings relating to the Climate Emergency, namely “Terra”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/15671/42/ and “Apocalypse Now”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/17652/42/ .

Here comes another clever environment ad. This one is from the national power company Eskom in South Africa.

Related: Clever ad on bridge in Amsterdam

via WattWatt