Welcome to what will hopefully be an interesting and informative site regarding current environmental topics. If you have any questions or would like to see a post regarding something specific, don't hesitate to let me know and I will see what I can dig up for you.
Thanks for your interest and I hope to see you back here soon.
Also, if you are interested in science and technology, you might enjoy Biology News. If health and medicine is your thing, try my Diet and Health blog. If you are a student, scientist or researcher, you might find Science Stat and its forum useful.
Whatever you like, enjoy!
R.C. Anderson
There is a lot of talk at the moment about drug testing in sport. The problems faced by several West Coast Eagles players in the AFL has lead to the Federal Government demanding that all sports get tougher on testing their players for illicit drugs. They want players being tested anywhere at any time. This means that even on your holidays, when the drugs will have no affect on your game, you can get a knock at your door demanding a urine sample.
As the papers and most sports people have pointed out, this is typical Howard Government stuff, pulling out the drugs bogey-man to try to gain votes in the election (they used it against the Greens in the last Federal Election in 2004). However, Essendon player James Hird asked a good question, why aren't we testing our politicians?
Now I'm sure Hird intended this as an off-hand remark and usually it would stay that way, but I started thinking more and more and feel that this is a good question. I mean these people make decisions which can sometimes mean life and death to people, they are decisions with far greater consequences than whether Ben Cousins played last years Grand Final high.
I would even go further to suggest that testing should be made for alcohol as well. I would never be allowed to go to work under the influence of alcohol but how many politicians have a wine or two during lunch at parliament house? Many will remember Steve Bracks' famous "Eddie Eeels" speech at the Heineken Golf Open (he was actually congratulating South African golfer Ernie Els). It also might explain what's going on in Bill Heffernan's head.
As someone who hopes to have a seat in parliament one day, I would be happy to subject myself to drug testing if it meant we could be sure that governments do not make life or death decisions such as the invasion of Iraq or ignoring the plight of refugees under the influence of anything.
Many of my friends have been asking me whether I think that Kevin Rudd will be a good alternative Prime Minister to John Howard. I have told many that I am still reserving my judgement but the more I see of Rudd, the more concerned I am.
Yesterday Rudd announced that the ALP would not repeal the Howard Government's controversial policy of Voluntary Student Unionism which outlaws universities charging students a fee to assist paying for student services.
Now this idea may make a lot of sense, however consider this: with student unions weakened Howard was also able to push through a 25% rise in University HECS fees. This means that even a degree at the lowest HECS rate, like a BA, went from $3768 a year to $4710... a rise of $942. Sort of makes the $130.50 I paid to the Deakin University Student Union look kind of insignificant doesn't it?
And yet the major parties are telling us that we're better off? You're kidding me...
This is one example in a long line of policies that Kevin Rudd has introduced which move the ALP closer and closer to the Liberals. Here are some more examples:
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Howard: invest in Nuclear Technology, a technology that would not be available in Australia for another twenty years...
Rudd: Invest in "clean coal technology" a technology that doesn't actually exist.
IMMIGRATION:
Rudd/Howard: An "Australian Values" test for newcomers to Australia.
URANIUM:
Howard/Rudd: support increasing the number of Uranium mines in Australia, mines which often displace Indigenous People from their land.
FORESTS:
Rudd/Howard: Continue the destruction of Tasmania's old growth forests, even though it is damaging Tasmania's essential tourist industry.
And countless other policies. Maybe the question shouldn't be "Will Rudd be a good alternative Prime Minister?" it should be "Will Rudd be an alternative PM at all?"
It is interesting to note that in elections for the Monash Student Union, the Labor Right (Rudd's faction) run on the same ticket as the Liberals. Maybe they should do the same in Canberra too...
I haven't written in a very long time. The State Election occupied an enormous ammount of my time and I have been taking a break for a fair bit of time. I will look to build this blog up again in preparation for the Federal Election, probably expected to be held around October this year.
The big issue this week is Global Warming. An Inconvenient Truth was released on DVD in Australia this week and a UN study is expected to be released showing that we are on the road to an enormous disaster.
Australia's answer to this crisis is to introduce nuclear power. It is important to realise though that nuclear power cannot be operational in Australia for another twenty years, by which time we will have serious problems. The Howard Government still refuse to sign the Kyoto Agreement, committing to reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions. The government claims Kyoto is not working and we need a new agreement. I agree with this, and Australia can play a leading role in this agreement, but we need to sign Kyoto for us to be able to have any involvement in future agreements.
Meanwhile the Labor party claim that if elected they will ratify Kyoto. I am sceptical of this though. In the US, several states have gone against George Bush and ratified Kyoto themselves. Every Australian state is lead by a Labor State Government and so far NO LABOR GOVERNMENT HAS RATIFIED KYOTO. Why is this?
This issue has been concerning me a lot lately. I am beginning to realise that the 2007 Federal Election will be so important for Australia and if the major parties continue to dominate Australian politics, we will see a lot of talk but no action. The following election won't be until 2010, when it could possibly be too late. So the next nine months could be vital to everyone in Australia.
I have been getting a little depressed because I'm coming to the realisation that I could be alive to see the end. But what can you do? You just need to keep working away, make people see what's going on... don't let ANYBODY tell you that global warming is a myth! (I've been guilty of that because I've wanted to avoid fights, but not anymore...) Because the consequences are just too awful.
I spent the last two days at the RMIT Sustainability Festival in Melbourne. This was a festival organised by the RMIT Campus Greens and the RMIT Environmental Collective. There were many highlights including a speech by Greens' Senator Kerry Nettle but one of the things that stood out to me was a debate they had over whether Australia should invest in Nuclear Power.
Now I thought this debate was so obvious that any intelligent person would know the answer to it, but clearly not, so I'm closing the argument once and for all. NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT THE ANSWER
The National Electric Market Management Co. (NEMMCO) did a study recently looking at the viability of nuclear power in Australia. Basically due to the ammount of power output of a reactor, a large percentage of our overhead powerlines would need to be replaced because they could not take the load. This would cost a fortune, not even counting the man hours involved...
Also, to be viable the nuclear power plant would need to be located in Sydney. This would be electoral suicide for any government wishing to do that!
Plus, even if it was economically viable, it would be at least twenty years before we could see a plant operational. Now, if we are waiting another twenty years to solve our environmental problems, we will be in BIG trouble.
So sorry guys, nuclear won't save Australia...
The important thing to realise is that John Howard and all the pro-nuclear lobbyists know full well that nuclear power is not viable in Australia. Really it is just a smokescreen to justify more Uranium mining in Australia and trading with countries like India, who have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. And people can argue, we'll make sure that OUR uranium doesn't go into bombs but the fact of the matter is that even if OUR uranium is going into plants it frees up THEIR uranium to go into bombs... you can't win. So we need to cut through the bullshit and look at more important debates, like do we rip up more of our Earth to feed these reactors?
And another question... what happens when India is done with the uranium? I mean, almost one billion people in not a big land area, do they have room to dump their waste? No they don't, they will turn to the people who sold them the problem and say, "Hey! You guys have a lot of desert... pretty stable ground, no earthquakes, how about you bury this waste for us?" And Australia would probably have an obligation to do so.
Now these are just simple arguments for why nuclear won't work in Australia, I could quite happily write another page on why nuclear should be abandoned globally, and people can feel free to comment and request that if they like. Sweden is obviously listening to the research, they have recently embarked on a plan to phase out nuclear power and replace it with renewable energy.
As was said at the debate today: If Nuclear Power is the answer... you really have to wonder about what the question was...
R.C. Anderson
Add Comments
Comments (1)
... not saying the Greens would automatically side with Labor but God knows, there's little chance we'd be on Howard's side at the moment).