Global warming and its affects - this isn't something that may
happen some time in the future, it's already started and rapidly getting worse.
The critical water shortages in our towns and cities, our baron once prosperous
farm land and our dry river beds are just the start of what is in store for us.
And as for the use of our dwindling water resources, are cotton and rice crops
with their enormous demand for water at the great expense to 99% of the rest of
those who rely on the same water really in the best interests of our nation, not
to mention the enormous degradation of our river systems ?
Our rivers are dying, salinity is rising, the magnificent eucalypts on the river
banks are dead or dying, flora and fauna are vanishing.........this is
happening now.
We desperately need leadership that will devise strategies and policies that
look beyond the next election, leadership that is not beholden to donations and
lobbing from corporations whose only interest is the next shareholder
meeting.
I wonder if bandaid handouts to drought affected farmers is an effective long
term strategy or just a means boosting re-election prospects.
I am sure no one doubts the need or nor begrudges the assistance to farmers but
there must be better ways of delivering long term sustainable results in lieu of
the, what will need to be, annual subsidies.
It seems to me that many will be subsidised for political ends to try to carry
on with what is not sustainable.
This is not a uniquely Australian phenomena, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy are
all experiencing unprecedented drought, forest fires and water shortages.
The French government also subsidies their farmers in unsustainable farming
practices. Instead of modifying farming practices to suit
permanently changing weather patterns, they take the unsustainable short term
option of throwing money at the problem to appease the vocal minority.
A squeaky wheel always gets the oil.
Global warming will ensure that the droughts we are experiencing now will be the
norm.
It should come as no surprise to read Aust Gov statements such as
"Greenhouse policy will be considered in relation to other national
objectives".
What other national objectives - pandering to who ?
Of course there financial constraints on what a country can afford to do (except
when it comes to our politicians remuneration packages) but surely this must be
moved up the priority list.
What greater objective could there be than the preservation of our environment ?
Extreme drought, in which agriculture is in effect impossible, will affect about
a third of the planet, according to the study from the Met Office's Hadley
Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
Drought threatening the lives of millions will spread across half the land
surface of the Earth because of global warming, we are warned.
According to world renown Canadian ecologist and professor at the University of
British Columbia, William Rees, "We've overshot the long-term carrying
capacity of the planet to support human life."
I hope our government has more answers that they seem to have because I have
paid a lot of taxes that pay the wages of people that are supposed to have some
answers.
Maybe our government's lack of urgency is because it's just not high enough on
their list of priorities.
| Genetically Modified Crops |
So at a time when the global population is going through the roof, the area of
land able to sustain agriculture is rapidly dwindling.
Some see genetically modified crops as our salvation spurred on by the Mega
Corporations that patent these products whereas most environmentalists and
ecologists vehemently disagree. To mess with our food chain, they
tell us, without knowing the long term consequences is madness.
As Dr Suzuki so colourfully points out, the laboratory does not, can not and
never will replicate the natural environment with sufficient accuracy to emulate
all scenarios.
2,4-D a herbicide responsible for massive increase in crop yields first used in
the late 1940's is now being investigated by the US EPA over concerns relating
to public health.
Remember DDT, it took nearly 40 years before it's use was banned in the USA in
1973. (It is still used in developing countries for mosquito control)
Look how well thought out the cane toad was.
When it comes to deciding who to believe on the subject of GM crops, scientists
employed by or funded by the Mega Corporations or scientists who speak on
environmental issues, the choice is easy.
Do you remember the scientists funded by the tobacco industry who used to tell
us that cigarette smoking was harmless ?
With respect to the global problem, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol surely would be
a good start.
( Feb 08 - with the recent change of federal government,
this has finally been done. Can we can look forward to more changes for
the better ? )
We have the dubious honour of being the world's second largest producer of
greenhouse gasses on a per capita basis.
But our government says, that's OK, it's only 1% of the global
output. And that's our two fingered salute to the rest of the world
because we are determined to put what we see as fiscally responsibility ahead of
social responsibility.
Because of global warming, methane gas previously frozen under the Arctic
permafrost is bubbling up and escaping into the atmosphere, forcing us into
global meltdown ever faster. As a greenhouse gas, methane is 20 times more
powerful than carbon.
This positive feedback loop is a vicious ecological circle. The more the
temperatures rises, the more permafrost melts, contributing more methane into
the atmosphere, which in turn causes the earth's temperature to rise again,
melting more permafrost, and on it goes at an ever increasing pace.
So now our carbon emissions have triggered what is probably unstoppable methane
releases.
And our best response to the problem..........
it isn't to reduce greenhouse emissions, no,
it is to not increase
our emissions by more than 8% of the 1990 level by 2012.
At a time when our target should be to decrease emissions, we are still on the
increase and that is government policy !
Many around the world see this as a pathetic response and it's hard to disagree
with them although we do have some politicians and their spin doctors who would
tell you otherwise with their ability to convince you black is white.
One can only wonder what the world would be like today if in the USA Al
Gore and the Democrats had won government in 2000 instead of George Bush and the
Republicans.
What a pity, to win the popular vote and not be able to take office.
One can only hope he changes his mind and decides to run for office in 2008.
As it is, we are left to lament what should have been.
As an ally of the USA with a puppy dog like relationship, we probably wouldn't
be involved in another Vietnam in the Middle East and would certainly have some
leadership on environmental matters.
And what a pity, Australia has some brilliant research personnel and
institutions, leading the world in many fields including solar cell development
yet less than brilliant politicians who do next to nothing to assist them or
potential Australian financial backers.
We will follow our usual course and sell the technology overseas for a pittance
and buy the finished products back later.
Our government would sooner give money to the already immensely wealthy coal
industry so that they can find ways of selling us even more coal on the pretext
of lowering coal burning emissions.
Now it looks like we have discovered nuclear energy and will be pouring millions
dollars into feasibility studies down that road.
It's one thing to be fiscally responsible but our government must be socially
responsible too and I don't think they have got the balance right.
Will we ever learn ?
It seems to me that science is the process of learning from our mistakes
whereas politics is the process of trying to justify them.