Ten months before Hurricane Katrina left much of New Orleans underwater, Queen Elizabeth II had a private conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair about George W. Bush. London’s Observer reported, on October 31, 2004, that the Queen had “made a rare intervention in world politics” by telling Blair of
“her grave concerns over the White House’s stance on global warming.”
As Vanity Fair continued to report in May a year ago (2006), the Queen, and through her Tony Blair, recognised that it wouldn’t matter how much Britain cut its greenhouse gas emissions if other nations didn’t do the same.
The U.S. was the key, not only because it was the world’s largest emitter but because its refusal to reduce emissions led China, India, Brazil, and other large developing countries to ask why they should do so.
And now, a year later, the Queen has made a visit to George Bush herself. GO QUEENIE GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!! SAVE OUR WORLD!
If Mr Bush in the near future suddenly starts to talk about climate change, ask yourself who or what came to the climate table first – the chicken or the egg? the Queen or the President?
What came first, the Queen’s desire to act in the face of global warming or the silly superficial articles about dinner parties by the media?
Ask yourself another chicken and egg question: what came first, Al Gore’s nomination for the Nobel Prize or the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s press release about his electricity consumption that went into newspapers around the world the day after An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar …
or again, ask yourself what came first, the Republican Zoning board refusing to allow Al Gore to put solar panels on his Belle Meade mansion where he runs offices and has a huge staff living and working, or the local electricity board giving the data on Gore’s power use to Neo-con Matt Drudge who scrambled the information that prevented Fox, CNN and the rest from finding out why his electricity use was so high.
What came first, the Nobel Prize nomination or the doubt about Al Gore’s credibility because he’s got a big electricity bill?
What came first, Al Gore using his influence to get suppressed scientific information out to the public, or the scientists researching how man-made CO2 emissions were increasing global warming?
What came first … global warming scepticism or flat earth theory?
What came first … investigative journalism ??? or the Public Relations Press Release?
But getting back to the real question of chicken and eggs … where do you get ’em? In the ultimate permaculture paradise, chooks are central to the plan because they eat scraps and bugs, produce manure, and are a food source themselves. I’m still in the planning stage to build our proposed chook shed but Frances just emailed me a great link to Rentachook which would be particularly good in a small suburban yard.
In our permaculture course today we also looked at water and how to keep as much of it on your land as possible. One way to be able to reuse your grey water is to make sure that it’s not too full of heavy chemicals like Phosphorus. We found out today that, while Phosphorus is usually mentioned on the packaging, the salt content isn’t. Lanfax Laboratories Laundry Research brochure is an excellent resource because it’s tested all washing detergents for their phosphorus AND salt content. You can now make decisions about the detergent that causes the least harm to your environment.
For once my personal actions involved more thinking and planning than doing – I must be getting the swing of the permaculture way of thinking!
I’ve spent some time reading other blogs today too and found this great animation on Envirowoman’s site:
Meanwhile I wait with bated breath to hear more about Elizabeth Regina’s trip to The Bush, and wish oh wish I could be a fly on the wall. On a smaller local scale this little Elizabeth continues to question our local Federal MP on our Governments relative non-action on Global Warming. I rang Mr Bartlett’s office a few weeks ago and did get a letter back this week. I spent today thinking about the letter and this is my response:
Dear Mr Bartlett,
thank you for replying to my phone enquiry.
I will take the time to address each point you have made in your letter:
1. You say that your domestic initiatives are designed to mandate and manage emissions reductions.
According to your party’s own figures released by Mr Turnbull at the end of last week, emissions in the stationary energy sector are up by 42% and transport is up by 30%
UNLESS EMISSIONS IN ENERGY AND TRANSPORT START TO FALL IT MEANS YOUR INITIATIVES AREN’T WORKING
2. You have said that you are promoting the development of clean, renewable, low emission energy sources, as alternatives to fossil fuel dependent technology
WHY THEN DID MR HOWARD SAY, ON THE 23RD APRIL, IN THE SMH
“… this fuzzy warm idea is that if you have a lot more renewables you could run power stations. That is ridiculous.”
WE CURRENTLY HAVE A 2% INCREASE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET WHICH HAS STAYED THE SAME FOR YEARS. WHILE WE DO HAVE 8.5% RENEWABLES, WHY AREN’T WE INCREASING THE AMOUNT MORE THAN 2% GIVEN WHAT WE NOW KNOW ABOUT CARBON EMISSIONS & THE RAPID INCREASE IN THE RATE OF GLOBAL WARMING? THE EU HAS A 21% TARGET, CALIFORNIA HAS A 33% TARGET AND CHINA RECENTLY ANNOUNCED (ABC, MARCH 6, 2007) THAT IT HOPES TO SEE 20% OF ALL CHINA’S ENERGY COME FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES WITHIN 12 YEARS.
Our 2% renewable energy increase target, which has been the same since 2000, is abysmal.
3. You have said that International initiatives are designed to demonstrate responsible global citizenship by meeting international targets
At Kyoto we were one of only three countries given an increase in targets – an actual 8% increase on 1990 levels and, according to your party’s figures from the Greenhouse Inventory WE ARE PROJECTED TO BE OVER THAT TARGET
GOOD GLOBAL CITIZENS WORK TOGETHER AND JOIN GLOBAL AGREEMENTS. THEY DO NOT ACTIVELY WORK TO UNDERMINE THEM. WE CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE 2ND COMMITMENT PERIOD UNDER KYOTO IF WE HAVEN’T RATIFIED NOW.
4. You have said that your international initiatives are designed to assist developing nations with emissions reduction technology
India emits 1.1 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person. China puts out 3.5 tonnes. Both are less than the global average of 4.2 tonnes. The comparable figures for the UK and America are 9.6 and 20.2 tonnes respectively. And Australia is the world’s highest emitter!
Last year the Indian president, Abdul Kalam, a former scientist, called for 25% of power generation to come from renewable sources by 2030.
The country, which started its renewables ministry a decade ago, is building the worldâ€™s biggest wind farm site, with 500 turbines outside Mumbai. The farm will have a capacity of 1,000MW.
â€œWe are helping to make India one of only four countries in the world that can manufacture and export such technologies,â€ said Tulsi Tanti, founder and managing director of Suzlon, which is building the wind farm.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last month reported that global warming was â€œunequivocalâ€ and caused by human activity, said:
â€œ… we cannot ask developing countries like India and China to bear all of this burden. Both have a point when they say that all the carbon dioxide was emitted in the process of the west becoming industrialised especially by the United States,â€ Dr Pachauri said. â€œIndia and China will argue that this is not a problem created by themselves.â€
IT SEEMS THAT INDIA AND CHINA WILL BE THE ONES HELPING US WITH EMISSIONS REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY
5. You have said that your international initiatives are designed to promote a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol which will be more effective, by including all major emitters
BY SAYING THIS YOU ARE, IN EFFECT, ADMITTING THAT TO BE EFFECTIVE AN AGREEMENT SHOULD INCLUDE ALL EMITTERS … WHY HAS AUSTRALIA, AN EMITTER, REFUSED TO JOIN KYOTO WHICH WOULD THUS ALLOW IT TO BECOME MORE EFFECTIVE?
The Australia Pacific Pact (AP6), which your government supports instead of Kyoto is only voluntary, not legally binding like the Kyoto Agreement. It obviously has its own agenda, being made up as it is of the world’s largest importers and exporters of coal.
KYOTO TOOK 6-7 YEARS TO NEGOTIATE. IT HAS CONSECUTIVE COMMITMENT PERIODS WHICH ALLOWS IT TO BE DEVELOPED OVER TIME. IT IS AN EXISTING LEGALLY BINDING FRAMEWORK THAT ALL THE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD HAVE WORKED ON.
WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AGAIN. WE HAVE 8 YEARS TO THE TIPPING POINT AND NEED TO ACT WITH THE AGREEMENT CURRENTLY IN PLACE.
6. Finally you comment that international initiatives in particular are extremely important because Australia only contributes 1.4% of global emissions.
FRANCE AND ITALY COMBINED HAVE THE SAME TOTAL EMISSIONS AS AUSTRALIA …. HOW MANY OTHER COUNTRIES DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OPT OUT OF ACTION LIKE AUSTRALIA IS DOING AND HOW WILL YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN
please tell Mr Howard that these initiatives are simply not enough …. unless energy and transport emissions fall your initiatives are ineffective
our children require more of your government than this,