Wholesale theft in the name of carbon
By Jo Nova
Imagine a third world nation was mired in corruption so deeply that the ruling class were able to stealthily steal the rights to vast acreage of private property from landowners without paying any compensation.
Imagine that one of the victims of this injustice had approached every court of the land and had not even had his case heard, even after more than 200 attempts. In desperation, and with no other avenue available, having officially “lost the farm”, he starts a hunger strike, which has now gone for 28 days unbroken, threatening to starve to death if he has to.
Welcome to Australia — right on track for Third World Status.
Get ready to be shocked. This is an moving example of why “policy by accident” is a dangerous way to govern. In this case, innocuous feel-good laws end up crushing upstanding citizens. Peter Spencer is still alive (though he may only have 12 – 20 days to go) but how many other farming men were put through the environmental-ringer, and drowned themselves in brandy, picked up a gun, or crashed the car into the only tree near the road? None of these deaths would be recorded as victims of bureaucracy.
Peter Spencer bought a farm south of Canberra in the early 1980’s. In the mid 1990’s new laws rolled into action that prevented land clearing. That meant, even though the land belonged to him, Peter could no longer clear the regrowth. Eighty percent of what he paid for was effectively confiscated. He received nothing in return and there was no way out. He couldn’t sell the property — who would buy a piece of land they have no right to use?
But Peter still had a mortgage to pay, and no way of earning the money to do it. Recently, his last legal avenue was exhausted, and the sherriff gained a warrant to take the farm off him. That was the final straw…
Peter Spencer has issued the Prime Minister of Australia with a letter of his demands. He wants a Royal Commission and compensation for all the farmers who have lost the right to use their land.
Compensation would cost billions. But Kevin Rudd’s “stimulus package” (spend-for-the-sake-of-spending), was 42 billion dollars big.
This is what happens when big government gets your money. It gives a “free” handout of $950 per tax-payer to randomly “stimulate the economy”, and uses the rest to build school halls, even in schools which already had a hall, or in schools which desperately needed a library.
…
Spencer points out that the land-grab by the Australian Government meant the nation met it’s Kyoto commitments, a target that would otherwise have been blown away. The carbon stored in confiscated land amounts to about $10.7 billion in carbon credits. Probably the total value lost (with interest) from the productive use of that land would be many times higher.
Read the rest of this tragic story here at Jo Nova’s website.
=============================
Here’s the most important question: How does the Australian Government account for sequestered carbon when much of this land is prone to bushfires? Do they reset their Kyoto carbon sequestration tally for that land back to zero when all that carbon goes back into the atmosphere?
I’m reminded of this story, also from Australia, where even clearing land to save your home from imminent fire is met with fines and legal issues by the government:
“We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down…”
The whole carbon scheme is insane.
NOTE: I’ve made a change to the title, based on some commenters objection to the use of the word “retarded”. While some saw it in the context of “mental retardation”, that was not my intent. I was thinking of the use of the word in the context of retarding enterprise and freedom. They have certainly “retarded” the ability of people to use their land. I’ve changed the word to “restrictive”. I apologize if this offended anyone. It was a poor word to use. – Anthony
UPDATE: News just in this evening via WUWT commenter “helvio”: ABC Australia says the Mr. Spencer has ended the hunger strike. Details here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It seems to me that E.M. Smith’s idea that
“Every Government “Gift” begins with a forced “Theft” ”
(http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/dems-delusional-quest-for-historic-grandure-tantaros/)
is pertinent too
@ur momisugly jlc (11:50:46) : Thank you for that.
Jerry Haney (10:32:29) :
If this happened to me, I would make full use of my Second Amendment rights, long before I starved myself to death.
Do they have a “Second Amendment” in Australia? Maybe the absence thereof is why they were able to pass the draconian firearms laws in Australia. Disarm the population first before passing abhorrent laws. Can’t say it’s any different here in Canada but at least we can still have auto loading rifles so far. I am not paranoid and not especially right wing but there is an elitist segment in humanity that regards itself as anointed with wisdom and a cut above the bovine masses. this is the scary part. Those anointed ones have no problem with sacrificing an individual for what they deem is the good of humanity. It was ever so and always will be.
Peter Spencer has been on his hunger strike for now just over 50 days.
Excellent short article in Quadrant that explains the background.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/peter-spencer
Please read it.
Simply put the situation is:
1) Aust to meet it’s Kyoto targets locked up farmland as carbon sinks
2) If the Commonweath (Federal) govt did this then according to the Aust constitution, compensation for the “lock up” would have to be on “just terms”.
3) Instead, the commonwealth under a “heritage act” gave large funding to the State govts.
4) The state govt then compulsarily locked up the farmland, essentially at the behest of the commonwealth.
5) The state govt are not constitutionally required to pay compensation.
So the Federal govt gets the land locked up to meet Kyoto and doesn’t have to pay compensation. Essentially, communism by stealth.
In addition, just over a week ago on Mon 4th Jan there was a large protest in Canberra of people supporting Peter who also went to his property later in the day. Many were intending to travel in chartered coaches (buses) from around New South Wales. This plan was scuttled about 2 days before the event with allegations that Transport inspectors (who work for the NSW govt) were going to target the coaches and detain them at weighbridges and Transport inspection stations that all heavy vehicles need to call into when traveling in NSW to check either loads or log books. Because of this concern that the NSW govt was going to disrupt the travel intentions of many going to the protest, all people went to the protest in private vehicles.
We live in sad days. Although I think that Rudd is naive in regards to Carbon trading and foolish in regard to AGW, the issue that has affected Peter Spencer has resulted from numerous Federal Govts, not just Rudds.
All Peter Spencer is requesting is a meeting with Rudd, however, all Rudd wants is photo opportunities with school children to flog off the children’s book he has written about the tale of his dog and cat (I kid you not). The guy is a clown.
OT somewhat
Seems the spam filter might not like any mention of the N-scam.
More correctness at
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26583399-954,00.html
“The B*aver magazine in Canada renamed to end porn filter mix-up” –
and looks like here too!
The US EPA has been prohibiting property owners from using any portion of their land if designated “wetlands” for a number of years now. A friend of mine in Illinois has a four acre section of his 10 acre property under restriction for any changes because of this regulation. The only relief I’m aware of was in Oregon, where a couple of years courts ordered the state to compensate property owners for such “takings.”
bob (11:01:30) : and TH (11:41:53) :
As to the use of the word “retarded” … the moment we start apologizing for using a legitimate word every time someone is “offended” our lexicon would be reduced by 20-25% … and that would be retarded!
I emailed the Prime Minister Just now. Everyone here should do the same.
You can reach him via email here: http://pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/Email_your_PM
Here is the text of my email.
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Prime Minister Rudd,
Please let me introduce myself, I am a businessman in Santa Clara County California, in the great United States of America. I am writing to implore you to put a stop to the hunger strike being staged by your citizen Peter Spencer. From my limited understanding of your laws it appears to be within your power to grant him as well as other farmers, who are experiencing financial distress as a result of current environmental/green house laws, a full hearing and perhaps a little redress for apparent discriminatory treatment under laws enacted in a poorly thought out manner. Surely as a result of this little publicized incident you must be having second thoughts about the current state of your country’s treatment of land owners. I would point out that, should Mr. Spencer actually die, the publicity will most likely be fuller than it has been to date. It is certainly not too late for a rethinking of current policy concerning this whole global warming/carbon sequestration issue. As you must certainly have heard, there is much evidence coming to light that Global Warming is just a natural process the world is experiencing that may currently be in the process of reversing itself for a few years or more. It would be a real shame for your country and mine to do harm to such a vitally important part of our economies such as farming, over potentially faulty and possibly politically influenced science. As you know my country is debating the enactment of laws similar to your own and the public is becoming skeptical of the wisdom this type of taxation in the face of mounting evidence that atmospheric CO2 is not the cause of past warming. Now would be an opportune time for a person of your authority and stature to call for a complete reassessment of the seemingly universal wisdom that governments need to be involved in any attempt to affect the climate of our world. The plight of Peter Spencer and others in your vitally important farming communities would be a very popular and easily publicized reason to open a discussion on the possibility of governmental retreat from current policy. Should you opt to do this I feel that you would be a very popular leader with the world wide public. Although I am not Australian, there is increasingly a sense that we are all citizens of the world and as such I implore you to come to the rescue of Peter Spencer and the rest of us. I fear that time is short.
Respectfully,
William H Strouss
Businessman and fellow citizen
“It’s really an Anti-Eco Agenda: Anti Economy. They intend to break the populations and cast them back into the Dark Ages. That’s what Cap & Trade would do, but they have many other Tools in the Box of Horrors.
To us, a tool is something we use to get work done.
To them, a tool is something used to operate on the masses to turn them into beasts of burden. Welcome to the new Age of Socialism. They have the greater rights, we have only the right to be used by them.”
Hey common, I’m sure it’s all one gigantic coincidence. If there was a plan to create a world totalitarian regime, than there would have to be a world bank, some kind of global bureaucracy(UN), global treaties, global currency, global army, global tax. It’s not like any of these goals are being attempted.
TrevorG (13:26:09) said :
“So the Federal govt gets the land locked up to meet Kyoto and doesn’t have to pay compensation. ”
Clearly that is what happened although I recall that the animosity that existed at the time between the Liberal (Conservative) Federal government and the Labor State governments did not help the situation, I believe that Howard was trying to force the States to assist in meeting Kyoto targets as the Federal Govt had no legislative power in that area and of course the state Labor governments were aggressively resisting and so implemented policies that they knew would impact a traditional support base for the Federal government. Still doesn’t explain why Rudd is so naive in regards to carbon trading, etc, but you have already pointed that out.
In another area we still have not learned our lesson in Australia with regard to bushfire. I have a (small) rural property in a bushfire rated area, I have controls over what reduction of vegetation I can do and cannot easily arrange for controlled burning to reduce fuel for wildfires, fortunately for me we were burnt out in the early 2000’s and I have maintained a policy of ensuring the resultant regrowth is not fire prone by keeping firebreaks clear and ensuring that the regrowth was of fire resistant species, and clearing fuel level through other means. Of course I cannot control the boundary I have with a State Forest plantation which currently looks prone to fire, but my firebreak on that boundary is much bigger and planted with fire resistant species.
This activity all costs me money or time, but I think it is worth it to ensure that my environment is managed. I suppose some local authority “Sustainability Officer” would find fault with this, but so far they have kept clear and seem to be mainly worried about other areas in the shire where erosion and soil loss has caused problems in some regrowth areas. They see me as actively managing my property in this regard and so have left me alone as a result.
“tony thomas (12:21:57) :
AGW is barely involved.
The stress has apparently got to Peter and irrational things are going on.
Antony Watts, this post and comments are making your excellent blog ridiculous. Call a halt before everyone beclowns themselves.”
Exactly my point. Anthony’s been on something of a feeding frenzy since ClimateGate and his judgment is starting to falter. There’s enough convenient hype on the warming side of the argument without needing to erode our credibility to match.
I would scrub this story altogether and make sure each punch is a body blow.
Here are the main points we need to question.
1. The Earth has warmed, and will continue to warm.
2. Sea levels have risen and will rise more.
3. Glaciers have melted and will continue to melt further.
4. Ice caps are receding and will continue to recede.
5. The concentration of C02 in the atmosphere is increasing.
6. An increase in atmospheric CO2 is related to temperature rise.
7. Reducing C02 emissions will significantly negate a warming trend.
8. We can reduce C02 emissions while increasing population growth.
9. We can reduce CO2 emissions while industrializing the third world.
10. We can reduce CO2 emissions while improving our living standards.
12. We can afford to reduce CO2 emissions.
13. There is no other factor, such as the sun, which could cause climate change.
14. Bad things are happening right now because of climate change.
15. We must act within x years or it’s irreversible.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
Remember that this is about more than just land — it’s about all material things which a person can own, whether it be land, a car, or your baby’s diapers. When the government can tell you what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, you are no longer free, but the property of the State.
Anthony, I really enjoy your site, but you just made a mistake – in changing the title. As you said, the use of the ‘retarded’ word in the context of retarding enterprise and freedom is PERFECTLY valid! What you’ve done is to change the word simply because it can be used in a different context – yet you have just stated in what context you were using it, so it was okay! I must admit, I’m very disappointed. The UK has gone ‘politically-correct’ crazy – and I do mean crazy, like you wouldn’t believe. I didn’t think the US was just as afflicted. Shame, great shame. The English language is rich, diverse, and wonderful. Yet it’s being changed because some cannot see that it’s illogical to change a word when it conveys what you want to say. The word was created for a purpose of definition. Sometimes I really despair that people cannot see things logically.
REPLY: My decision was mostly about time management. I could spend hours defending the use of the word, and the argument would simply grow as more people saw it. It would be a huge waste of my time. Better to pick a useful battle. – A
John Hooper (13:56:28) :
Exactly my point. Anthony’s been on something of a feeding frenzy since ClimateGate and his judgment is starting to falter. There’s enough convenient hype on the warming side of the argument without needing to erode our credibility to match.
I would scrub this story altogether…
You would delete the files? Hide the decline?
John Hooper (13:56:28),
Here, let me fix your post:
Yes. In your case, failure is an option.
Yes, Peter Spencer clearly has other issues including a family dispute about money owing and whether or not he should have have sold his property at the price that was offered to him.
But none of that changes the basic point about the ways the Federal Government and the various state governments colluded to deprive landowners of the right to use their land without adequate compensation. The issue here is not Peter Spencer’s personal plight (as sad as that is) but rather the effect of laws against land clearing brought about by an act of collusion (supporters would no doubt call it an example of multilateral and bipartisan “agreement”) between the Federal Government and the several states. This was an issue long before Peter Spencer’s protest hit the media and the blogosphere. Over the years ABC’s “Landline” program has run several stories on the effect of these land clearing laws but most urbanites and suburbanites didn’t really get the message at the time. And it’s not just farming activity that is affected by these laws. As we have seen (and this is something I personally have been affected by) these laws make it virtually impossible to reduce a bushfire hazard.
As a matter of law these are state laws and they are not technically laws of “expropriation”. They are laws limiting land use. Now of course the argument can be put (and I would agree with it) that restrictions on land use can become so great that they are *de facto* acts of expropriation and should be subject to compensation on just terms.
Now the point about these laws coming in in the Howard years and Kyoto not being ratified until the Lu Kewen dynasty also misses the point. These laws were agreed upon by an act of collusion between the federal government under Howard’s watch and all the states in order to meet Australia’s Kyoto targets.
Yes, Australia (quite sensibly) refused to ratify Kyoto Under Howard and (quite stupidly) ratified under the Ruddbot but merely focusing on “ratification” of the Kyoto Protocol misses the point. “Ratification” or not, Australia took part in the Kyoto negotiations and was determined to meet its negotiated target for greenhouse gas emissions (108% of 1990 baseline targets with a specially negotiated “Australia clause” in Art 3(7) of the protocol to include reductions in land clearing from 1990 levels in our “emissions” figures).
The significance of “ratifying” the Kyoto Protocol is whether it takes effect as a *legally binding obligation* under public international law (1) at all and (2) (assuming [1]) for a specific country that ratifies it. Under (1), if fewer than 55 “Annex I” countries had ratified the protocol then it would never enter into force to begin with (i.e. it would be of no legal effect — even for those countries which had ratified it). Under (2), assuming 55 or more “Annex I” countries had ratified it and the treaty had entered into force, as a matter of international law it would still only be binding (subject to monitoring and in the case of a breach possible sanctions) on those countries that had ratified it.
Australia didn’t *ratify* under Howard but it was a party to the treaty negotiations, fought hard for some concessions and intended to meet its negotiated Kyoto targets with or without ratification. Non-ratification simply meant that Australia wasn’t *legally* bound by the treaty but as I already said Australia under Howard was still committed to meeting its Kyoto target “emissions” figure.
Art 3(7) of the Kyoto protocol is often derisively referred to as “the Australia clause” by hard-core greenies since on their view Australia unfairly benefited from it. In actual fact without the insistence of the Australian negotiators Art 3(7) probably would never had made it into final treaty text. Art 3(7) (for which Australia fought hard to be in the treaty) allowed countries which had a high rate of land clearing in 1990 (eg Australia) to use reductions in land clearing in their Kyoto “emissions” figures. In light of Australia’s dependence on coal for electricity generation and jobs (as well as for export) and its growing population and energy needs Art 3(7) was a relatively “painless” way for Australia to meet its Kyoto target emissions. Placing limits on land clearing (which mainly effects farmers) is a lot easier to achieve politically than taking on the CFMEU, coal companies and urban/suburban voters who like the idea of relatively cheap electricity, etc. And constitutionally it arguably lacked the power to enact such laws anyway (especially in the absence of a ratification of the Kyoto protocol).
Under Howard’s watch the Feds and the states got together, with the states “agreeing” to enact laws limiting land clearing in order to meet Australia’s Kyoto emissions target. The fact that we didn’t “ratify” the treaty until Rudd came along doesn’t change a thing. These laws were designed to help Australia achieve its Australia’s Kyoto target — ratification or not.
Well said Smokey but:
1. The earth has warmed when compared to a cooler period in its history and has cooled when compared to a warmer period in that same history.
The rest can be just as easily side stepped. I suggest John take up reading Roger Peilke Sr’s site weekly rather than Gavin’s version of Climate Entertainment Tonight.
re: John Hooper (13:56:28) :
Sorry John, I cannot agree with you here.
This is Anthony’s blog and he can run it how he likes. If any of us don’t like what he posts we can either ignore, comment or not visit.
Looking back over the last couple of years, by far the majority of posts are scientific in nature, but you have to acknowledge that AGW and it’s presentation to the sheeple by the MSM is 90% political and 10% science. Previous posts such as about Hansen supporting protesters in the UK or the “dumb as” roulette wheel by the clowns at MIT are political or humorous and not scientific. The whole issue is political. I am not concerned about Anthony’s balance here. This story is major in Australia and making people aware of the potential impacts of AGW policies.
Good on Anthony for posting it as it will raise international awareness of this travesty.
Near where I live, there are piles of dead forest. The reasons for the piles is because the landowners knew of the changes coming down the line. So they cleared all the land before the law came into effect. So, instead of the last 10 years of native forests, supporting all types of biodiversity (and soaking up carbon, if that’s your thing), we’ve had 10 years of rotting logs and weedy grassland. Note that the landowners don’t use the land for anything (obviously not farmers) they just knew it would be worthless with a forest on it, so down goes the forest. That’s the law of unintended consequences. Measures taken to protect the forest can often have the reverse effect.
Today, Wednesday January 13th in Australia, marks 52 days of the hunger strike (not 28 as suggested by Jo).
That is a long time without any food.
Also, more detail including the specifics of Peter’s circumstances here:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/hunger-strike-up-a-wind-mast-is-an-act-of-tragedies-20100108-lyrc.html
REPLY: Thanks Jen, home from walkabout I see. – Anthony
John Hooper and a few others have missed the point here. By not allowing the guy to clear and use his property the gov. has devalued it. If those who loaned Mr. Spencer money take the land to reclaim his debt to them, Mr. Spencer will have lost his land and principal, will have no money to buy any other farm, will not be able to feed himself and his family. The government has taken his land without compensation for ostensibly “green” reasons. That is the whole story, and the junk Hooper has thrown into the mix only obscures the core point. Mr. Spencer is in a catch 22 which has no resolution at this point that would restore his ability to support himself. Very sad indeed!
Stephan (12:54:11) :
regulated and governed to death, but no way overrated. If you want bad service, mate, try American hotels and airlines, they are the worst! People who run them need to go to Asia once in a while to find out what service really means.
Simon from Sydney (12:49:17) :
I read your summerization and this is the part that upsets me:
“The Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NSW) requires that before any clearing of native vegetation takes place, the landowner must obtain a development consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (“EPA”), much like you need a development consent to build an extension to your house. Mr Spencer applied for consent to clear 1402 hectares at his property, but was refused. The letter refusing consent said that Mr Spencer may qualify for the Farmer Exit Assistance, which is a scheme to allow farmers to sell their properties to the Nature Conservation Trust, if there was hardship as a result of the decision. Under such scheme, an an independent valuation of the property would be obtained, and the property purchased at that price.”
It seems the government has set up a system where you are required to get government consent and when that consent is denied the government will now take the property off your hands. It doesn’t matter whether the price is just or not. It matters that, with schemes like this, the government can take your land simply by denying consent and therefore making the land unsellable on the open market so that you have no recourse but to sell it to them or go broke. Nice scheme to take whatever they want whenever they want for whatever reason they decide.