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.
I live in a jurisdiction with a carbon tax implemented by right-wingers (yes, you read that right – right-wingers) that have racked up massive debt to host the winter Olympics – (they’re being called the “Bailout Games”).
Right now we’re getting pounded by “tropical” weather systems that are dumping warm rain that is melting the snow at one of the Olympic venues.
I’ve been following the media reports generated by the local right-wing-controlled media. There is NO mention of El Nino or La Nina to explain why this winter is so different from the last 2 (which were very cold & snowy by local standards). I mentioned this to a group of folks yesterday and I didn’t see this coming:
I was PROMPTLY scolded for mentioning El Nino.
I asked, “Why didn’t the story even mention El Nino?”
I was told that it isn’t appropriate to mention El Nino anymore.
These people were quite serious. The group’s irritation with me for mentioning El Nino was palpable – you could have cut through the tension in the air.
Don’t try to tell me this issue divides along political party lines and that corporations can solve all of our problems. Regardless of whether left or right – or capitalist or communist – organized corruption will try to hijack any system.
Bear in mind that some of us are just plain neutral politically, seeing all the hyperpartisan political wingnuts for what they are. The real problem isn’t the “other” political wing (that’s just a scapegoat to throw to gullible dullards), but rather: exponentially growing lying coordinated by global elite — ‘left-wing’ lies, ‘right-wing’ lies, ‘capitalist’ lies, ‘socialist’ lies — the liars all work together targeting common people worldwide.
I always laugh out loud when I see goofy attempts to conflate politics with science in these threads. You guys are undermining the nonalarmist movement ….deliberately perhaps – maybe there is a reason so many operate under a handle instead of showing respect for WUWT guidelines.
What is it those who pretend to own the world have in common? . Let’s think it over!
I suspect that much of the support for taking decisive steps to combat anthropogenic climate change among politicians is the desire to be seen by the public as actively working to improve our common environment. Those who indicate skepticism like former governor Palin are roundly dismissed as ignorant slackers who want to ‘fiddle’ while the planet burns.
In the USA, I believe the partisan division on this issue is a product of the strong support and commitment to this cause by the President and the Press.
I have seen one post on this site that claimed the Thatcher government in the UK was initially responsible for setting up the AGW agenda to enhance the international reputation of the Prime Minister.
Ironically, these measures may make Australia warmer, and not only because of the higher fire risk. See e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/new-study-shows-how-local-land-use-changes-can-affect-surface-temperature/
(“Conversion to agriculture results in cooling, while conversion from agriculture generally results in warming.”)
amicus curiae @ur momisugly 06:06:26
A few points…
1) I have nothing but respect for our farmers. They do a spectacular job considering that they’re among the poorest subsidised farmers in the western world.
2) I have nothing against Mr Spencer. I think what happened to him sucks. Same as I think it sucks when a farmer is bankrupted by drought or has his land resumed to build a dam that never actually gets built.
3) The figures I quoted are from the National Farmers Federation website.
Joh4Canberra @ur momisugly 05:42:01
As a general rule I agree with much of what you’ve said. Having said that, given your nic, I’m certain you’re familiar with the political furore behind the land clearing issue. I remember debates on this topic back when we were still worried about global cooling.
The reality is that the roots of this problem lie in an act of a state government 15 years ago – blaming it on the carbon policies of a 26 month old federal government is disingenuous at best and this blog should be above such foolishness.
Hold your fire there hombre. I don’t know if you are a countryman, but here in the US, property rights are taking a thorough beating. The Supreme Ct expanded the power of Eminent Domain, which is nothing short of theft, simply put. Zoning laws, Fed water regulation, creation of wetlands, the Omnibus Land Act – these all are depriving owners and states of the right to use their own land. And that’s just off the top of my head.
And if the brave press corps have done a thorough background check on this poor farmer, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Many of us remember “Joe the Plumber” asking Dem. candidate Barack Obama a question, who responded with his now infamous “redistribute the wealth” comment.
The press took him apart, and found he owed back taxes, etc. etc.
Down through the ages, to the present… many men have considered their land worth dying for.
Rightly or wrongly, history has usually reported it heroically! GK
Amicus Curiae,
Love the passion and the tale you tell is close to the money. For those who need more info on the court proceedings see http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2783
The Peter Spencer story has many facets as does every story. The fundamentals are that his trees/land are no longer his to deal with and the govt did obtain a benefit without compensating him and thousands of others. The stupidity of the whole Native Vegetation Legislation is that the govt took the big stick approach but by offering a carrot could have achieved much better results and kept farmers onside. Many of the practices forced on farmers by these laws are totally anti-environmental and have a negative effect. The govt consulted everyone except the land managers. Greens from Sydney flew in for country meetings with their idealistic solutions to problems identified by third and fourth generation farmers. The greens think trees are the ONLY solution but grass is often far better.
The reality of this story is that this guy is over a million dollars in debt to the bank and family members, he has a history of stunt pulling and a multitude of other personal and financial problems, landclearing is not the reason he’s going to lose his farm again, his poor business skills are. This guy is being made a matyr by many different groups pushing their own agenda. Check some facts first, he is not the would be hero people wish him to be.
Report: Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all ‘conspiracy theorists’ — ‘Ban advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud’
This sounds like the old USSR.
Very COMMUNIST.
Let’s ban debate!
What are they afraid of? Maybe the truth.
Go and have a read of this drivel!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884
So much for Democracy and FREE SPEECH.
Here is an example of public opinion expert Frank Luntz advising politicians, especially Republicans, not to get involved in debating climate change science. He is saying, in effect, that the American People have made up their mind, the do not want to hear any complicated technical arguments — they want to hear what their elected officials tell them how they are going to fix the problem.
“Let’s make the change right now. Let’s not wait!” — [12/14/2009]
Maybe ‘public opinion is settled.’
Well, if he dies, the family gets whatever he has anyway, so I guess that is a way of “escaping debt” by paying off what is left to pay it off when you are gone.
And mental instability, proven mainly by blatent assertion, is scarcely credible when it is applied to the situation described.
Compared with the mental instability of those who created the laws described, this man is a paragon of sanity in the face of government madness.
One part of the story reminds me of a story I heard years ago about a homeowner in CA losing his house to a wildfire because he wasn’t allowed to clear the brush beyond his property line. His neighbor did and saved his own house, but then he got in legal trouble. According to the state, the homeowners in the area were told explicitly before buying the property that they would not be able to clear beyond their property line. If you take that kind of deal in an area with wildfire risk you live with the consequences.
It seems like there are some places in CA where people should just not be allowed to build a residence (or have extremely high insurance premiums if they do), because they’re too dangerous, at least with the restrictions placed on them. I’m recalling the landslides that occurred in one development there several years ago, which demolished a few houses, burying several people alive.
Anyway, some farmers in the U.S. have faced the same sort of land use restriction policies for years now.