Guest Post by Ruth Bonnett
As early as 1969, writings by Ayn Rand – philosopher and novelist – sounded the alarm bells on the environmentalist movement and the potential impact on our society:
The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They are accepted by default.
– The Anti Industrial Revolution” – Ayn Rand
We are now living with the accepted slogans of “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “Global Climate Disruption” and “Climate Justice”, and the fitting of almost every weather observation into the increasingly broad hypothesis of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Forty years ago, these ideas were considered absurd, but were uncontested by the silent majority.
The Kyoto Protocol has come about due to the restriction of investigation into the cause of ‘climate change’ as human induced.
Ayn Rand described the restriction on technology as omniscience:
To restrict technology would require omniscience – a total knowledge of all the possible effects and consequences of a given development, for all of the potential innovators of the future. Short of such omniscience, restrictions mean an attempt to regulate the unknown, to limit the unborn and to set rules for the undiscovered, and more: an active mind will not function by permission; an inventor will not spend years of struggle dedicated to an excruciating work, if the fate of his work depends not on the criterion of demonstrable truth, but on the arbitrary decision of some authority.
The United Nations, via UNEP and the WMO have attempt to restrict technology by the constructed IPCC objective to ‘prove’ that human produced carbon dioxide is causing global warming. In so doing, the United Nations has demonstrated that they believe themselves to be omniscient – all knowing and all seeing.
I wonder if the IPCC have considered the consequence of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change – to Australian farmers?
Farmers in Australia have borne the significant financial burden of meeting Australia’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol by the enforcement (by Tree Police) of Vegetation Control Legislation which gives us sufficient ‘carbon credits’ to meet those Kyoto ‘targets’.
A recent Senate Enquiry into Native Vegetation Laws, Greenhouse Gas Abatement and Climate Change Measures concluded that:
It is unreasonable that the burden of broad environmental objectives is borne by a small number of Australians. Where the current native vegetation laws have resulted in reduction of property value for landholders, this is unjust and it is inappropriate that this burden is borne by individual landholders. This situation should be addressed to better balance competing objectives, the cost burden of achieving these and to redress the current situation.
I have been lucky enough to meet and befriend some of the people belonging to this unlucky cohort (the ‘small number of Australians’ who bear this enormous financial burden.)
This cohort are the farmers and landholders who have had the value of the holdings reduced by an estimate $10.8 Billion to meet the United Nation’s expectations.
They are the farmers who are eighth generation, who live with and on the land, who give up precious family time to support others, who quietly weep at public meetings, who mourn the suicide of their mates, who live in fear so palpable that they do not dare speak to journalists, for fear of enraging the omniscient, the all powerful, the all seeing, the all knowing, the United Nations.
My Christmas message to farmers in Australia and around the world is this: I don’t intend to allow the recent Senate enquiry here to gather dust. I am an urban dweller who just happens to think that the ‘unsettled’ science and restriction of technology has brought about bad policy by way of the Kyoto Protocol and subsequent disastrous consequences for our farmers, their families and anyone who values sound science, property rights and our democratic freedom.