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.
“Soil Erosion caused by inability to clear regrowth”
I don’t understand why clearing regrowth would prevent soil erosion.
Pamela Gray said:
Were subsidies to be lifted I would be able to farm as I see fit, and price as I see fit. You would not find me whining one bit, but the folks at the check-out counter would be crying all the way home. There would be no money left over for buying wants anymore.
——————————————————————————–
Not in Australia, Pamela. Most of our farm produce is exported.
Farmers selling into local markets typically get a price which is less than 50%, usually more like 25%, of the retail price. The largest cost components are off farm. But, your line is one that is frequently mined by rent seekers in the agricultural sector.
LazyTeenager says:
December 28, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Ruth Bonnet the urbanite Ayn Rand junkie reckons that:
————
Soil erosion is caused by the inability to clear regrowth.
————
Hmmm. So growing plants cause the land to be clear of plants???????
——————————————-
LazyTeenager. Ever been to the outback digger?
From the Australian Labor Party!
http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/more—policies/carbon-farming-initiative/
Lucrative? For those with connections to organized crime and/or the governments handing out the credits, sure. [Sorry, but there is still a (technical?) distinction between the two.]
Heh. “Lucrative” trading in credits for “filthy” carbon. Filthy lucre indeed.
Note: That wasn’t me, it was Labor on their website that left out the space between “new” and “Carbon.” Really gives you confidence in how well they’ll manage their carbon
dioxidemanagement scheme.[PS: I hope that link (attempted in two places) comes through with those two dashes in the address. Come on WordPress, don’t screw up both instances…]
“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.” Ayn Rand
That say’s it all does’nt it?
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule” HL Mencken
So true
Hide the Decline has nailed it with the links! For more informed commentary from bloggers here, you need to peruse those links.
Pine forest country in Australia, has massive soil errosion. The trees themselves all but halt grasses growth.
The root system of the pine trees, coupled with less sunlight through some extremely thick areas prevents grasses from establishing, much less spreading.
Where country has been selectively cleared, pasture improvement (native and non native species) there is rapid growth, with robust plants holding the soil intact, and most certainly the reduction of soil erosion is evident.
This is not to say that timber lines, shade belts, wind breaks are not left – they are.
Where landowners are permitted on their own land – that they paid for – to manage portions of their property, there is huge success in erosion, massive biodiversity.
Where the government has taken away farmers private property rights, and implemented legislation – the government has killed the bio- diversity, and caused much damage by erosion.
I know – thats my properties picture up there!
[Snip – Victim of the PC brigade. ~ Evan]
This thing called agrarian socialism is a nonsense, all Industries fight for themselves. Every Industry looks for rent seeking of some sort. Each and everyone is looking for angles.
On standard of living issues, it’s just people standing up for some kind of standard of living equality in Australia, not agrarian socialism. Don’t confuse diesel rebate with drought subsidy. I consider diesel or fuel rebate probably fair. It is cost of input issue and real life issue. More than just landowners at play, lot of people. With heave reliance on transport and no npublic transport to mention. Life line issue.
Don’t compare rich cockies with brand new Toyoter taxis, with a lot of Industry just breaking even, on the average 5 years.
The people I met who were not getting Drought assistance were the best in the business going round. The other’s practices for what ever reasons and they are many not so good. Everyone has a pet peeve, when it comes down to income support.
I never did have a sufficient answer on drought assistance and some heavy weights asked me to consider. As for farm gate inequity, yer that exists. No matter how the super market chains play the farm angle in their cozy sales messages. An apple at 3 cents sold for 25 cents. Hmmm don’t take Albert Walkerstein to strain his brain, somethings wrong sonyer.
I used to make decisions on Drought assistance. It’s a bit more complicated than elite arguments on socialism and capitalism. Try 10 years of drought when the only input that matters water, just is not there. That is why they use drought in every Carbon con message.
So put down the daggers ladies. Before you have unintended consequences. We are a long way from a debate on the great Carbon con, or fight if yer like, [snip]
Me I am just looking at a Ponzi pyramid con.
LOL. Ayn Rand is to philosophy as Bill McKibben is to science.
Nice try, though.
Perhaps the Labor goverment could spread the pain of Kyoto more evenly throughout the general community by banning every third unionist from driving their cars, heating their houses or cooking their food.
@Lazy Teenager – I visited a cattle station – in areas where the regrowth had been left undisturbed, the regrowth eventually grows into trees, which block the sunlight and eventually kill the grass on the ground around the grown-up regrowth. Grass has a special fine root system which holds soil in place. Once the grass dies, the soil is free to flow whenever the rains come down. Soil erosion can be a serious problem, and from what I have seen with my own eyes, soil erosion can be caused by Vegetation Control Legislation which restricts a farmer from clearing regrowth.
Perhaps you could read the submissions made to the Senate Enquiry. Hundreds of farmers responded to the Enqiry.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/climate_change/submissions.htm
LazyTeenager said on December 28, 2010 at 5:40 pm:
Wow, with reading comprehension skills like that you’ll be sure to ace your SAT’s.
Haven’t you learned enough yet about the potential connections between agriculture and soil erosion? Here, consider this a primer, courtesy of Wikipedia.
—————
From Jeff Alberts on December 28, 2010 at 7:52 pm:
Depends on what regrew. There are many agricultural techniques to fight erosion, like land contouring and the planting of winter crops instead of leaving the land bare after the fall harvest. The regulations mentioned in the article, on paper, are to protect “Native Vegetation,” see here: Native Vegetation Council of South Australia.
“Native vegetation” may be a less-effective soil retainer compared to other available plant life. After harvest on cultivated land, you’d need something that grows and establishes a dense root system quickly, before the cold weather sets in. For plant life that can be there all year, on ground surrounding cultivated areas and elsewhere, other plants than “native vegetation” may be more suitable. Both cases may involve clearing away “native vegetation,” which could be regrowth on previously-cleared ground. Land contouring may definitely involve the clearing away of “native vegetation” that may or may not be regrowth, and may or may not involve land that was previously cleared.
I hope this explains how not clearing regrowth can possibly be a problem, even though what I mentioned may not exactly be what’s complained about above.
Note: I’m using quote marks for “native vegetation” to allow for expected eco-silliness involving species that did not evolve there (aren’t truly native) but somehow ended up in Australia, might have been declared different enough to be classified a unique Australian species (even when shown to be genetically identically to one native to somewhere else), and otherwise wound up being declared “native” in a logic-defying spate of “naturalist” “bio-diversity” nuttiness.
The “green” laws in AU were directly responsible for 173 deaths in February 2009 during the infamous Black Saturday fires. Landowners were prevented from clearing brush around their properties, fueling the disastrous fires. Some recommended reading:
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/02/08/fuelish-in-the-land-of-oz/
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/02/11/black-saturday-the-sequel/
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/02/11/environmental-policies-kill-again/
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/02/11/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths/
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/02/11/prescribed-fire-hampered-by-aussie-greens/
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/02/12/time-to-heed-the-warnings/
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/02/13/policy-critics-predicted-inevitable-mega-fires/
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/02/23/a-mournful-day/
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/02/27/victoria-bushfires-stoked-by-green-vote/
johanna says:
December 28, 2010 at 5:47 pm
While I agree that farmers in Australia have been unfairly targeted by environmental legislation written by people who don’t know what they are talking about, the Ayn Rand approach would not be supported by the vast majority of them. Australian farmers have been advocates of agrarian socialism for more than 100 years – recipients of government largesse in many forms. Drought assistance, flood assistance, tax breaks, subsidies, publicly funded R&D, services (such as telecommunications, health and education) provided free or below cost and cross subsidised by city people, etc, etc.
As a PP said, they and their lobbyists are experts at playing both sides of the fence. They have always tried to capitalise their profits and socialise their losses. From what I hear, farmers in other parts of the world are not spotlessly pure in this regard either.
So, I do think the ‘get your thieving hands off my property’ crowd are being disingenuous, and if the cross subsidies and benefits were withdrawn the squeals from the broader farming community would be heard in the Antarctic.
The very reasonable complaints about the legislative burdens imposed by ideology driven ignoramuses would get a much more sympathetic hearing from the wider (and more numerous) community outside the agricultural sector if some advocates did not wrap it up in another form of extremism.
—————————————————————————————I am sorry, but where the hell do you get those ideas from?
Is it extreme to have your family told they will be burnt out in the middle of the night? Is it extreme to have helicopter fly over your children on horses, only to have your child dragged through a rocky creek side?
Is it extreme to be threatened by government employees that wield legislation as weapons at your family?
Oh, by the way – its all documented and eye witnesses!
I am one of the “Get your hands off my property” and never ever, received help! I am “screaming” for humanitarian rights – how about you?
I note that you tend to acknowledge a problem with the legislation, thats nice.
Further though Australia is in such a mess in needs to keep its money at home and look after Australians, then when it is in a much stronger financial position to maintain financial assistance abroad, then that is what should be done.
If that means helping to correct legislation, or subsidise business then that is what should be done to protect Australia’s interests first – till they become self sufficient again.
Kyoto means loss of rights – a bit like a “welcome to the party for total control of private property”.
Ayn Rand is part of the problem, not part of the solution. To see psuedo-intellectualism given such a prominent spot is unfortunate. Bury her in a dollar bill and move on, it is clear where her real concerns lie. Science can answer the absurdities that her position entails, but I’ll quote the Bible to show how long her position has been held in contempt, and in what company those who contempt it are.
Matthew 6:24
@Dave F: Ayn Rand used the dollar symbol as a ‘logo’ not for the love of money, but for the love of a free and unfettered market. I agree that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, but money in and of itself is not evil. An fair and honest profit should be the result of an unhindered free market economy. I cite the case of the GFC, the direct result of too much Government interference in the banking business. Over to you. And thank you I had to pick up my Bible again just to find the Chapter and Verse.
Mike D. says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:36 pm
The “green” laws in AU were directly responsible for 173 deaths in February 2009 during the infamous Black Saturday fires. Landowners were prevented from clearing brush around their properties, fueling the disastrous fires …
————————————————————————-
Using people tragically killed in bushfires as pawns in this kind of discussion is pretty low. And, it is absurd to suggest that the laws were the only factor (although they didn’t help matters). Devastating bushfires have killed large numbers of people long before the laws came into effect. As someone who witnessed the 2005 fires near Canberra, I can assure you that a 30m high firestorm driven by hot winds leaps across cleared country in seconds.
Fighting Spirit said:
I am one of the “Get your hands off my property” and never ever, received help! I am “screaming” for humanitarian rights – how about you?
I note that you tend to acknowledge a problem with the legislation, thats nice.
Further though Australia is in such a mess in needs to keep its money at home and look after Australians, then when it is in a much stronger financial position to maintain financial assistance abroad, then that is what should be done.
If that means helping to correct legislation, or subsidise business then that is what should be done to protect Australia’s interests first – till they become self sufficient again.
——————————————————————————
Yep, get your hands off my property and subsidise business – that’s good old Aussie agrarian socialism in a nutshell. Oh, and we have never been ‘self sufficient’, and a good thing too – our standard of living would be much lower than it is now. I think you will find that rural exporters would be aghast at the idea of closing the borders. Or, do you expect other countries to accept our goods while we refuse to buy theirs?
I suggest we try to stick to the logic of the discussion – that AGW has been an excuse for all sorts of stupid and oppressive legislation. People in cities have also been forced to build houses a particular way, pay higher power prices etc because of this nonsense. Surely, that is the issue here.
Your right Johanna. wtf would i know… you’d make a good bureaucrat, can manipulate anything.
I wrote,
“I am one of the “Get your hands off my property” and never ever, received help! I am “screaming” for humanitarian rights – how about you?
I note that you tend to acknowledge a problem with the legislation, thats nice.
Further though Australia is in such a mess in needs to keep its money at home and look after Australians, then when it is in a much stronger financial position to maintain financial assistance abroad, then that is what should be done.
If that means helping to correct legislation, or subsidise business then that is what should be done to protect Australia’s interests first – till they become self sufficient again.
Kyoto means loss of rights – a bit like a “welcome to the party for total control of private property”.”
Yes “till they become self sufficient” – meaning the individual business’s – you know, recover from drought, floods fire – GFC . And change legislation eg Native Vegetation and give back property rights!
Um, who said anything about stopping import exports????
Do you mean this that I wrote,
“Further though Australia is in such a mess in needs to keep its money at home and look after Australians, then when it is in a much stronger financial position to maintain financial assistance abroad, then that is what should be done.
If that means helping to correct legislation, or subsidise business then that is what should be done to protect Australia’s interests first – till they become self sufficient again.
Kyoto means loss of rights – a bit like a “welcome to the party for total control of private property”.”
Let see..”stronger financial position to maintain financial assistance abroad, then that is what should be done.” you know, like giving millions to oh i dont know, Indonesia to develop their cattle industry? OR aid in general? But nothing about imports exports???!!!!
Is it just AGW you see as the problem, or is it a totally green driven bureaucracy – a green agenda out of control – but yet so much control over our law and lawmakers bow down to them that started many many decades ago, before AGW become “fashionable” ?
Mike D – spot on you are right re bush fires – oh, Native Veg laws, (Sorry Johanna- sticking to the article – do you like my pictures?)
well hell, now hows the govt gunna charge mother nature for clearing all the native plants in the floods were having right now?
tsk tsk, no one they can rip off it seems, …yet!
some CSIRO goon was on ABC radio in a sound bite saying that we will now have maybe? a decade of cold and wet but thats still due to warming dontcha know..
and to the above who think our farmers are subsidised?
no they arent, unlike the USA WE pay 50% TAX on our fuel, so the pittance the farmers get back still doesnt cover what the govt rips us off for.
and unlike europe and use they do NOT pay us not to plant, or pay subsidies to plant certain crops, ie the GM Corn/soy.
without those little or not so little payments it would be a losing plan to plant them.
look up Leon Ashby on youtube, he shows what GOOD land management did for his land, and the idiot govt banned his land saving methods. another smart and caring farmer off his land. or the brilliant Keyline water harvesting methods, well theyre now illegal, dams in a drought prone land, no not allowed! or Proven land and water reclamation by Peter Andrew natural sequence farming, also slammed by the green fools.
while farmers battle drought ,locusts, floods and manipulated markets, insane rip offs for PVR and GM and all the approved chem,controlling the silos and mandating what variety you will grow or they wont buy… the end sellers are doing fine while sucking the lifeblood of the farmers and their families. see the big 2!! monopoly buyers of produce doing very well indeed while the producers battle ever increasing stupidity rules and regs that make life harder and increase costs.
and fools like Burke in Vic and Redman in WA are assisting the demise.
Ayn Rand would have agreed with the AGW-hypothesis, elementary physics as it is. She would have disagreed with a number of ideas to counteract AGW. Which is an entirely different subject.
White House plans push Global Warming Policy, GOP vows fight back
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/28/white-house-plans-push-global-warming-policy-gop-vows-fight/
Really?
Not according to this article:
GOP set to wimp out on EPA
http://greenhellblog.com/2010/12/28/gop-all-set-to-wimp-out-on-epa/
It looks like the American Public is screwed by the Dems and the GOP.
A political establishment of TRAITORS.
Ayn Rand! Semi literate, sexual predator, author of two of the longest and worst novels ever written along with short tracts which showed her total inability to read and understand any philosophers. Why anyone would think of her as a philosopher? And we are supposed to extrapolate from this total kook’s view of life literature and philosophy to conclusions about environmentalism and global warming? Spare us!
“I hope this explains how not clearing regrowth can possibly be a problem, even though what I mentioned may not exactly be what’s complained about above.”
No I still don’t see it. Soil erosion and plant regrowth are completely natural processes. The explanations I’m seeing are that “trees are bad, grass is good.”
And someone mentioned erosion from leaving farmland unplanted. Well the photo doesn’t seem to represent farmland.
I can understand keeping brush growth clear of homes to prevent fires and fire damage, but this doesn’t seem to be the argument.
Global warming advocate methods are in opposition to their goals of redistribution of wealth from the first world to the third world. They are in opposition to industrial, mining and farming production and want to distribute the money from the very production they oppose to the third world.
They who have produced nothing see themselves as the gifted ones to determine the direction of mankind as though it is created in their image. If they have their way our lack of wealth will be.
I’m a bit perplexed by my critics above.
Foreign aid has nothing to do with AGW alarmism, and stupid laws that affect farmers. Suggesting that we should be ‘self sufficient’ and do whatever it takes, including subsidising business (paid for by whom?) has nothing to do with it either.
The bushfire management issue is by no means cut across left/right (or green) lines. Some people regarded as ‘left’ cite the use by Aboriginal people of regular burning to clear land and reduce the risk of catastrophic fires as a model we should follow.
In a country full of eucalypts, which explode in a big fire, a lot of it is academic once the fire is well underway.
Ayn Rand would never get more than 15% of the vote in a country area, if she was honest about abolishing all perks for the locals.
And, while many of the laws are unreasonable, old style conservationists do remember the devastation that was caused by overstocking and land clearance by farmers in the past. Like modern companies, they ripped out the profits and then walked away, leaving a wasteland of erosion and salinity. While modern farmers are much more sensible, the attitudes that shaped some of this legislation come from our history. It is just plain dishonest to deny that farming practices in the past (and we are talking about farms the size of a small European country here) were so bad that they were sitting ducks for the rising environmental movement.
A bit of perspective, and again, focus on AGW driven nonsense, is what is needed here.