Remember when? Seattle 1999

From Seattle Times 1999 photo gallery

It is ten years ago this November that the World Trade Organisation convened its 1999 ministerial conference in Seattle ,Washington USA and, what the media dubbed The Battle of Seattle anti-globalisation protests began.

This is what the Washington education department is telling current students about that five-day protest which brought the WTO to its knees:

The protests against the World Trade Organization that rocked Seattle, Washington in late 1999 were an incredibly significant moment in the history of popular protests. Not only did the protestors succeed in disrupting the meetings of the world's most influential trade-governing bodies, but the event drew together incredibly diverse constituencies that represented a wide range of interests, many of which would seem to be incompatible at first light.

Day 1 - November 29 1999

Day 2 - November 30 1999

Day 3 - December 1 1999

Day 4 - December 2 1999

Day 5 - December 3 1999

Repercussions

Blistering blizzards, Batman! Turnbull wants weak national emissions trading scheme just like Rudd - who would've guessed?

Breakdown showing percentages of get-out-of-gaol-free cards availble to greenhouse gas emitters until 2026 in the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill aka U.S. Clean Energy and Security Act 2009.

If you thought that the Rudd Government's plan to compensate industry super polluters was a fizzer (to such a degree that a national emissions trading scheme would see virtually no significant change for the better in relation to Australia's greenhouse gas pollution) then hang on to your hats as Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal Party pretend to engage with the thorny issue of climate change by putting forward these nine demands:

Specific Issues

1. An Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) should offer no less protection for jobs, small business and industry than an American ETS which is being developed and is presently in the form of the Waxman Markey Bill which has been approved by the House of Representatives but is yet to pass the US Senate. The final form of any legislation may be materially different from Waxman Markey and will not be known until later in the year.

2. To that end there must be an effective mechanism, such as a regular review by the Productivity Commission or a similar expert independent body, to ensure that the Australian ETS does not materially disadvantage Australian industries and workers relative to American industries and workers. The legislation must bind the Government to correct any disadvantage identified by the review process.

3. In order to ensure that an Australian ETS does not simply result in futile carbon and production leakage – exporting the emissions and the jobs – Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed industries (EITEs) should at least be on a level playing field with the United States and other advanced economies and should therefore receive full compensation for higher energy costs until the bulk of their competitors (measured as in Waxman Markey by global market share) face a similar carbon cost.

4. Fugitive methane emissions from coal mining should be treated in the same way as they are in the United States and Europe.

5. As in the Waxman Markey legislation agricultural emissions should be excluded from the scheme and agricultural offsets (eg. biosequestration or green carbon) should be included. Australia's greatest near term potential of reducing its CO2 emissions are to be found in the better management of our own landscape.

6. The scheme design must ensure that general increases in electricity prices are no greater than comparable countries to minimise the impact on all trade exposed industries, to reduce the need to compensate for households and to avoid a needlessly high increase in taxation.

7. In order to ensure continuity of electricity supply, electricity generators should be fairly and adequately compensated for loss of asset value to ensure capacity to invest in new abatement technology and to fund maintenance of existing facilities for energy security purposes.

8. Effective incentives and/or credits must be established to capture the substantial abatement opportunities offered by energy efficiency, especially in buildings.

9. There must be adequate incentives for voluntary action which can be added to Australia's 2020 target.

Besides simply restating some of the broad aims already expressed by government, it appears that Turnbull would like Australia to adopt certain aspects of the proposed U.S. Clean Energy and Security Act 2009.
Yet another watered down climate change bill.
Just as importantly, he does not want to enact our own emissions trading scheme until after the Americans have theirs in place.

Now attempting to tie Australia's legislative response to an American timetable is a nice time waster, as this yet unborn act only passed the U.S. lower house by 7 votes and is facing a hostile upper house before it can be become legislation, with no guarantee that the eventual act will even remotely resemble the current bill or that its final provisions will be seen in a favourable light by the rest of the world.

Indeed (like the Rudd Government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Act here in Australia) in America there are citizens who believe that the proposed Clean Energy and Security Act is so weak that it should never become law, others who simply see it as better than nothing, Republicans in the U.S. Senate who won't rule out blocking it and, many Americans who see it as a free give-away to major polluters.

While Turnbull obviously hopes that he can put off the evil day when he actually has to genuinely address emissions trading, his principle aim appears to be to further increase protection and compensation for Australia's super polluters under any national scheme.
Which may please his mates at Goldman Sachs whilst ever that group is involved with energy and mining industries, but may not appeal to the international community generally because Turnbull's solution seems to favour tariffs.

Turnbull's favourite climate change bill.

Graphic form The Wall Street Journal online.

Bless their cute curly heads! Monsanto blogs on morality

From Monsanto according to Monsanto post on 20 July 2009:

In this video I discussed the issue of other farmers saving patented seed with farmers who don't believe in that type of farming practice.

If you think about it, it's pretty simple. The law is the law. When you sign an agreement, you must obey that agreement. Just like when I buy a CD of my favorite artist (which I do have quite the collection), I don't burn it for friends. At the same time, I download quite a bit of songs to jam to on my iPod and I buy each and every one of those songs from iTunes.

Although these examples are on a much smaller scale, it's the right thing to do.

My parents raised me to always do the right thing, even if it costs more or doesn't seem like the most appealing option. I was raised on good morals, which I credit and thank my parents daily for. Just as I was raised on these morals, so were the two farmers featured in this video.

I hope you see it that way.

Leaving aside the ungainly stretch inherent in likening perpetual seed patents to music copyright, the irony of Monsanto blogging about morals is readily apparent.

This is the same company which spent years happily spreading dioxin/PCB contamination across the world. Here is a brief potted history of its recent transgressions and another about heavy metal contamination due to Monsanto mining operations.

Sadly Monsanto does not appear to see that its recalcitrant past concerning environmental degradation and denial of human rights makes a mockery of its current claim that; The law is the law.

Picture from Google Images

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Fairfax misleading digital headline of the week

First Australians were Indian: research was the headline posted on The Sydney Morning Herald website on Thursday 23 July 2009.

Now that isn't exactly what is in the body of the newspaper article (which rather looks to be based on a media release) and it's definitely not what is in the published research Reconstructing Indian-Australian phylogenetic link.

What the researchers appear to be asserting is that early Australians were descended from out-of-Africa migration.

The complete mtDNA sequencing indicate that both Australians and New Guineans exclusively belongs to the out-of-Africa founder types M and N, thus ultimately descended from the same African emigrants ~50 to 70 kyBP, as all other Eurasians.

The researchers, who based their finding on the particular mtDNA sequences of 8 Indians and 6 Aboriginals, are postulating a migration journey which took the ancestors of Australia's traditional owners along what is known as the southern route (Horn of Africa to the Persian/Arabian Gulf and further along the tropical coast of the Indian Ocean to southeast Asia and Australasia) ~ 60 to 50 thousand years before the present day and that migration likely occurred before or at the beginning of N group population growth in pre-history India.

Pity that The Sydney Morning Herald decided on the colourful headline, the published research deserved better.

A new version of events.....

From ImageShack

Unimpressive polling at The Daily Examiner, Grafton

These poll results for the morning of 24 July 2009 look rather impressive on The Daily Examiner's website.

However, the lack of any total number of votes received being identified means that no-one realises that the 84% of respondents voting "Yes" actually only represents about 17 people.

This is not the only APN News & Media website which carries these misleading poll layouts.

But what could one expect from a regional newspaper chain which is busily pursuing a tabloid reputation similar to The Daily do-you-know-the-truth-or-do-you-read-the Telegraph?

Any online polling the reader happens to see under the mastheads below should be treated with some caution if a respondent total is not displayed.

A word about bureaucratic corruption in 2009

Next week Brisbane is hosting the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009 over four days from 28 July to 31 July.

It is held in Australia every two years, and is a joint initiative of the Crime and Misconduct Commission (QLD), the Independent Commission Against Corruption (NSW), and the Corruption and Crime Commission (WA).

This is a significant opportunity for Australian and international public officials to learn about contemporary anti-corruption trends and strategies, and to network with senior representatives of leading Australian public sector agencies. This year's conference will also be of particular interest to health administrators, tertiary institutions and agencies providing services in remote locations, with sessions focussing on each of these areas.

Given the vastly enlarged data bases that the Rudd Government is envisioning as vital for the so-called digital information age, one has to hope that some senior public servants attend this conference on behalf of the Federal Minister for Medical ID Cards in 2010, Chris Bowen and the Minister for Let's Revive Howard Government Lame Ideas, Nicola Roxon.

Let us also hope that local government bureaucracy receives more than just a mention in the last day's hijinks:

The conference will conclude with Kerry O'Brien hosting an entertaining and informative hypothetical with an anti-corruption bent exploring the topic 'Queensland — beautiful one day and desperate for the developer dollar the next!'

Bring that Resources Minister under control!

The Australian Greens have found a novel way of hitting back at the planned expansion of uranium mining in this country and they are looking for 87,930 signatures for the mass mail out to the Batman electorate.

If you would like to draw Martin Ferguson's attention to the possibility that the Rudd Government's
desire to create more uranium mines may not be supported by his fellow Australians, then hit the links in Scott Ludlum's letter and tell the minister so.

Dear friend,

Would you allow a secretive US arms company to mine uranium in your backyard? Neither would we!

So help us tell our politicians that Australia doesn't need more uranium mines.

It's easy to approve a new uranium mine when it is out of sight and out of mind – but just because we don't see a place every day doesn't mean that we should risk ruining it forever.

That's how the Environment Minister Peter Garrett and Resources Minister Martin Ferguson are able to approve environmentally destructive projects like General Atomics new Beverley 4 Mile mine, 500 kilometres north of Adelaide.

We need your help to send a backyard message to Minister Ferguson, in his home electorate of Batman.

If this acid leaching mine opens, Australia will have five uranium mines either working or approved, with more in the pipeline. Along with the expansion of other mines it adds up to a potential trebling in Australia's uranium exports - three times the waste, three times the worry, three times the risk.

The Australian Government allows our uranium to be sold to nuclear weapon states such as China. Uranium sold for nuclear power frees up uranium for nuclear weapons so our exports directly or indirectly fuel growing nuclear instability and intensify threats across our region and around the world.

That's why it's important to let our politicians know, in their own backyards, that this massive expansion of uranium mining must stop.

With your help, we are proposing to send the postcard below to every voter in Batman, the backyard of the Resources Minister Martin Ferguson.

All you have to do is sign on to our Backyard Message to Batman campaign to get the message out.

For every signature that we receive one postcard will be sent to a voter in Batman asking them to bring their local member under control.

It's as simple as that.

Help send a backyard message to Batman's 87,930 voters – that should get Minister Ferguson's attention...

Yours sincerely
Scott Ludlam
Australian Greens Senator for WA and spokesperson on nuclear issues

P.S. After you've added your name, don't forget to forward the message to your friends to spread the word even further.

If you want to show Peter Garrett that he can no longer trade on his old Oils cred you can email Peter here.

Excuse me while I turn my head and barf

The U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is less than five months away, and with no benchmarks set to measure compliance the world's leaders recently decided to agree to keeping global warming at no more than 2 Celsius - practically guaranteeing massive environmental degradation across Australia.

Now I find that in their wisdom the organisers of this conference have paid out good money for a dinky little website called Hopenhagen at which we are supposed to lodge a 10-word expression of what gives us hope.

WTF? How can the world have hope if all its leaders are doing is playing at finding solutions for climate change instead of actually doing something right NOW.

L'll
Coffs Harbour

How many acute care beds are there in NSW North Coast hospitals?

North Coast Area Health Service (NCAHS) covers an area of 25,570 square kilometres extending from Port Macquarie in the south, Queensland in the north and westward to the Great Dividing Range and there are over 480,675 people living within these boundaries according to the area health service.

Also according to the NCAHS website in 2005 there was a total of 21 public hospitals, with approx. 1384 acute care beds offered at the public/private hospitals in the Area.

Which works out at no more than 2.9 acute care beds to every 1,000 North Coast residents and, even less available to patients without private medical insurance if one was able to extract private hospital beds from the bundled NCAHS 2005 figure.

In 2007 Peter Roberts and Paul Cunningham told a NSW inquiry that NSW had only 1.1 acute care beds in private hospitals per 1,000 population and 2.7 acute care beds in public hospitals per 1,000 people.

Now Professor Peter Collingdon informs us in 2009 that:
In Australia we have 38% less beds than in 1981 when there were 6.4 acute care hospital beds for every 1000 people. There are now only four beds per 1000 people available. Only 2.7 of these beds are available in the public sector -- where the sickest patients are looked after. [Crikey.com.au,20 July 2009]

Which indicates that little is changing for the better in health services when it comes to bed numbers.

Given the relentless NCAHS cost-cutting, staff and bed reduction drive of recent years, perhaps Chief Executive Officer Chris Crawford could favour us all with details of the current ratio of acute care beds in NSW North Coast public hospitals to every 1,000 head of population.

Damning praise and rough criticism for Peter and Malcolm

From the pen of Howard apologista Peter van Onselen in his The Australian article The good oil: Peter Garrett knows his job.

If Garrett doesn't have a line in the sand, he is a sell-out, make no mistake. But if he does, and so long as he hasn't crossed it, he has become a pragmatic politician holding on to a few convictions along the way. Howard would be proud.

Ouch!

Liberal Party Senator Wilson Tuckey assessing the quality of his leader, Malcolm Turnbull in a Herald Sun article on 22 July 2009.

"The issue of the arrogance and inexperience of our leader on the issue of the emission trading scheme has to be addressed"

Double ouch with pike!

The Ugg Boot trademark fight goes on and Deckers does not cover itself in glory

I'm sure everyone will remember that protracted legal battle over who had rights over the term Ug, Ugg or Ugh boots, in which little Aussie battlers were able to convince the Registrar of Trade Marks that these terms in themselves were generic and therefore beyond trademark in Australia by U.S. Deckers Outdoor Corporation (with the exception of one particular graphic representation of a certain trademark incorporating the word UGG).

In the initial Registrar of Trade Marks decision in 2006 it was stated:

34. The evidence overwhelming supports the proposition that the terms UGH BOOT(S), UG BOOT(S) and UGG BOOT(S) are interchangeably used to describe a specific style of sheepskin boot and are the first and most natural way in which to describe these goods which should innocently come to the minds of people making this particular style of sheepskin boot. The terms thus lack any inherent capacity to distinguish the particular goods. The Yellow Pages®, Internet, magazine and dictionary uses of these terms make it quite clear that these terms are generic – they are the most immediate and natural ways in which to refer to a particular style of sheepskin boot.4 They are terms which are required by other traders without any improper motive to describe those boots. The terms, (as opposed to the registered trade mark), are in all senses analogous to the terms SCHOOLIES - Sports Break Travel Pty Ltd v P & O Holidays Ltd, (2000) 50 IPR 51 or CAPS THE GAME - Powell v Glow Zone Products Pty Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 506.

IP Australia now has this fact sheet on its website explaining the current situation as it interprets it, with this particular rider:

The Internet provides easy access to global markets and takes no account of national borders. If you are trading on the Internet you need to understand the laws of the country into which you are selling goods or services. If you place an offer for sale on the Internet in Australia that invites purchase from overseas, this can amount to trading overseas and could leave you vulnerable to legal action and expensive litigation. Likewise an overseas proprietor selling goods in Australia via the Internet may infringe an Australian trade mark.

Decker Outdoor Corporation was such a bad sport about its Australian loss that it apparently attempted to scare away Internet trade from the small Australian company, which led opposition to its attempt to expand the Decker trademark, by creating www.uggsnrugs.com (it's winter here in Australia, so if you have a little cash to spare why don't you click onto the real Aussie site www.uggs-n-rugs.com.au owned by West Australians Bruce and Bronwyn McDougall and order a pair of Ugg boots to keep those feet warm).

The company also took out additional overseas trademarks using the word UGG, of which some are included in a rolling list of 33 marks in the United States alone.

It seems that in July 2009 the ever-litigious Deckers now has Google Inc in its sights and its legal team is demanding that the Internet search engine cease index listing over thirty websites displaying and selling ugg boots.

Thankfully, it appears that Google is not rushing to obey the dictates of this international marketplace bully as the named websites and goods images were still visible at the time of writing this post.

Graphic from Google Images

Biodiversity Summit in Canberra 8 August 2009

Biodiversity for Climate Protection

Biodiversity Summit 2009, with keynote speaker Dr Rachel Warren.

Aiming to better understand the connections between biodiversity and climate, and why protecting natural ecosystems is essential to tackle the climate crisis .

The climate crisis is transforming biodiversity policy, demanding rapid fundamental change to protect and restore the natural environment. The Biodiversity Summit 2009 will review how natural ecosystems contribute to mitigating and adapting to the climate crisis, including the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon cycle and carbon storage and the contribution of biodiversity to the resilience of natural ecosystems, particularly in the face of climate change. The Summit will also analyse the policy implications flowing from the need to protect and restore natural ecosystems for climate change mitigation and adaptation and discuss implementation strategies and tools.
The program for the day will include presentations, workshops and discussion. Participants will have an opportunity to offer workshops; and round table sessions will cover issues like how to 'frame' the policy debate, identifying key issues that need to be addressed, and how the policy agenda is to be taken forward. Everyone interested in biodiversity and climate will find it relevant – researchers, lawyers, land managers, policy-makers, activists and individuals.

When: Saturday, 8 August 2009, 9am to 5pm
Venue: Canberra Institute of Technology, K Block, Constitution Ave, Canberra
Registration fees: Standard $95, low income $55

List of speakers

Longest solar eclipse of the century on evening of Tuesday 21 and sunrise of Wednesday 22 July 2009 (beginning in India)

2003 total solar eclipse in Antarctica

At sunrise on July 22, 2009, (the evening of July 21 PDT), the moon's umbra—the cone-shaped part of the moon's shadow—will fall on India's Gulf of Khambhat. The shadow will sweep across Asia and the South Pacific before leaving the earth near the Marshall Islands about 3½ hours later. The path of totality will cover a distance of approximately 9,500 miles (15,200 km). The maximum duration of totality is an exceptionally long 6 minutes and 39 seconds, which will come while the shadow is over the Pacific.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like Australia will get much of a view, however more information can be found at Eclipse and NASA, including animations and models.

A nice little earner

Today's edition contains this gem.

We have to hand a clipping, sent by Mark Southcott of somewhere in the wilds of the Illawarra, from the Bristol Post of June 21. A little late, but it's a timeless piece: "Outside Bristol Zoo is a car park, with spaces for 150 cars and eight coaches. It has been manned six days a week by the same charming and polite attendant. The charges are £1 per car, and £5 per coach. On Monday he did not turn up for work. Zoo management phoned Bristol City Council to ask for a replacement. The council said: 'The car park is your responsibility.' The zoo said that the attendant was a council employee. The council asked: 'What attendant?' Gone missing from his home is a man who has been taking daily car park fees amounting to £400 a day, for 23 years, or 2 million quid."

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald