The finger points squarely at Tony Abbott

 

It’s come to a sad pass in this country that undertaking scientific research on climate change within a university setting sees academics threatened and harassed:

“SYDNEY, June 4, 2011 (AFP) - - Climate researchers at one of Australia's top universities have been rushed to a secure location after receiving death threats, an official said Saturday, as debate rages about plans for a carbon pollution tax.
The Australian National University (ANU) scientists had to be shifted following mounting abuse, with threats they would be attacked in the street if they didn't stop their research, said ANU vice-chancellor Dick Young.
Young said the menacing emails and phone calls had intensified in recent weeks amid heated public debate over Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plans to introduce a tax on carbon emissions aimed at reducing pollution.
"Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time," Young told ABC television.
"These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this."
Young said the threats had rattled the academics, who were "really not equipped to be treated in this way."
"The whole scientific process is one of open debate and discussion, but the concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them," he said.
"I think it is totally outrageous and the vast majority of Australians would think it is totally unacceptable for anybody in society to be subjected to this sort of behaviour."

This is the bitter crop that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s rabblerousing and demonising has raised up.
If someone gets hurt I will be pointing my finger squarely in his direction.

Insert from Google Images

Onya, Janelle - give 'im heaps!

From ABC Radio Australia News 7th June 2011:

"An Australian Federal Labor MP pushing for a freeze on live cattle exports to Indonesia has rejected a compromise solution put forward by Meat and Livestock Australia.

The morality of exporting live cattle has been hotly debated in Australia since ABC's Four Corners program aired footage of cattle being mistreated in Indonesian abattoirs.

Meat and Livestock Australia says cattle could be sent to 25 slaughterhouses in Indonesia that meet world animal health guidelines.

But MP Janelle Saffin says she does not trust Meat and Livestock Australia to effectively police the abattoirs and the proposal does not go far enough.

"At this stage we can't be assured how the cattle are going to be treated and until we know that the ban, or the halting, is the best solution," she said."

Update 8th June: Temporary six-month live export ban

''In light of the evidence presented to us, we have resolved to put a total suspension in place,'' Ms Gillard said. ''This suspension will remain until we can make sure cattle from Australia are treated properly at every step of the supply chain.
We will be working closely with Indonesia, and with the industry, to make sure we can bring about major change to the way cattle are handled in these slaughter houses.''

News Ltd finds proof that 290 Australians oppose a carbon tax and the media runs wild

Click on image to enlarge

On 1 & 2 June 2011 Galaxy Research telephone polled 500 voters out of an estimated 14.08 million registered Australian voters and, found that 290 of these opposed a carbon tax.

Now Galaxy asserts that its results have been weighted and projected to reflect the population of Australia, but I think it's possibly stretching credulity to give so high a percentage.

Nevertheless, this poll produced a flurry in the media with headlines such as:

Three-quarters of Australians expect to be worse off under carbon tax - Courier Mail
Julia Gillard feels the heat over carbon tax backlash as voters call for new election - News.com.au
Majority against carbon tax: poll - The Northern Star
Aussies want 'election before tax' - Nine News
Most Australians against carbon tax: poll - AFP
Abbott says poll needed on carbon tax - Nine News

Hear Us, Julia!

Talk is cheap and hindsight easy when it comes from Meat & Livestock Australia on June 6 2011:

“I would like to apologise to the Australian livestock industry and the broader community for the hurt and anger caused by the recent footage of horrendous acts of cruelty to our cattle in Indonesia.
“No section of our community was more distressed than those of us whose life’s work is the caring and raising of livestock.
“I can assure you that if this disgusting cruelty had been witnessed by any Australian industry representatives before now, action would have immediately been triggered to bring it to a halt.
“This issue has made it clear that we must only allow our cattle to reach those facilities where we can be absolutely confident they will be handled in line with internationally accepted welfare practices...."

The only animal welfare solution that is guaranteed to be 100% effective is a total ban on live export.
Find out how to stop this live trade here at Ban Live Export.

A Bloody Business video on demand*
* Warning this ABC Four Corners video contains graphic images

Who loves fossil fuel companies? Not many it seems

Two million odd Sandgropers may be riding on the mining industry's back; but there are miners and then there are miners it seems – and those that drill for petroleum and gas or dig for coal are really not the flavour of the month with 91% of WA people who answered the question below.

Click on survey table to enlarge

*Galaxy Omnibus, 18-20 March 2011, 1036 people (18yo+). Interviews were conducted using CATI (computer assisted telephone interviewing) with telephone numbers randomly selected from electronic White Pages. All interviewers were personally trained and briefed on the requirements of the study. Age, gender and region quotas were applied to the sample. Following the completion of interviewing, the data was weighted by age, gender and region to reflect the latest ABS population estimates.

Is Monsanto telling untruths?

On 3 March 2011 the bio-tech multinational Monsanto Corporation stated on its own corporate blog Beyond The Rows in the post Monsanto's Commitment: Farmers and Patents:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.

ABC Rural reported on 16 March 2011in Farmer claims flooding caused GM contamination :

In a written statement to ABC Rural, plant breeder Monsanto says It has never been, nor will it be, its policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of patented traits are present in a farmer's paddock or grain as a result of inadvertent means.

In a 29 March 2011 statement on the same company blog in PUBPAT Allegations Are False, Misleading and Deceptive Monsanto again stated:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.

Monsanto confirms this policy in a letter from its legal representatives Wilmer Hale on 28 April 2011:

However, I can find no formal Monsanto policy document online which sets out this exemption for accidental contamination of non-GMO farmland or crops.

Nor can I find any current publicly available company documents which define the terms trace amounts and inadvertent means.

As accidental contamination by GMO seeds in Australia has been recorded at seventy per cent of the area of one West Australian organic farm, one has to wonder why trace amounts is so vague a phrase and what implications this may have as contamination instances spread.

It also remains a concern that while Monsanto continues to insist on patent enforcement it also insists that it is not liable for loss suffered from accidental contamination according to this legal opinion of 19 February 2011:

The language: "In no event shall Monsanto or any seller be liable for any incidental, consequential, special or punitive damages" limits and restricts the ability to sue for any damages. There is no "hold harmless" clause contained in the agreement to benefit the growers.

Monsanto's agreement shifts all liability to the growers, including contamination issues or any potential future liability.

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