Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for September 19, 2008

Global Climate Change Law and Policy Book

By

Folks,

 

I have just received this notification.

 

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE – Australian Law and Policy

 

This book was launched at the University of Western Australia Co-op Bookshop yesterday.

 

It is by David Hodgkinson (Special Counsel, Clayton Utz; Executive Director, EcoCarbon) and Renee Garner (Solicitor, Freehills, member of Freehill’s National Climate Change Steering Group).

 

Described as ‘a comprehensive guide to climate change law and policy at local, state and national level in Australia, it also examines the international jurisdiction frameworks established to deal with climate change.’

 

The book claims to ‘explore the physical science of climate change’. However, it merely uncritically accepts the alarmist global warming perspective of IPCC/Stern/Hamilton/Garnaut. The frontispiece quotation, for example, is from ‘Jim’ Hansen, 2006.

 

The ‘Denialist-Sceptic View’ gets only two pages (25-27), with the Australian section mainly comprising quotations from Clive Hamilton’s dreadful book Scorcher (2007).

 

Publisher: LexisNexis Butterworths Australia 2008.

Email: academic@lexisnexis.com.au

ISBN: 978-0-409-32535-5

Cost: A$110.00

 

 

Bob

How Much of Australian Agricultural Production is Exported?

By

Hi Jennifer,

 

This article disputing the percentage of Australian agricultural produce that is exported appeared on Agmates at the end of August. 

 

I feel it should have a wider airing, especially if we have all been misled about this subject. 

 

http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/08/29/myth-busted-australia-exports-just-22-of-ag-production-not-80/

 

The link to the original article is here

 

http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/01/01/report-into-ag-production-export-discrepancies/

 

You may like to consider it as a blog topic. 

 

Cheers, Helen

 

PS And I grabbed this from one of the links:

 

At the end of the Customs House Meeting, the committee had established the facts, and the subsequent agreement of proceedings became known as the Customs House Agreement.

 

 

The Customs House Agreement

  • It is unequivocally agreed that for the year 93/94 that only 22% of farm gate value is directly exported from Australia.
  • It is agreed that direct exports, together with the first round total of indirect exports, roughly account for 25% or an additional three percentage points,
  • All agreed that those who propose the higher figures like 80% are simply wrong,
  • ABS agreed that 66% was questionable and problematic ,and
  • ABS would not arrive at 66% figures using accepted methods,
  • Only 7 of 53 sectors exported more than 50% of output,
  • All agreed the real proportion of exports as shown by Dr McGovern was well known for some time,
  • Figures such as 80% use FOB values to compare with farm gate values,
  • Some calculations have led to double counting or have included inappropriate components which have distorted outcomes,
  • Errors occur when comparing value added items like biscuits in a container on board ship with wheat at farm gate or perhaps a bottle of wine on board ship with the value of grapes at farm gate,
  • In some cases inappropriate basis are used eg. the value of spraying or shearing being added to exports of wool, grain or cotton,
  • Other examples of double counting occur when such things as sausages consumed by coal and steel miners in their respective industries are classified as exported agricultural production.

All these definitional and methodological anomalies distort real farm gate values. Some extreme methods of calculation have arrived at up to 200% of farm gate value exported.

New Reef Creatures

By

“Hundreds of new kinds of animal species, including 130 colourful corals, have been discovered.   The extraordinary creatures were found by researchers systematically exploring waters off two islands on the Great Barrier Reef and a reef off northwestern Australia.”   Read more from the UK Telegraph here.  

No Breast Milk for Swiss Restaurateur

By

Hello Jennifer,

 

Humans have developed some curious rationales for various food taboos.  Now a Swiss restaurateur has been banned from serving dishes prepared with human breast milk.  This ban would seem to be the most convoluted and lacking in underlying principle. 

 

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/634151/breast-milk-delicacies-off-the-menu

 

On one hand we have most humans on the planet having consumed this product at some time in their life. And the medical evidence is quite clear on the fact that children who do consume this product have higher immunity levels and are likely to perform better on a number of cognitive and behavioural tests.  And the overwhelming view of child health professionals is that, “the longer children consume this product the better it is for them”.

It is also a fact that there is no restriction on the source of this product. So-called “wet nurses” have been part of human culture for millennia and this supply has nearly always been associated with some sort of exchange of money or kind. So there is clearly no cultural objection to the commercial sale of human breast milk for consumption by other humans.

 

There is also no hint of exploitation or coercion associated with the trade as it is entirely within a context of informed consent and conscionable conduct.

It is also the case that devices to assist with the mechanical extraction of human breastmilk are freely available for sale and have been extensively tested and trialled to the extent that there are no issues in respect of health or safety of either supplier or consumer.  Any other issues, in respect of the passing on of communicable diseases etc, are already well catered for (sic) by existing food standards and legislation.

 

So what we are left with is a taboo that is not based on the product itself, not based on the source of supply of that product, not based on the human-to-human dimension of the transaction and not based on the commercial nature of the transaction. It is also the case that there is no prohibition on the non-commercial use of human breast milk, for example, where a woman could use her own milk in a dish prepared for her family.  Indeed, some could argue that this would represent the ultimate act of nurturing by a loving mother or wife.

 

No, this taboo is solely based on the age of the human consumer and the arms length nature of the transaction. Neither of which appear to have any relationship to the actual participants. It is a taboo that is entirely within the mind of non-participants with no identifiable adverse social consequences.

 

And as duly elected “Chief Glutton” of a group of culinary wanderers called “The Restless Palates”, I don’t think I will ever look upon a fine buxom lass in the same light, ever again. It puts an entirely new meaning to the term, “guess who is coming to dinner?”

 

Regards

Ian Mott

 

———————————-

Breast milk delicacies off the menu

September, 19, 2008. NineMSN

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/634151/breast-milk-delicacies-off-the-menu