The green road to fascism.

A recent posting on “Carbon Sense,” “Puppets in Parliament and Pay-offs on the Road to Carbonia” by Viv Forbes from Carbon Sense included the following:

Those calling for “certainty” are mainly the voices of vested interests, and they expect a pay-off.

Some are already celebrating the pay-offs to come.

For example, the “Carbon Market Expo” to be held on the Gold Coast in October 2009 boasts, “more than 70 businesses will exhibit at the expo”. They include bankers, brokers, carbon asset managers, carbon investment managers, carbon accounting firms, carbon management firms, carbon consultants and auditors, carbon control consultants, emissions trading forums, carbon rewards groups, tree technology consultants, green fleet firms, carbon credit offset suppliers, carbon forest service companies, carbon certifiers and verifiers, carbon registries, carbon market infrastructure providers, recruitment firms, R&D advisers, PR firms, engineering contractors, University academics, carbon market advisers and of course all the federal, state and even local “climate smart” bureaucracies and their well traveled staff. …

So it appears that without the legislation being in place yet, we have a blood-sucking bunch of spiv industries all seeking to capitalize on what the government intend to do, or at least the expectation of it.  Many of these could not survive in a free market or would be niche industries, but with the promise of compulsion by the state they are looking forward to a bright future at our expense.

The very survival of most depend on their ability to push the governments for the “right” as they see it to force us to use their “products,” which are in reality an arse covering fraud based on the perception that in the face of dubious and disputed science, political parties will adopt the policy of needing to be seen to do something. Turnbull has already stated as much with his remark that the Liberal Party will lose all credibility unless it negotiates with the government on the ration and tax legislation.

On the basis of this, these shysters are asking that we be handed over to them, not because we wish to deal with them but because we will be forced to. Their business principle seems to be; “We own your arse, bend over and take it like a man.” (In deference to political correctness and any female readers, perhaps, “Bend over and take it like a man would.”)

The demonization of carbon seems to be an addition to Kevin Rudd’s ‘War on everything,” perhaps we are seeing the first shots in “the war on elements.”

All jokes aside, the basic fact is that this legislation will hand us over against the will of the vast majority of us to be the forced clientele of people we have no wish and no need to trade in any way with. In a free society, anybody taking ‘climate change’ as it is promoted by the authoritarians seriously, could use these services to whatever degree they feel they need or can afford, but this is not what we are discussing here. Their services are compulsory for all of us.

This is tantamount to slavery or at least feudalism. In reality in response to a manufactured crisis the state intends to remove our last vestiges of right to freedom of thought and trade and commit us to the tender mercies of the sort of people they are most likely to be found with, the lobbyists.

11 thoughts on “The green road to fascism.

  1. They include bankers, brokers, carbon asset managers, carbon investment managers, carbon accounting firms, carbon management firms, carbon consultants and auditors, carbon control consultants, emissions trading forums, carbon rewards groups, tree technology consultants, green fleet firms, carbon credit offset suppliers, carbon forest service companies, carbon certifiers and verifiers, carbon registries, carbon market infrastructure providers, recruitment firms, R&D advisers, PR firms, engineering contractors, University academics, carbon market advisers and of course all the federal, state and even local “climate smart” bureaucracies and their well traveled staff. …

    I can understand most of the hangers on but why university academics and what exactly is a tree technology consultant and why do trees need a technologist?

  2. Nice article Jim.

    Pity that more green “businesses” don’t realise that in the long run, a damaged economy is ultimately bad for them too and the world they live in.

  3. What is frustrating is no policies are being examined to cut carbon emissions and increase economic efficiency.

    Surely policies like electricity subsidises to smelting industries are wasteful and need to be abolished?

  4. We need to push the fact that per square kilometer of land, Australia is one of the least polluting counteries on earth. Counteries define themselves via their geographical borders and claim all resources in those borders, so they should take responsiblity to only output carbon that they absorb.

    If you really think Australia is polluting then how about this – Carbone Dioxide per tonne per square kilometer:
    Singapore 79.74
    Hong Kong 35.36
    South Korea 4.76
    Netherlands 4.51
    Luxembourg 4.36
    Qatar 3.98
    Belgium 3.51
    Japan 3.42
    Israel 3.19
    United Kingdom 2.34
    Germany 2.25

    World Average: 0.21

    Australia 0.048

    If you only count vegeitation land, the numbers become truely pathetic. This is because most of the northern hemisphere has no vegetation during winter. The average for the world is 2.8 tonnes per square kilometer of vegetation but australia is only 0.6.

  5. I just had to put this link up.

    The hidden solution of sustainable, profitable agriculture:

    http://www.holisticmanagement.org/n9/about/carbon.php

    ‘The fabulous thing about sequestering carbon in grasslands is that you can keep on doing it forever – you can keep building soil on soil on soil… perennial grasses can outlive their owners; they’re longer-lived than a lot of trees, so the carbon sequestration is more permanent than it is in trees: the carbon’s not going to re-cycle back into the atmosphere if we maintain that soil management… and there’s no limit to how much soil you can build… for example, we would only have to improve the stored carbon percentage by one percent on the 415 million hectares (1,025,487,333 acres) of agricultural soil in Australia and we could sequester all of the planet’s legacy load of carbon. It’s quite a stunning figure.’

    —Christine Jones, Founder
    Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation

  6. Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this.

    Jc I think a tree technologist is something like an agronomist and such like. A statist answer would probably be something like, ” Well you wouldn’t want the sort of bloody chaos that occurs in nature would you?” 🙂

    University academics are in a feeding frenzy for research grants like lawyers around an ambulance.

    Generally I tend to believe that economic efficiency will improve carbon emissions – less energy used to achieve the same or better result.

    Myforwik, If possible could you provide a source for your figures.

  7. Or, as KRudd would put it, give us a fair go at the source bottle, cobbler, old mate. I suppose Clive Hamilton’s comments, about Democracy and Global Warming, would fit in with green fascism. (Ecofascism? Egofascism? Greenazism?)

  8. Clive Ham wrote a letter to the Australian, explaining that he has no trouble with democracy, which is why he wants to be the green candidate for an electorate. Fair enough I guess, but, until we see how he acts, we only have his words to go by, and those are not entirely to my liking. I still hope someone else wins.

Comments are closed.