(originally included within that page)
This page created on Thursday, 3rd May 2007
ABC-TV has a weekly current-affairs program called "Four Corners". Last
evening, the program aired a story featuring some Australian scientists who
have risked much to go public about what they claim is pressure being
brought to bear upon the scientific community to keep quiet about a certain
issue which has a direct bearing on government policy and/or big business
interests (take your pick; whats's the difference?!).
The program, entitled "The Greenhouse Mafia", dealt with how the
powers-that-be don't want the scientists giving out specific warnings about
how desperately bad the Greenhouse Effect situation really is. Surprised?
Neither was I!
UPDATE, 6 April, 2006
While listening to the news on ABC Radio National, I've heard that the
business community is starting to become concerned about the
greenhouse effect (but only because it will be "bad for business"
UPDATE, 11 April, 2006
Well - it looks as if this issue might actually take off. While sitting in
the car waiting for someone yesterday, between 6pm and 7pm, I listened to
Radio National's "Australia Talks Back" program, on which current events are
discussed and listeners can ring in with their comments.
Among the commentators and those who rang in, some interesting issues about
"green energy" were raised.
One of them, of course, was wind energy. Those large windmill-based turbines
which were first mooted 20 or 30 years ago are now a reality. They work
fine; on the downside, the resulting "wind farms" are noisy and not exactly
pretty, and represent a serious danger to birds.
Another possible technology which was mentioned involves piping water down a
deep pit where the temperature is well above 100oC and using the
resulting steam to drive turbines. (Interestingly, this idea - or something
very similar - has been around since at least 1988, when science fiction
writer Isaac Asimov used "heatsinking" as the source of power for the planet
Trantor in "Prelude to Foundation". See
this page
- about halfway down - to read more about this.)
Other possibilities discussed included more traditional means of producing
steam, but with more tightly controlled emissions of carbon-based greenhouse
gases. Quite clearly, it is possible to make some improvements if there's
enough political will and people don't mind having to pay the cost of
development. However, they all ultimately involve feeding energy produced in
one place into a "grid" to transport it to other places.
I'm all for doing some of this in the short-term, but I don't believe it
represents a long-term solution. I'm convinced that grid-free zero-point
energy (ZPE) is the way to go.
Notably, not one participant even mentioned ZPE - presumably, because
they'd never heard of it! (and I wasn't in a position to ring in myself at
the time).
There is so much to do...
UPDATE, 30 May, 2006
Last evening, while in exactly the same situation as on 11th April (above),
I listened again to "Australia Talks Back" - which, again, was on the
subject of "renewable" (or "green") energy.
Much the same sort of discussion ensued as on the earlier occasion. Again,
no-one mentioned ZPE. I wasn't surprised; how can people discuss something
they know nothing about?
Again, I felt a bit frustrated at not being in a position to ring in and
have my "two-bob's worth". However - as before - I knew deep down that, even
if I had been in a position to do so, I probably wouldn't have done anyway,
because I'd probably be cut off before having had anything like a fair
chance to explain my position. Talk-show hosts have scant patience with what
they see as "cranks", giving them just enough time to make complete idiots
of themselves, rubbing salt into the wound by making a few snide remarks,
and getting back onto what they see as the more important thrust of their
show.
- Except that this isn't "crank" stuff. As mentioned further down in
this page [i.e. in my zero-point energy page, where these remarks were first
published], eminent scientists have been pointing in the direction of ZPE
for decades.
However, this time, there was one important difference. Suddenly, nuclear
power is well and truly on the agenda. Over the last few weeks, Australia's
Prime Minister, John Howard, has gone very public on what he sees as the
need for a "full-blooded debate" on nuclear power. (Coincidence? Read my
earlier updates, above. If the business community starts to make a noise
about something, conservative governments will take notice - whereas they
wouldn't give the time of day to anyone else saying exactly the same thing!)
So, it seems, Australia is now happily headed toward a nuclear future. Of
course, there will be public outcry of the "not in my backyard" variety over
the siting of nuclear power stations and waste dumps - for a while. But,
eventually (as is always the case) people will get sick of it, apathy will
prevail, and the government will get its way.
It's not going to happen overnight. Building the infrastructure for this to
occur is going to be both time-consuming and expensive (although expense
isn't really a problem for this government, which has built up an enormous
"surplus", courtesy of the beleaguered Australian taxpayer, over the last
decade).
So why am I even bothering to mention it?
Because I believe that, ultimately, truth will always prevail. It may take
time; but eventually, it's inevitable. By launching this website, I'm hoping
that I can help to make that time as short as possible. I just hope that
enough people will become informed and active before it's too late. "Let's
fix it" beats the hell out of "I told you so", every time.
So now there is even more to do...
UPDATE, 12 December, 2006
Now, what was I saying about John Howard's "full-blooded debate" about
nuclear power? - About how his government will listen to representatives of
industry if they start jumping up and down about environmental issues, but
not to anybody else?
Surprise, surprise... check out
this link...
Yup - that's right! The heading for that Sydney Morning Herald page
(December 10, 2006) is:
Industry dominates emissions taskforce
To be fair, it's not about nuclear power this time; it's about carbon
emissions trading - but the principle is the same; it's still an
environmental issue.
The Australian Labor Party has labelled it "just another talkfest"; and the
Australian Greens have criticised the taskforce as being "stacked with
miners". I'll just quote one full sentence from that page here:
Mr Howard told ABC's Insiders yesterday the group had no environmental
experts because he wanted "to involve the industry" and a number of
government departments were represented.
Says it all, doesn't it.
I hope you'll forgive me for having a bit of a crow here, but I think I've
earned it. As mentioned in the previous update, "let's fix it" still
beats the hell out of "I told you so"; but...
I TOLD YOU SO!
Updates to my Zero-point energy page
UPDATE, 14 February, 2006
), and are urging the Australian government to take
note. Now there's a surprise! Stay tuned...
