Afghanistan under occupation
Horrifying UN statistics demonstrate that the elections to be held in Afghanistan under occupier guns will not be democratic.
According to UN Population Division statistics, the "annual death rate" is 7% for infants under five years old in Afghanistan as compared to 3% for inmates of the Nazi German Buchenwald Concentration Camp, 5% for French Jews under Nazi German and French collaborationist Vichy regime, 10% for Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese in WW2 and 17% (for Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe 1941-1945).
In occupied Afghanistan post-invasion non-violent excess deaths total 3.2 million; post-invasion violent deaths total up to about 4 million; post-invasion under-five infant deaths total 2.3 million; there are 3-4 million Afghan refugees plus a further 2.5 million Pashtun refugees generated in north-west Pakistan under Obama.
This is an Afghan genocide in which Australia is complicit, as well as in the ongoing Aboriginal genocide, Palestinian genocide, Iraqi genocide and worsening climate genocide that may kill 10 billion non-Europeans this century due to unaddressed, human-made climate change.
Dr Gideon Polya
People are not pollution
Drawing an equals sign between population levels and pollution is crude and misleading. It can't explain why greenhouse gases are rising out of control while the rate of population increase is slowing down worldwide. It can't explain why 5% of the world population (the US) produces a quarter of total greenhouse gas emissions.
If we have a chance to halt climate change we need to stop carbon pollution at the source. There is no way around this if we want to prevent the passing of climate tipping points which will lead to an uninhabitable planet.
Jane Addison's is just wrong in her letter (GLW #807) to say a switch in the way we produce things (e.g. renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, public transport, energy efficiency) "may have little impact on carbon emissions".
Building a sustainable economy — based on social justice, grassroots democracy and ending poverty worldwide — is the only real solution to stop global warming. It will also stablise population levels.
The problem with Addison's article (#GLW 805) is that it disregards the climate science, which says we are on the verge of a planetary emergency. She counterposes two options: lowering consumption and lowering population (i.e. consumers). Both "options" focus on the consumption side of the equation and downplay the urgent need to build a zero-emissions economy.
Simon Butler
The fatal flaws of carbon offsetting
A new report from Friends of the Earth UK called A Dangerous Distraction does a good job of exposing climate offsets as a humungous climate scam.
It gives five good arguments why carbon offsetting is great for greenwashing businesses and politicians, but bad for people and planet.
First is offsetting "counts action in developing countries as part of the cuts promised in developed countries, although the science is clear that action is needed in both". Second, it "cannot guarantee the same cuts as would have happened without offsetting".
Third, it causes "major delays to urgently needed economic transformations in developed countries". Fourth, it "does not ensure positive sustainable development in, or appropriate financial transfers to, developing countries".
And fifth, its simply "profoundly unjust, fundamentally flawed and cannot be reformed".
It's worthwhile knowing about all this because the Australian government tiny 5% emissions cut target could be met entirely through offsetting the cuts in other countries.
Read the report at www.foe.co.uk
Daniel Gregory