Vote 1 Socialist or vote 1 Green for Planet and Humanity
In the Western Murdochracies (Big Money buys truth and votes) and Lobbyocracies (Big Money buys politicians and policy) pro-Planet and pro-Humanity voters have little choice but to vote 1 Green or vote 1 Socialist as set out below using the example of climate criminal Australia, a nation that is making a disproportionately huge contribution to a worsening climate genocide that is set to kill 10 billion non-Europeans this century through unaddressed, man-made climate change.
Australia is a leading country for annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Thus â€œannual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutionâ€ in units of â€œtonnes CO2-equivalent per person per yearâ€ (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australiaâ€™s huge exported CO2 pollution is included). Indeed the data for 2010 indicate that Australiaâ€™s annual domestic plus exported GHG pollution is 64 tonnes per person per year, 71 times greater than the per capita GHG pollution of Pakistan.
In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) has already used up its share of this terminal GHG pollution budget and is now stealing the entitlement of other countries including acutely global warming-threatened countries such as Somalia and Bangladesh.
Australiaâ€™s disproportionately huge annual per capita GHG pollution weans that Australia is disproportionately contributing to a avoidable deraths in the Developing World due to a worsening climate genocide. Thus both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming. Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050 (UN Population Division) , these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including roughly twice the present population of particular mainly non-European groups, specifically 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis (see â€œClimate Genocideâ€).
However in look-the-other-way Australia it is business as usual (BAU). The 2 major political groupings, Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition (the Libs) and the Labor Government (the Labs) have essentially the same climate change inaction policies of "5% off 2000 greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 2020" coupled with unlimited expansion of coal and gas exports that will mean that Australia's domestic plus exported GHG pollution will, relative to 2000, roughly double by 2020 and quadruple by 2050 (see this). The Greens are pro-environment but only have about 14% of the vote and are detested by the major parties and the mainstream media, particularly the climate change denialist Murdoch newspapers that have 70% of newspaper readership in Australia.
On 4 October 2011 The Age On-line National Times (owned by the Fairfax media organization) published a critique of the Greens by John Matthews (strategist at â€œLoop Brandingâ€ and writer for â€œArtKritiqueâ€) entitled â€œâ€Greens should come out of the forestâ€ (see: Greens should come out of the forest ; see also this).
Key quotes from this nonsensical article: â€œYou know there's a problem with a brand when your competitors use it as shorthand for all that's bad. So when Liberal frontbenchers spit out the phrase "Green-Labor government" as an expletive you can bet they're pretty sure the "G" word carries negative connotations that will have their supporters grinding their teeth in rage. Right now the Green brand is a problemâ€¦ If we look across the spectrum of politics and consider what makes the Greens different today we see it's not their environmental politics. Belief in climate change is mainstream to all bar a few shock jocks, the odd snarling, cynical, right-wing bully and Tony Abbott. You can believe in the need to take action on global warming and not vote Green. Which sparks the question â€” so why would we?â€
The Age kindly published my rebuttal of this absurd article:
I could have added that before the 2010 elections the middle-of-the-road National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) conducted a survey of the policies of the major political parties on 40 issues in 7 major areas. Overall the Greens scored 100%, the ALP 53% and the LNP 23% in the NTEU survey. All anti-war, pro-environment, anti-racism, pro-Planet and pro-Humanity folk will vote 1 Green (indeed if you Google the phrase â€œvote 1 Greenâ€ you will get 543,000 results with articles containing this opinion of Dr Gideon Polya ranking items 1-5 on page 1).
The environmental policies of the Greens are a quantum jump above those of the do-nothing, BAU Lib-Labs and the social policies of the Greens are in agreement with the views of about half the Australian population. The Socialists have similar pro-environment and pro-Humanity polices but are more rigorous and less pragmatic than the typically middle class Greens. Sensible, pro-environment, pro-Humanity Australians â€“ and indeed like people worldwide - have little choice but to vote 1 Green or to vote 1 Socialist.