U-PODS stands for Urban Permanent Organoculture Design Systems for easier recognition by the greater public.

[U-PADS was the previous name ... Urban Permaculture Anthroposophy Design Systems]

In 1997 I registered the name Environmentally Sustainable Technologies which is now the umbrella for ‘energy efficient home design’ and U-PODS; the description of the charter is as follows:

Who is Environmentally Sustainable Technologies ?

EST is a group of people specialising in the optimum application of Energy.

What does ‘the application of energy’ mean ?

Everything we use in life has an embodied energy component (aka emergy); this embodied energy has two components, the amount of real energy (concentrated energy / fossil fuel used to extract, manufacture and transport) and ‘value added’ energy (overheads, holding costs and profit margin etc) to provide a dividend for entrepreneurial undertaking.

EROEI – energy return of energy invested – regardless of the energy source, using energy to make energy is impossible (as proven by the law of thermodynamics); therefore it is illogical to incorporate any process that isn’t based on a ‘natural cycle’.

Understanding embodied energy and EROEI is extremely important as it dispels the myth of ‘renewable energy’ and ‘sustainability’; U-PODS is based on micro-management and the application of energy; if we address the EROEI and reduce the embodied energy, we make something more affordable; not just in the pocket, but also to the environment.

How can these complex issues be addressed ?

The fundamental requirement is change; a more effective and efficient application of emergy and where U-PODS comes in.

Where can U-PODS be applied ?

U-PODS – Urban Permanent Organoculture Design System – is necessary for the wellness of any given community; it can be applied anywhere; not just in Queensland and Australia, but anywhere around the world … based of nature’s micro-management of our environment.

Why is there a need for a re-think ?

Einstein (paraphrased) said ‘we can’t use the same thinking processes that got us into a problem’. This is where EST comes in, with a collective of experiences in many fields, U-PODS addresses current and future issues including increased energy costs and diminishing resources, affordability, good health as well as food security.

[Australia is a net importer of foods, many of which do not meet our minimum hygiene production standards]

When can U-PODS be applied ?

Immediately, there is little change required to planning, health and infrastructure; homes will become;

1. far more affordable without government subsidy (an impost on every Australian),
2. more healthy (many materials used in homes have high toxicity) and
3. consume less energy (lower running costs, more comfortable) and greater self-sufficiency

Councils and Developers have a combative rather than a collaborative relationship; other organisations have their own agendas which don’t necessarily address the broader spectrum of issues and needs of the greater community.

In 2011 the UDIA (Gold Coast) President stated increased construction would provide more work; while this may sound job positive for the construction industry, for developers, this recommendation is fraught with danger, particularly with respect to declining property values.

We can’t afford to have developers over extend themselves by greatly increasing the embodied energy / cost of property.  The Gold Coast (like many regions locally as well as overseas) have many examples of poor planning, such as buildings that are uninhabitable / unoccupied (a paradox given the high homelessness) and having too high an embodied energy cost for developers to restore, renovate or replace.

Developers ‘forced’ to over-capitalise (with high infrastructure costs, red-tape plus factoring in holding costs), have to pass this onto home-owners, making properties unaffordable.

U-PODS meets the needs of a growing number of people, who desire lower living costs with a higher standard of health and greater control of their future as well as self-sufficiency.

If you require more information, let me know at danielboonjp@gmail.com

He has done more than his fair share for the Australian people (and the environment that sustains us) than the majority can comprehend (otherwise the Greens would be in power), and be derided by most.

Being different is always a challenge, people – for perceived self-preservation reasons and wanting to part of the pack – feel obliged to ostracise people who are different; Bob Brown took it to many non-conforming levels, with people responding according to their self-confidence (or lack thereof) from avoidance, perpetuating observations of less intellectually blessed individuals or physical violence (as a testament to their manliness).  So let’s get one thing out of the way, do I kiss blokes?

Well yes I do, I have three sons (39, 25 and 23) and I have taught them that real men aren’t afraid to show they care; would I entertain a relationship with a man? No way Jose; it makes my skin shudder. But there is no accounting for taste for a man (as Tony Abbott’s wife can attest).

I’m not going to research Bob Brown, you can Google him and find out heaps, but I am going to comment on comments I have read and heard over the years.

For no particular reason, I will cite the observation that Bob Brown / the Greens is what brought Labor unstuck. As we read more and more of union bosses with their snouts buried even more deelpy in their members funds than thought possible, even dyed in the wool Labor supporters find it hard to believe; that sort of treachery and betrayal was what companies and corporations did to people, surely not their own kind.

No, I believe the Greens have been manipulated by Labor to garner more support, and I believe the Greens will suffer because of preferencing Labor. Shady deals have been done by many Greens who couldn’t make it any other political party; maybe even joined the Greens from Labor to steer the consideration towards preferencing Labor. In Queensland, the person who directly represents an example of that is Drew Hutton and Co, but I digress. In our political landscape where even Julia Gillard is so hated, they still prefer her to Tony Abbot, which just goes to show that the Liberal Party is likewise manipulated by the ‘back-room boys’ who call the shots and are beholding to their corporate masters. Their logic is that if you vote him in, you accept everything he will implement.

Back to Bob. Well there is concern about what next, Christine Milne is – to the greater voting public – an unknown, so we are sailing into the unknown; we don’t know what demands the Independents are going to place on the Government, which - like the Liberal Party – isn’t as stable a party as they try to represent. Will this be a new era and The Greens now invite Voters to allocate their preferences (I did many years ago when I ran for State government), despite being pressured by hierarchy and even a call from the Wilderness Society.

I think that for the Greens to move to the next level, they need to stand alone; hanging around like the Australian Democrats is the path to obscurity.

I read somewhere that Bob Brown’s resignation was like dropping a flaming paper-bag with fresh dog-shit on Parliament House’s doorstep; and who wants to stamp that out ?

Bob Brown has been described as an ‘eco-terrorist’ that has destroyed rather than defended Australia’s ability to succeed; that Labor sold out to the Greens; but if the Tasmanian government had gone ahead, what about* forests and Gunns and the Franklin Dam (which the company managing water infrastructure in Tasmania now agree would have been a bad decision if they had proceeded) and what the water quality and polluted environment/s.

*[ did you know that jobs in the timber industry are the lowest in the world in Tasmania; and that the highest incidence of heart failure is a town in Tasmania that has the highest concentration of men employed in the timber industry]

People seem oblivious to how much Tony Abbot offered in bribes to get the Independents vote but they didn’t … why ? One could suggest Abbot – on past performances – is a negative person who is prepared to lie for expediency.

The carbon tax has been trotted out, yet if a toxic business was to set up shop near any of these people who feel they shouldn’t have to pay for polluting the environment, they would squeal like a stuck pig and probably call their local council if a neighbours dog defecated on their front lawn.  Australia was one of the first countries in the world to require seat-belts in cars; ohh the impost.

Then these the Greens wanting mining companies to pay a tax, but Abbot says no; how much funding are they giving the Liberal Party … several companies with a combined contribution of less than 10% to GDP and employing less than 2% of our workforce yet the ‘jobs’ job’s jobs’ mantra is trotted out. If its true, Clive Palmer paid no tax yet kicked in $400K for the Coalition … one man … 22+ million Aussies; yeah that’s fair says Abbot. And a moronic observation that the Greens are interested only in keeping the middle class poor; then why do so many Union members actually support much of the Green labour policies ? That many Green policies are focused on worthwhile jobs.

A great comment to counter the proposal that Bob Brown / Green policies would crash the economy was the poignant reminder that without an environment and ecology, there would not be an economy.

[Are you aware that bees in the USA are all but gone, due to many factors such as chemicals and global warming; that Australia actually exports bees - crucial to plant pollination - to the USA to keep their agriculture ticking over]

So Bob, well done … and consider yourself man-hugged.

Mr Christoulas was 77 years old when he decided to pull the pin and he left a note criticising politicians over the country’s financial crisis.  The note related how his pension had been cut to a point where it nullified any chance of survival; he wrote he would rather have a decent end than be forced to scavenge in the rubbish to feed himself. Greeks have called him a martyr with some protesters saying it was not suicide but state-perpetrated murder.

Another pensioner – 60-year-old pensioner Anastassia Karanika – said ‘it’s horrible; we shouldn’t have reached this point; politicians in parliament who brought us here should be punished for this’.

Depression and suicide rates have reportedly increased in Greece as the country introduces tough austerity measures to deal with huge debts; since Mr Christoulas’s death, police reports suggest at least four people have tried to kill themselves because of financial troubles.

Politicians are leveraging this as well, with the New Democracy and PASOK parties – which have ruled Greece for decades - expressing their sorrow for the tragedy and political opponents attacking them for joining in the mourning.

Unemployment in Greece has surged to a record 21%, twice the euro zone average, with one out of two young people jobless. Most Greeks feel that ordinary people like Mr Christoulas, a retired pharmacist, are being forced to pay for a crisis that was not of their making.

The problem is that this is not just the Greeks’ problem, this will eventually affect every country around the world, even Australia.

As you may be aware, previously it has been against the law for ethanol fuel to be used in aviation or marine applications due to possible separation and well, the motor stopping. Many motorists have also found out the hard way that ethanol added to their fuel damages normal combustion engines, seals and lines etc and motor vehicle manufacturer warranties do not cover effects of ethanol.

The Qantas flight between is Sydney to Adelaide using a 50-50 mix of conventional fuel and refined cooking oil, but Qantas says it’s absorbing the one-off cost because it is keen to highlight the need for an Australian biofuel source; they also went on to say that it also deals with high jet fuel and carbon emission costs.

Now I know that when the Yanks first introduced ethanol, they would not allow more than 6% because emissions at 10% were actually higher than conventional fuel (this was soon lost in the white noise when they raised it to 10%); and in Australia some ill informed and some might suggest financially convinced politicians pushed / are still pushing to mandate 10% ethanol in Australia.

John Valastro of Qantas claims that this is the first commercial flight in Australia powered by ’sustainable aviation fuel’ … Huh?  For the record, air travel is the worst source of CO2 per passenger.kilometer travelled.

But aside from that, is biofuel really that clean?  There is a significant difference from a biofuel made from recycled cooking oil; how much fish and chips flavoured oil does Australia produce  and how much fuel do planes use in domestic flights in Australia?

An aviation industry analyst (Tom Ballantyne) says ‘Qantas and other airlines want governments to invest in the biofuels push’; is this like Manildra (largest manufacturer and political financial donater) ethanol? He suggests that ‘we know we can make them, we know they’re exactly the same as jet fuel and have absolutely no impact on the operation of the aircraft; the trick is making enough and building the infrastructure to provide that; what is actually needed is money’.  Don’t know about you, but it sounds like corporations looking to get government to borrow more money and fund the necessary infrastructure so they can make money from it and us.

Ballantyne is suggested to have said that big airlines’ argument is that governments should invest money in the refineries which are required to produce these biofuels; but so far many governments have been a bit slow in coming forward (and the business as usual Disneyworld mantra) the hope is that biofuels will eventually cost about the same as current jet fuel’.  Yeah, right and pigs will fly …

In an atypical press release like this, coincidently a Peter Zurzolo (head of Future Farming Co-operative Research Centre in Narrogin, south-east of Perth) says he and others are trialing whether the common mallee eucalypt is a viable biofuel source, he said ‘not only is it a common tree but it’s well understood. In WA alone, we know there’s about 13,000 hectares on about 1,000 farms; we’re providing what we’re hoping is a long-term sustainable and regionally-based feedstock supply that can be competitively grown into different processing units, hopefully around regional Australia’.

There seems to be a great divide between rational thinking and pie-in-the-sky stuff.  Aviation fuel comes from already concentrated energy stock called fossil fuels; to give you a rough example, 10 kilos of coal will provide similar energy to 100 kilos of solid timber, to grow said 100 kilos of (preferably hardwood) timber takes about 20 years, so has anyone actually calculated what the embodied energy costs are of accessing this ‘sustainable biofuel alternative’? Lets pretend we don’t have to spend any money growing it or the irreparable damage to the eco-system that has evolved over thousands of years and interaction of flora and fauna working cohesively together; What about the specialized machinery to ‘harvest the primary fuel stock’ and the coal, oil / disiel and gas burned to transport, heat and extract and refine and then transport to the airports?  Or that concentrated energy – aka oil, coal and gas – took millions of years to form.

Energex in Qld charged a premium for sourcing ‘green energy’ when actually there wasn’t that volume of ‘green energy’ actually available. The electricity authority in Victoria tried to suggest that energy created by burning old growth forest was ‘green energy’; I’m not suggesting that Qantas would do it or try it, but could some less than scrupulous ex-employee from the two aforementioned entities get a job with an airline company, charge a caring flying public prepared to pay a premium for ‘biofuel aided flying’, but really just use the ’snake oil’ fuel?

As we know, all but Australian bees are now afflicted by a mite that infects and kills the host bee; that the USA imports tonnes of bees from Australia to replace hives dying off, and that those Australian bees are being sent to a cruel, painful death so that it’s BUA (business as usual).

The whistle-blower (who is alleged to have worked / is working for Monsanto) will – in all seriousness – be in danger if Monsanto’s previous interaction with obstacles to the ‘master plan’ is anything to go by.  Monsanto plans to kill off bee colonies in order to introduce a “new and improved” species of bee that will only pollinate Monsanto crops may seem far-fetched, but when other ‘developments’ in GM are taken into consideration, maybe not so.

Several sites were provided for additional information; http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q1M0UO0.htm

http://blog.targethealth.com/?p=58

And if you think Monsanto isn’t dominating the American government, read some cables released by Wikileaks about American officials ask for talking points from Monsanto and how the so called ‘free-trade’ Ambassadors urge trade wars on their behalf:

http://themomu.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/wikileaks-cables-show-us-threatening-retaliation-if-europe-wont-accept-monsanto-corn/Are they evil enough to do this?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?currentPage=1

“The law, an amendment to Title 52 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, requires that companies provide to a state-maintained registry the names of chemicals and gases used in fracking.

Physicians and others who work with citizen health issues may request specific information, but the company doesn’t  have to provide that information if it claims it is a trade secret or proprietary information, nor does it have to reveal how the chemicals and gases used in fracking interact with natural compounds.

If a company does release information about what is used, health care professionals are bound by a non-disclosure agreement that not only forbids them from warning the community of water and air pollution that may be caused by fracking, but which also forbids them from telling their own patients what the physician believes may have led to their health problems.

A strict interpretation of the law would also forbid general practitioners and family practice physicians who sign the non-disclosure agreement and learn the contents of the “trade secrets” from notifying a specialist about the chemicals or compounds, thus delaying medical treatment.”

How long before State governments in Australia follow their morally corrupt cohorts in Pennsylvania uisng ‘trade secrets’ as a way of supressing public disent ?

http://www.truth-out.org/fracking-pennsylvania-gags-physicians/1332078396

Then last night and this morning, TV news has been talking about how Australia energy is decidedly more expensive than most other places around the world. John Laws had an invited guest – the ‘energy minister for NSW’ – who explained how the solar rebate and buying of solar power had blown a predetermined budget by almost 4 times.  That some people who signed up first for solar power (and paid far more for their solar power systems) were receiving 60 cents a kilowatt hour; a later batch of solar power buyers were receiving 20 cents a kilowatt an hour (prices of PV systems had dropped) and these days, people could expect anywhere between 5 cents to 10 cents a kilowatt hour (solar power systems are again considerably cheaper).

The current energy minister had a shot at the previous (political opponent) energy minister for creating this problem; however, I saw this a sign of ignorance. The John Laws and the aforementioned ‘energy minister’ (one Chris Hartcher if information provided to Google is current) then went on to bag / criticise Germany for having wind-power and expensive electricity. So let’s just review the thread; John Laws invites Chris Hartcher on to talk about how dear electricity is in Australia compared to the rest of the world and then segues onto wind-power in Germany!

So let’s view Australia’s ’great economy’ is in deficit; whereas Germany has one of the strongest economies.

Chris Hartcher et al want coal power to be the main energy driver, he ignores or is totally ignorant (or both) of the fact that hundreds of billions of $’s (approaching a trillion Australia $’s) in direct and indirect taxes the Australian and State governments have given to the fossil fuel industry. He ‘forgets’ that we sold off much of our own oil (at prices of less than $12 a barrel) which we now have to buy in at ten times that amount. Now it’s natural gas and CSG and coal energy that is being sold off at prices far cheaper than we – the people of Australia – pay, so what do blow-hards Laws and Hartcher do? They criticise wind-power ….!

There is a simple formula EROEI (energy return on energy invested) and the cost of oil, coal and gas is going up, so the Germans looked to becoming self-sufficient in energy.

Do we continue with the John Laws and Chris Hartcher mentality of investing in a string factory when sticky-tape is a better option?

However, in the USA – home of pork-barreling – ethanol has run its course. Apparently corn growers – flush with funds from high prices – have let go of the subsidy that helped drive up the price of corn not only in America, but In Mexico, where its is part of the staple diet. Are you ready for the cost to the American people for that poor excuse as an alternative fuel ?  Would you believe US$20 billion (no typo, US$20,000,000,000).

This tax credit has been around for 30 years in the USA.

Despite mutterings in 2008 to review and address Commonwealth grants to the ethanol industry by the Rudd Government on the back of growing global concerns over food shortages and biofuel production and rising costs; ethanol from Australian sugar and grains last year (2007) netted $42 million in commonwealth subsidies, paid to four operators for the production of 110 million litres of ethanol. The major beneficiaries were Manildra for its wheat plant in Nowra, NSW, and CSR for its sugar plant in Sarina, Queensland. Manildra was a big donor to the Liberal Party and Labor obviously felt left out.  In 2003, Manildra donated more than $300,000 to the Liberal Party and $50,000 to the ALP, which the party then forwarded to a charity so it could continue to attack the Howard government over the matter. However, in recent times, Manildra has ‘leveled the playing field’ in 2006-07 by giving $347,000 to Labor and $244,000 to the Coalition (when the Kevin ’07 juggernaut won the election).

So when will the respective parties of Labor and the LNP drop this subsidy ? It makes sense in todays economic climate and the need to make ends meet … we know that Tony Abbot places contributors above ordinary everyday Australians, so what about Labor and more importantly, what about the Greens focusing on the big issues and not just same sex marriage …

Dr Gleick published a statement on the internet apologising for obtaining the documents by deceptive means, which had the stink tank of The Heartland Institute up in arms becasue he used tactics similarto theirs.  

Dr Peter Gleick -  a published US scientist and water researcher – said he emailed a staff member at The Heartland Institute pretending to be someone else, and was sent a set of eight documents that included the names of hundreds of companies that had donated to the institute, details of the group’s strategies and a list of payments to bloggers and scientists, including an Australian, James Cook University adjunct professor Bob Carter.

Dr Gleick claimed to have been sent an anonymous memo apparently outlining the institute’s strategy. Heartland has subsequently claimed the memo was fake.  After receiving the memo, Dr Gleick is alleged to have said ‘in an effort to verify the memo and in a serious lapse of his own professional judgment and ethics, he solicited and received additional materials directly from The Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials The Heartland Institute sent him confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including, especially, their 2012 fund-raising strategy and budget.

Dr Gleick said no changes or alterations of any kind were made to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.  Dr Gleick is no doubt aware he will not be receiving a Christmas card from The Heartland Institute who describe him as ’a true enemy’.

It is interesting to note that this ‘Institute’ was embarrassed, particularly as its had promised donors – like Microsoft – anonymity.

The lack of integerity of donor companies and The Heartlands Institute is obvious to even the most dyed-in-the-wool, misguided and ill-informed.

Perhaps they should seek payment from The Heartlands Institute (or whatever name they may change to) as it appears a big business to lie, distort and misrepresent, given the millions of dollars being spent on a range of projects designed to create uncertainty about climate science in schools, newspapers, on television and the internet.

We are seeing the first signs of dangerous climate change in the Arctic. This is our warning that humanity is facing a dire future.

The Arctic region is fast approaching a series of “tipping points” that could trigger an abrupt domino effect of large-scale climate change across the entire planet. The region contains arguably the greatest concentration of potential tipping elements.

If set in motion, these can generate profound alterations which will place the Arctic not at the periphery, but at the core of the Earth system. There is evidence that these chain reactions have begun. This has major consequences not just for “nature”, but for the future of humankind as the changes progress.

Research shows that the Arctic is now warming at three times the global average. The loss of Arctic summer sea-ice forecast over the next four decades – if not before – is expected to have abrupt knock-on effects in northern mid-latitudes, including Beijing, Tokyo, London, Moscow, Berlin and New York. The loss of sea ice – which melted faster in summer than predicted – is linked tentatively to recent extreme cold winters in Europe.

Arctic records show unambiguously that sea ice volume has declined dramatically over the past two decades. In the next 10 years, summer sea ice could be largely confined to north of coastal Greenland and Ellesmere Island, and is likely to disappear entirely by mid-century.

Some environmental and biological elements, including weakening of the oceanic biological carbon pump and the thermohaline circulation,melting of the Greenland ice cap, thawing of Arctic permafrost and methane hydrate deposit, the decline of forest and peat fires in the boreal region, may be linked in a domino effect of tipping points that cascade rapidly once this summer sea ice is lost.

Despite this danger, semantic confusion masquerading as scientific debate – although providing excellent media fodder – had delayed an urgent need to start managing the reality of dangerous climate change in the Arctic.

And of course there are those who benefit from a warmer Arctic. A drop in Arctic ice has opened new shipping routes, expanded oil, gas, and mineral exploitation, increased military and research use, and led to new harbours, houses, roads, airports, power stations and other support facilities.

It has triggered a new gold rush to access these resources, with recent struggles by China, Brazil and India to join the Arctic Council where the split of these resources is being discussed. Not everyone is in favour of reducing the impact of warming on Arctic ice.

But all of us need to take this melting seriously. Top predators such as polar bears are declining. More methane gas is entering the atmosphere as permafrosts and submarine methane hydrates thaw. Freshwater discharge has increased 30% in recent years. And the Arctic Sea is warming faster as the ice cap melts, trapping more solar heat instead of reflecting it back into space, since ice reflects about 90% of the indecent solar radiation compared to the absorption of 60% of solar radiation by an open ocean surface devoid of ice.

In the subarctic region, dieback of the boreal forest and desiccation of peat deposits is leading to uncontrolled peat fires (such as those that plagued Russia in the summer of 2010) increases with warmer weather. This burning will further enhance greenhouse gas emissions.

We expect the Arctic will switch from being a carbon dioxide sink to become instead a source of greenhouse gases if seawater temperatures rise 4-5°C.

The rate of Arctic climate change is now faster than ecosystems and traditional Arctic societies can adapt to. Tipping points do not have to be points of no return. Several tipping points, such as the loss of summer sea ice and melting of permafrost, may be reversible in principle – although hard in practice.

However, should these changes involve the extinction of species – such as polar bears, walruses, ice-dependent seals and more than 1000 species of ice algae – the changes could represent a point of no return.

The Arctic crisis is a test of our capacity as scientists, and as societies, to respond to abrupt climate change. We need to stop debating the existence of tipping points in the Arctic and start managing their dangerous reality.

Carlos Duarte is Director, Oceans Institute at University of Western Australia. This article was originally published on The Conversation – theconversation.edu.au