The Cancun Shuffle: Norfolk Island Personal Carbon Credit Card Scheme

Guest Article by Black Swan

Small and distant Norfolk Island, an Australian protectorate, located to the east of the Barrier Reef, and to the north-west of New Zealand is quietly rising to prominence in political circles, for it is now the testing ground for the worldwide implementation of the monitoring and restriction on the size of individuals’ carbon footprints.

First, a quick background to the media coverage:

“Southern Cross University is set to lead a project testing the world’s first Personal Carbon Trading program conducted in a ‘closed system’ island environment on Norfolk Island commencing early next year.”

This announcement was made in a Media Release from Australia’s Southern Cross University on 27th October 2010.

In Australia the Sydney Morning Herald published a story on the subject suggests that “If successful, it could improve the health of the residents as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The London Daily Telegraph also wrote the story with “During the trial, residents will use the card when they pay for petrol and power. Those who use fewer units by walking or cycling instead of driving or using less electricity at home, will be able to exchange any remaining credit at the end of the year for cash.”

The Australian Newspaper said; “it appears likely Norfolk Islanders, who pay no income tax and only a 12 per cent local GST, (Goods & Services Tax) will have to pay some Australian tax in exchange for access to a range of benefits such as family allowances, dole payments and Medicare. The federal government is expected to organise an immediate infusion of funds”.

So my friends, the story is now clear, the Norfolk Island residents “faced with an empty treasury, a collapsing tourism trade and mounting government debts” have sold their Birthright of Freedom in exchange for Welfare, Health Care and never-ending Taxes to be levied against them.

Norfolk is a small Pacific island with an independent Government but is a Protectorate of Australia. Who is the man who will oversee this “wonderful” plan? He is Professor Garry Egger of Southern Cross University, who has declared that;

Chronic disease is linked to climate change, Professor says – 18/03/20

Is this man, a Professor of Lifestyle Medicine and Applied Health Promotion, a man of Science or a Court Jester? Egger is being paid $390,000 for the three year “study”.

Thirty thousand Tourists a year (almost 100,000 from around the world) will be included in the Scam, er, Scheme and this is especially convenient. The Tourists involved – probably seeing their own Carbon Credit Card as a kind of Holiday Novelty may think “these Islanders are really Environmentally Conscientious ” – and off they go, back to their homes, and Acceptance will go with them – like the Ripples on a Pond.

According to Egger, it is intended to be introduced in Australia then the UK – what’s next? The European Union? North America? China? He said it was intended to go Global.

His jovial assertion that it will be “Fun” is especially ominous.

Small communities are often used to launch Products or Concepts – consider them to be Free Range Focus Groups – and as with all such groups, objections and dissatisfaction are duly noted (in this case by Egger), usually NOT to improve the product/concept, but to better fashion the Propaganda required to achieve maximum Market Acceptance. The people of Norfolk are ripe for the taking. With their Treasury virtually empty, living in a pristine environment, protective of their Island, wishing to be Environmentally “Responsible” and persuaded that their participation is “for the greater good” of the Planet, they will “give it a try” – no harm in it is there?

If this “harmless, fun holiday novelty” is NOT intended to ultimately become Compulsory (the only way it can achieve its Purpose) then why is its architect, the Professor of Lifestyle, flying halfway round the world to present his Concept to an International audience of Government Representatives, Climate Change activists and Journalists at Cancun Mexico?

However, this is only the beginning. In the second year THE HEALTH CARE COSTS of FOOD will be included. There are many facets of this carefully crafted and glittering Carbon Gem.

How can such Health Care Costs be measured?

It’s NOT about the fat/sugar/salt content of food. It’s about the Health Care Costs of the chronic diseases caused by fat/sugar/salt content of food and rising levels of Diabetes, Hypertension, High Cholesterol and Obesity. As well as the costs of Medical and Hospital Care, does it include ongoing and expensive Medications from the Pharmaceutical Industry?

Will Consumers who DON’T suffer from those Chronic Diseases, when buying a certain type of food, be subsidizing the Health Care Costs of the people who DO suffer from them but don’t eat that type of food?

Will even healthy, conscientious people be forced to indirectly pay the high costs of Care and Treatment for those who suffer chronic disease through either poor choices or simple misfortune? This is in addition to ordinary taxes which support our Medical Systems.

These are very vexing Questions. They need to be asked AND they indeed DEMAND to be answered.

This Scheme is designed so that the Government will decide an Allocation of Carbon Use for each person. Each Individual’s Use will be tracked through the Carbon Credit Card. If a person exceeds his Permitted Allocation, he will be forced to pay for more. If he cannot afford to do so, he will not be permitted to buy a bus or an airline ticket, put gasoline in his car or buy electricity. Those who use less will be encouraged to “sell” their Allocation, Carbon Credits, to the wealthy.

The poor will become even more constricted by their circumstances.
The wealthy, who can afford to buy Government “permission”, will continue to live their extravagant lifestyles. The Government will determine which kinds of food you will be permitted to eat without penalty.

The Government will decide the SIZE of every Individual’s Carbon Footprint. The Government will decide what size Shoe will fit that footprint. The Government will ultimately give every Individual Carbon Footprint an annual Government Pedicure.

“Over time the number of carbon units handed out on the cards will go down, forcing individuals to work harder to maintain a low-carbon lifestyle.”

The ultimate design of this Scheme is very clear in the original Media Release. Is this the future any Citizens of any Nation want to see for themselves and their children? I sincerely trust that it is not.


71 thoughts on “The Cancun Shuffle: Norfolk Island Personal Carbon Credit Card Scheme

  1. Excellent and frightening piece, Blackswan. This personalized set of carbon chains and straitjacket appears to have precisely the range of control parameters over individual life to satisfy even the most homicidal of eugenic life destroyer’s ambitions. The universal adoption of this scheme will render life intolerable to endure for billions while permanently pulling up the ladder behind these “professors” up into their pink clouds to prevent the proles and presumed “worms of humanity” from ascending upward after these architects of universal misery into realms of better qualities of life.

    Greentard academics should be forced to wear t-shirts with their pictures on them and a notice which warns “Beware of The Eugenicist.”

    • Thanks O Great Bear,

      Eggers is better known in Australia as Professor Trim, the inventor of a lucrative weight-loss program called Gutbusters which costs a mere $495 to start.

      Always been a guy for the main chance it seems. A 1st class air ticket to Cancun to strut a world stage is right down his alley.

  2. As much as almost every detail of human life now has been micromanaged into disaster by the academic community, why are they not taken to task as the genuine enemies of humanity in thought, word and deed? Why are those with no ante at stake allowed to make permanently life-altering and life-destroying decisions on behalf of those who cannot even find these professors in order to retaliate with minimum appropriate and proportionate necessary force–in the courts of course?

    I think this card system should also have an offset mechanism that provides for executing by Boombah five professors in bio-eco-enviro-tardnedness for each everyday citizen who life is ruined by these strategies.

    • Hi Fen

      These Islanders are descendants of Fletcher Christian, the infamous Mutineer of the “Bounty” fame.

      I wonder how he’d feel if he knew his offspring would ultimately be used as Tools for such a Bureaucratic Green nightmare.

    • Hello Erik,

      I would be interested to know if you have heard of this Scheme in your country. As the Plan is for it to ultimately be introduced Globally, have you and your friends ever heard of such plans?

      • Hello Blackswan,

        Yes I know what the global green agenda is all about, UN’s agenda 21 etc.

        ..but it has never been discussed here in Denmark and I don’t think anyone would dare to do so, Yes we can…spot fascism from a distance

        Danes are no zombies, such a plan will never fly here

        • Hi Erik
          It has never been discussed here in Australia either. A couple of small newspaper articles with items chosen from the Media Release for popular consumption,or dismissed as more tomfoolery by the Green lobby. Otherwise, zero MSM coverage, zero awareness by the general public.

          No questions asked, none answered.

  3. A good piece of investigation Blackswan. Do we have any hard figures on how much cash this scheme is expected to cost the Australian taxpayer?


    • G’day Pointman

      While the original Media Release disclosed Prof Trim would receive $390K for the “study”, I have been unable to find ANY information about what this Pilot Program is costing Australian Taxpayers to implement.

      We must remember, the Software alone necessary to so closely track a population, determine its “expenditure” of Carbon, and levy penalties according to the Health Care Costs of Food, must be monumental indeed. In addition there are all the administrative costs.

      The Australian people have not been told of the degree of their “investment” in a Plan to bind free people with Carbon Shackles.

      • Having put the old thinking cap on for this one, don’t forget the medical research angle as well. I’d venture if given free rein Professor Eggers and his cohorts would love it if he could ‘sell’ microchipping his ‘captive island human experiments’ instead of a ‘Credit Card’ as we imagine it, perhaps even invite the biometrics gang to provide Point of Sale biometric scanners at all locations where transactions occur offering up some cost benefit analysis for employing these technologies. Think how much easier for his ‘medical research cohorts when they gather the also required medical data to just have all participants offer an embedded microchip to be scanned or id themselves with a biometric scan. In the context of your question of ‘how to track’ a population. I see it in my mind now. Eggers flying in, deploying his advanced technologies which I’m sure are all new and gee whiz to the Norfolk Islanders, lining everyone up to gather the medical data as well as the carbon data and out he flies with his precious cargo of electronic information accessable only to him to ‘sell’ around the world.

        If this guy was genuine, he would be lobbying for government to enact legislation upon stricter guidelines fro food contents from food providers and stick to this narrow field of his expertise in medical nutrition.

        I can already ‘see’ Norfolk Islanders in ‘my mind’ lining up at the airport, begging for chocolate bars from visiting tourists like the poor of India for a few coins.

        Or even more hilarious, some professional revolutionary activist flying in with ‘smuggled’ DVD’s showing advertisements for McDonalds, KFC & Pizza Hut and organising ‘underground meetings’ showing Norfolk Islanders what they are missing and inciting revolution.

    • The Nofrolk carbon program is a VOLUTARY TRIAL program with 4 Australian Universities. It WILL NOT cost the Aussie tax payers anything as it is completely funded through grant money. It will involve 10 Norfolk families to start (even if Aus does ‘bail us out’ and we have to pay tax etc).
      The hope is it will work well and more people will get on board. If it fails, the result to the scientists is perhaps a personal carbon trading program will not work and they can rethink the scheme etc. There willbe a committee of locals who iwll come up with the structure of the program that they think will best work in this community. AGAIN, IT IS A TRIAL PROGRAM AND VOLUNTARY.

      • Harmony:The hope is it will work well : it is completely funded through grant money

        Farmerbraun asks: How will “work well” be defined, i.e. what is the dependent variable?
        Where does the grant money come from?

      • Yeah,,,,,,right. Just like getting aboard the cattle trucks was voluntary. As Erik says ” Yes we can…

        spot fascism from a distance ”


      • Harmony, grants don’t come out of thin air. If they’re Australian government grants then the taxpayer is footing the bill …


        ps. Welcome to the blog by the way.

      • If this “voluntary trial program” is a result of the collaboration of 4 universities, we have only seen the media release from Southern Cross and Prof (Gutbusters) Trim assertions that this was intended to be introduced into Australia and thence to go global.

        How could such a program, on an entirely voluntary basis, have any impact on the environment, health or anything else? Eggers is jetting off to Cancun to present this ‘trial’ to an international Climate audience. On what basis will he present any outcome if only 10 families participate? Why did the Prof say that 30,000 tourist per year would be included?

        I hate to break the bad news Harmony, but there is no Grant Fairy at the bottom of the garden with free cash for all. If the grants came from Universities, it’s taxpayer funded. If the grants came from Govt climate programs, it’s taxpayer funded. If the grants came from NGOs like Greenpeace or the WWF which are large recipients of Govt largess, it’s taxpayer funded.

        We are all paying, and for what?

        Eggers can’t have it both ways. Is he telling Islanders that it’s only a 10 family trial and then telling the rest of the world that it’s going to be something entirely different? Then we can add deceptive and unconscionable practices to the list.

        And what of this; “Over time the number of carbon units handed out on the cards will go down, forcing individuals to work harder to maintain a low-carbon lifestyle.”

        Forcing?? Despite one’s best efforts to minimize their ‘footprint’, every person will progressively be allocated less Carbon Credits by the Govt.

        Make no mistake Harmony, Carbon Fraud (in any guise) is costing taxpayers around the world big-time. This is simply the latest manifestation of it.

        Go back to the story and read the first link to the media release. If you can see any relationship between what has been presented to the world and what you ‘think’ is the case, get back to me.

  4. Thank you Blackswan for an informative and detailed description/analysis of the plans for Norfolk Island.

    To use such under hand tactics is a travesty, which needs to be exposed for all to see.

    To travel across the world to present such evil propaganda is both a criminal use of resources and potentially extending such evil ideas.

    Cancun needs to fail and it is our duty in every way to challenge and reverse the AGW scam.

    The politicians and the financial suits are desperate to extend the Kyoto agreement before it expires, we must use all our influences to prevent this.

    Thank you again


    • MOTM,

      It’s good to know you share these concerns. I trust that questions will be asked in many quarters and the Architects of this Scheme will be called to account.

      Such control of any population, even to which food may be put in one’s mouth without penalty, is an affront to any concept of Human Rights anywhere.

      You are right – “we must use all our influences to prevent this.”

  5. Notice the large clouds of nitrous oxide and marijuana smoke dispensed by Royal Australian Air Force aircraft over the island to suppress the irate natives who rebelled against the enforcement of this obnoxious programme.

    This in turn led to riots by roving bands of pillagers in desperate search of pizza, beer and potato crisps.

    • Oh no, not the beer!!

      I forgot about that. Now we can add liver damage to the Health Bill.
      This is more serious than I thought…LOL

  6. Swan…thank you. I think you have shown us a glimpse of their version of our future. No thanks, They must



  7. if Egger cared as much about the environment as his own bank balance and enormous ego, then the people of Norfolk Island might actually have a chance to make a difference. as it now stands, they’ll be hard pressed to be able to continue living their own lives and make their own personal choices. there are so many things that can be done to help the environment and forcing people to do a small subset of them is not going to work.

  8. @Cygnet,

    If you’re the Cygnet I think you may be, welcome to the blog and I hope you’ll feel free to add your 10c frequently.


    • Pointman

      The Cygnet IS my seatbelt.

      If I ever wonder why I get involved in these AGW skirmishes, the future of our children and theirs is what cinches that seatbelt even tighter as we all pursue that Climate Change Gravy Train. Your own efforts in this endeavour are noteworthy. Thanks for your help and support.

  9. When the government can no longer pay for the drugs to treat our diabetes, hypertension, atherosclerosis and obesity then they will tell us to ‘Work for Food’, and that will be the end of it.

  10. It seems the Kanned Korn Karbon Fraud extends even further than Mistah Christian’s ancestral desmesne. From Germany here is a review of the Martin Durkin documentary “The Trillion Pound Heist” a follow-on to “The Global Warming Swindle.”

    Is there any limit to the energy politicians will deploy to spend taxpayers’ contributions toward folly? How can global warming be controlled if the nations of the West cannot even control their own spending? Very funny if it weren’t so tragic.

    Here is a link to the trailer for “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, certainly never to be presented as a film to balance the tosh promulgated by “An Inconvenient Truth:” First rate.

    I believe the full film is available online. Brought to you courtesy of the excellent German Klima site the No Tricks Zone at

    • O Great Bear

      The links you have found here are truly fantastic. The first one, on the level of British Debt and the outrageously bloated Public Sector, are brilliant in their presentation of the financial calamity that awaits.

      This is perfectly mirrored in Australia today though I fear our situation is worse simply because no Politician will reveal any detail and they refuse to disclose exactly to whom we are indebted.

      It is highly likely the percentage of Public Sector workers in our small workforce is far higher than the UK as we have three tiers of Govt; local Councils, State & Federal – all on generous salaries and pensions. Add to this all the Contractors, NGOs and Welfare Service Providers which, while seemingly independent entities, are all guzzling on the taxpayer teat.

      The system must implode. I see this as the raison d’etre for the Carbon Scam. There is no other way to address the profligate spending and indebtedness of our Green/Labor/Socialist Government.

      Your second link on the AGW Swindle is terrific also. Plain and simple, no beg pardons, we are embroiled in the biggest Propaganda campaign in history. With no credible basis in science, the end-game is Control – of the way we live, work and travel and most of all, control of our Money.

      Thanks Walt, these truths can’t be presented any more plainly than this.

  11. Let’s just hope some of that mutineer blood is still pumping in some of the islanders veins. Whereas I guess some are just wishing their ancestors endured Bligh’s lash and got on with the business of tranporting breadfruit to the West Indies to feed the slaves. Talk about ironry. They mutinied against an expedition to tranplant Breadfruit from Tahiti to enable the British West Indies slave owners to control their slaves and extract maximum profit from food, how the circle turns.

    • WFL, the big problem with inhabiting such gorgeous and pristine natural wonders is on occasion one suffers a near-homicidal drive to somehow get at a Mickey Dee belly busting burger and a bucket of fries at three a.m. yet can do nothing about it.

      I had thought the breadfruit was for the relief of the recurring famine conditions in Eire. If that is the case the magical solution for solving Eire’s debt problem is for Emerald Isle to declare war on these folks (who would promptly surrender over sundowners at poolside to the friendly invading forces) based on “historical claims” then toddle off to the Bank for International Settlements to sort out the war reparations loan game. Splitskies with Eire under the tale on the accumulated swag and Bob’s yer uncle.

      All we are saying is give chance a piece. Of the action, that is.

      • O Great Bear,

        “All we are saying is give chance a piece. Of the action, that is.”

        One of your best I must say….LOL

        Now, if only I could find someone other than a Tribal Elder who “gets it”. It’s a beauty and I intend to borrow it at the first opportunity if I may.

      • from wiki

        “The ship had been purchased by the Royal Navy for a single mission in support of an experiment: she was to travel to Tahiti, pick up breadfruit plants, and transport them to the West Indies in hopes that they would grow well there and become a cheap source of food for slaves. The experiment was proposed by Sir Joseph Banks, who recommended Bligh as commander, and was promoted through a prize offered by the Royal Society. Sir Joseph Banks was at that time the unofficial director of Kew Gardens.”

        Just to answer your question on what was the purpose of transplanting breadfruit trees from Tahiti to the Carribean as cheap food for slaves. Just dont think a tropical plant would survive in Ireland.

    • Hello wfl

      I have to say I think the Islanders are caught in a cleft stick. They’re broke (probably due to a downturn in tourism) and they have exchanged their legacy of freedom from their forebears for welfare and medical benefits.

      I’m sure most of them feel they are doing something positive for AGW and have been sold the deal as a “win win” situation (don’t you love those bureaucratic buzz-words?). I’m sure the Australian Govt will now have to open an office there to deal with welfare recipients, creating training and employment for some.

      I began on this issue being really ticked-off that the Islanders were lending themselves as useful tools to this disgraceful project – now I feel the blame should be laid squarely at the feet of people like the Professor, always with an eye for the main chance, who seek to take advantage of the vulnerable.

      It’s simply a reminder that Pragmatism usually trumps Principles in the modern world. Fletcher Christian thought otherwise.

  12. so many ironries here. the reason the orginal Pitcairns Islanders ‘broke down’ was the descendents ended up fighting each other over what scant resources were left on that island. Including episodes of cannibalism.

    I’m also trying to imagine how the local footy team or sports club is going to throw a BBQ with a few steaks and snags without blowing their carbon budget. I guess it will now be a ‘social crime’ to be or want to be a front or second row rugby player on Norfolk Island and keep your ‘beef up’.

    Oh and what a wonderful opportunity for some quasi religious like group to seek some type of ‘charity’ carbon credit card of their own to entice the congregation into the church for a free feed and maybe a free hand out of a couple of carbon credits to feed the faithfuls families.

    • Human Nature has always been thus, wfl, and similar situations rose here in Van Diemens Land when bands of runaway convicts fought over scarce resources, to the death and beyond.

      You raise an interesting point which was also raised with me recently in a discussion on this issue.

      In this Carbon Credit Card Plan, will each person be allocated exactly the same amount of Credits? Will the high-flying businessman whose business necessitates a great deal of travel receive the same as a stay-at-home person. Should that businessman fly to London, will he personally carry the can for his travel or will that be added to his Company’s Carbon Profile?

      If he combines his business trip with a little pleasure, will a side trip to the Riviera be at his Carbon Credits expense or his Company’s? Maybe he’ll buy some Credits from the stay-at-home who will then have to forego a distant family reunion because they previously cashed-in their allocation?

      Will a professional athlete receive the same as an elderly pensioner? The complexity of this issue and its ramifications for people are enormous. Will Prof Trim answer any of these questions in Cancun? Will anyone even ask him? Based on what we have seen from the Media so far it’s highly unlikely.

  13. I think this is a fantastic post, and would like to thank Black Swan for deciding to post it here. I wonder why it hasn’t been picked up by any quick witted journalists yet?

    In fact, I like it so much, I’m going to press the like button at the top of the comments section. Thanks Black Swan.

    • Hello Locusts,

      I truly appreciate the opportunity to post this story on your innovative Ourmaninsichuan site. In late October when this issue first surfaced I posted my questions elsewhere twice and they were largely ignored.

      I have sent a number of emails and remain tentatively hopeful that this issue can be widely debated in a broad forum.

      These questions must be raised and MUST be answered by the architects of this Scheme. Thank you for this opportunity to begin the process.

  14. for your interest, here is a copy of an email I sent to the ethics department of Southern Cross University today. I think a good way to try and nip this in the bud is for those of us/you with legitimate well thought out arguments to ‘bombard’ the ethics departments of the 3 Universities involved and CC in as many politicains and intersted parties as you can. I think ‘we’ may find this ‘sterile’ university academics don’t want a wider audience bombarding them with questions and demonstrating in their emails with large CC lists to others indicating a growing radius of knowledge to others…

    Dear Ms Kelly,

    I would like to put to the ethics department some questions regarding the media release from SCU concerning the ‘trial’ of Personal Carbon Credit Cards to be undertaken upon the population of Norfolk Island.

    It would hearten me if I was to receive a reply.

    I will dismiss any media reports of the same except to ask most strongly for SCU to follow up closely all media reporting of this, especially the use of the word ‘Green’ as reported in The Australian Newspaper in reporting this scheme and suggest that those in SCU do something forthwidth to clarify any ‘Green’ involvement. ‘Green’ now is linked to a politcal movement and party, and for SCU to allow reporters to invoke the word ‘Green’ in describing this scheme is getting close to ‘playing politics’ by ipso facto suggesting SCU ‘experiment/trial’ has the sanction of the Green political party, and would advise that those involved in the project take steps to clarify this misreporting.

    For now I will attempt to focus my questions on ethics and who at SCU approved this ‘trial’ and by what ‘ethical tests’ did they apply to their proposed ‘trial/experiment’.

    I will presume that this is the correct link to the ‘official’ SCU media release. (below)

    My first question concerns this statement.

    “The reason it is so suitable is you have an isolated community with a small population living a similar lifestyle to people on mainland Australia. So now we have an island that it is 1700km off the mainland, it is fully self-contained and you can measure everything that goes in and out. Plus, the really good thing about it is the Norfolk Island Government and the community are delighted about the idea.”

    I challenge any academic to explian to me how they can claim to make ‘living a smiliar lifestyle to people on mainland Australia’ in describing the lifestyles of people on Norfolk Island. Where are the corresponding lifestyle comparisons for ‘choice’, to be able to firstly move somewhere else. Where is the Federally elected representative for Norfolk Island in the Australian parliament to ‘represent’ Norfolk islanders ‘concerns’? at an act of Federal government? More simply, where are the traffic jams, the monopoly of Coles/Woolsworth, public transport questions, water security issues etc etc etc. To claim that Norfolk Islanders live a lifestyle similiar to mainland Australians is a fallacy.

    My next question concerns.

    “Then we can take it to the Australian Government and say, look, these people tested it and they do or don’t think it is a good idea. If they have problems then hopefully we can sort those problems out. If they are in favour of it then it would justify scaling it up to a country level and ultimately to a world level.”

    Careful reading of this statement would suggest the following “we can sort those problems out” is that the ‘trial’ is already slanted towards producing a positive result, that if the round peg won’t fit in the square hole, your researchers are still going to hammer it down to make it fit, that their appears to be no option for discounting the scheme if it fails.

    As SCU has received Australian taxpayer funds for this ‘trial’ do you not think it would be fair to first consult the wider Australian community before suggesting after ‘sort those problems out’ ‘scaling it up to a natiional level and ultimately a global level’ ?

    My next question, as it is now been made known that Professor Eggers will be presenting his ‘idea’ to the Cancun Climate Conference, do you not think it fair and right for ALL Australians to know what is being proposed in ‘our’ names as the personal agenda of Professor Eggers?

    My next question is very serious one for your ethics department to consider in context of guidelines for experiments involving human beings. Something I think your ethics committee needs to have a long hard think about and perhaps ‘recalibrate’ your focus.

    The Norfolk Island Government were partners in the Australian Research Council submission and The Hon Andre Nobbs MLA, Minister for Tourism Industry and Development, said he was delighted the project had been given the go ahead.

    “The good thing that Norfolk Island has going for it is the population has strong ideals and beliefs about the environment. We are a remote island community so in terms of how everyone would grab hold of this at an operational level, that is where Norfolk shines.” Mr Nobbs said.

    “As far as tourism is concerned I think it will be another welcome experience for people arriving on Norfolk Island. Most tourists already know we are pretty genuine about our quality of life here and in this day and age, to arrive and be given a card that is going to map their carbon usage while they are on holiday, I think will be seen as a very proactive step. We are excited to be part of another innovative pilot scheme with positive outcomes for the environment”

    Does the Southern Cross University think it ethically correct to first select a ‘captive population’ for a human social experiment and then ‘promote’ ‘tourists’ to observe and gawk at those being ‘trialed and experimented on’. ie, can I know bus in tourists to all the other research and other university experiments conducted by SCU? now?, do I have permission to fill your class rooms with tourists who may wish to gawk at whatever else it is you teach your students?

    Where is the ethical morality in suggesting the trial is for the control group to reduce their Carbon footprint, yet encourage others to increase their Carbon footprint through ‘flying in’ for the novelty of receiving an ‘eco-tourism gimmick souvineer’ Carbon Credit Card? How do you think that moral & ethical arguement stands up to what you are asking the Norfolk Islander to do, that they must reduce, yet ‘interested parties’ should now ‘fly-in’ increasing their CO2 footprint. That surely smacks of hypocracy.

    Your media release only mentions the Tourism Minister Hon Andre Nobbs MLA as a ‘political’ supporter.

    Do you not think the Science Minister, the Climate Change Minister, or even the Health Minister given the stated aim of also ‘attacking obesity’ through linking the cards to food purchases would be more ‘scientifically credible” ?

    Does the ethics committe not see a further hypocracy in ‘dictating’ these scheme of Professor Eggers whilst at the same time he books a flight to Cancun with no concerns about his Carbon footprint to the Climate Conference.

    Would not the ethics committee suggest to Professor Eggers if he wishes to experiment on human beings he must also demonstrate to those watching he is prepared to do the same himself. Let him telecommute, and show us he is actually onboard in trying to reduce his own Carbon footprint.

    I object most strongly to this unethical research being conducted in my name as an Australian, funded by Australian taxpayer funds, and would earnestly seek answers to the questions I put to you justconcerning your media release before posing further questions about the morality of telling people what and how they can eat. Is it now a ‘social crime’ for person to want to be a front or second row rugby player or for a young person to want to aspire to a sports career beacuse people will now dictate to him what he can or can’t eat?

    Eagerly awaiting your earliest reply

    • wfl, you turned out to be the go-to guy for dealing with this issue.

      I find it impossible to have any rational communication with academics and bureaucrats and Academic Bureaucrats are the worst of all. The entire point of my efforts to engage any interest in this Scheme is to find people like you who understand what I saw in that first media release. In such circumstances one is always tempted to think “Is it just me?” but I’m really glad to have found that others share my alarm at this experiment.

      My own emails to various quarters have either never been acknowledged, or answered with “I’ll think about it” or “Leave it with me, I’ll get back to you”, that most classic of all brush-offs.

      For me, it’s not so much the Prof telling us what to eat, the entire system is focused on what we may eat WITHOUT PENALTY. As you appear to already know, in Australia low income earners are already having to choose between paying outrageous Energy bills (thanks to Solar/Wind subsidies) and what food they can afford to put on the table.

      Prof Trim’s utopia would see people who fancy a pizza and beer deciding that Carbon Credit Penalties would prevent them putting petrol in their cars to go to work or visit family. Forget the pizza, have some lentil soup instead. If this concept isn’t a deprivation of the most basic of Human Rights, I don’t know what is.

      Thank you for giving this matter the thought you obviously have and, most importantly, taking some positive action to find some answers. We would all be keen to know what variation of the brush-off you receive. At this late juncture the Prof isn’t going to cancel his flight for the Mexican knees-up (all those frequent flier points you know) but it will be interesting to see what, if any, MSM coverage his big Presentation will attract. At the current rate of interest, I’d say the silence will be deafening.

  15. as for quick witted journalists ‘picking it up’ gimme some time people, I’m circulating to as many newsrooms as I can find/

  16. wfl says:
    November 17, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    A cogent post with the added plus that you’ve already gone and done something about you reservations on the ‘experiment’; emailed them to the relevant parties.

    If running this experiment results in an increase in tourism then surely the whole scientific basis of the experiment is suspect? The islanders will be as ‘green’ as possible to draw in more tourists.


  17. (this is from an email exchange with a person claiming the small sample group doesn’t matter and also the ‘voluntary’ aspect of the scheme and my response to him. I hope my ‘arguements’ concerning the ‘voluntary’ aspect of the scheme assist the person above who posted that it is voluntary. I also advise interested or concerned parties to investigate the ethical standards required for experimenting upon humans and my arguements that all citizens of whatever politcal view or beliefs should be pro-active and defend vigiouriosly standards when governments seek to employ free citizens as experimental guniea pigs for any purposes.

    I ‘hear’ you (or read you). The blessing of living in Australia is one also of a ‘healthy democracy’, where ALL persons are entitled to their points and views and exercise those views without fear of persecution. The modern communication age now also allows a further extension of all to present their views.

    I make no aspersions to you as a person nor make any guesses to your education. I will not bother to waste your time with my own education and background. But I do wonder if you have ever had to present a proposal in your time to a university ethics committee for consideration when making a proposal involving ‘experimenting’ with humans or have read the relevent codes. And could be abstract enough to put aside all predjudice and make judements on ethics and morality. I wonder per chance if you ever served in our military, or participated in a staff college course which goes into human ethics at a great deal higher than abstracts of sterile universities. I hope and pray you never have to make judgement calls about expending lives based on your internal ethics code.

    I take on board fully your post of its a small experiment, but I do challenge you that there is no Federal funding, original funding came via the Australian Research Council and 3 Federally funded universities have provided this experiment with the ‘oxygen’ to breath. If in the end it such a small ‘control group’, why bother at all? especially as it involves human experimentation. What next, shall Professor Eggers be allowed to source Nazi research documents on human calorie limits in defining diet data for humans therefore ‘legitimising’ that research. This is a slipperly slope already ethicists have had to examine after requesting access to Nazi human freezing and hyper chilling data in trying to find ‘solutions’ to people who have accidently fallen through frozen ice etc in trying to ascertain if a person is worth attempting revival.

    But I digress. All I am saying, is we ALL should be concerned and want to and seek out information whenever a government wishes to condone any form of sanctioned experimentation upon human beings and it is our moral duty to ensure the highest and strictest standards are applied, including full public disclosure and openess.

    (Just as an interesting idea, what say now if some Norfolk Islander wishes to pursue a career as a Sumo wrestler? (now I’m not saying he/or she would) but there are Australians who do enjoy sumo as a sport, would you now say that Norfolk Islander can exercise that option in the same freedom as a mainland Australian? under this ‘trial’)

    In stating that this scheme is ‘voluntary’, how sure in your mind of that being true, in the context that Norfolk Islands economy is tourism, and this is also being pitched as a ‘tourist attraction’, imagine perhaps the subtle unseen pressure then for ALL Norfolk Islanders to ‘volunteer’ in the form of solidarity, because it has been presented to them in the form of ‘financial attraction’. And again their are strict ethical guidelines in place for even offering financial incentives for people to participate in human experimentation trials. How many Norfolk Islanders do you think were given the full code of ethics on human experimentation to peruse before considering this scheme?.

    That being said. I include below my first email to the ethics department of Southern Cross University asking questions regarding ‘ethics’ and if SCU has bothered to really apply the Australian standards required for human experimentation below. Or would you much prefer the scheme go ahead with no oversight and who knows, years later some Norfolk Islanders ‘wake up’ and employ a legal team and demand a huge compensation payout from the federal government for being denied the same ‘choices & freedoms’ as extended to the rest of Australia as a result of Professor Eggers arrogance and desire to have his moment in the sun?

  18. Further thoughts, this HAS been ‘examined before and their IS some data for Eggers to present for his nutritional arguments.

    After walling up the Warsaw Ghetto, the Nazi’s kept cutting back the allocated ration of food to its inhabitants, eventually (from memory) getting the ration down to 1800 calories.

    When the Sonderkommados were sent in to round up more trainloads for the death camps, people would ask them ‘Why? What have we done? What crime have we committed?” to which the Nazi’s would joke our dieticians have told us that 2800 calories is the minimum required input for daily survival and we are issuing you with 1800 calories. Therefore you ALL must be engaged in some criminal enterprise of smuggling food or denying food to The Reich and are therefor all guilty.

    (which is of course true, good Poles were doing their damnest to get food into the Ghetto, through the sewers, over the walls, whatever they could find)

    How low is Eggers going to go in finding his ‘bottom line’ numbers of constant reduction of carbon allowance, and accompanying food/calorie/fat?

    Is his ‘bottom line’ result to find out when will the people ‘rebel’?

  19. I always thought Fletcher Christian and the rest of his crowd went to the Pitcairns. Is this the same group of islands, or am I confused again, please?

    WFI, no one brought down the wall except those on the other side of it; as well as the Poles it was the entire Russian people and all of Eastern Europe as well. Being broke had something to do with it, but not as much as is ascribed to it. Everyone was fed up with it. No one compelled anyone to drop the communist totalitarian routine. It failed for lack of general interest on the part of those formerly suffering from that particular species and genus of mass mental illness.

  20. I came across this story in today’s Sydney Morning Herald…..

    “It is acceptable and encouraged that a TSA government official can do something to an American citizen that US military personnel cannot do to a member of the Taliban.”

    I include this link, totally unrelated to Carbon Credit Cards, but indicative of the way ordinary citizens are being treated in an ever more pervasive manner by officialdom, everywhere. Free citizens are increasingly being treated with contempt and utter disrespect for our basic rights to dignity and respect.

    Some readers will think “Another litigious American seeking compensation”. I disagree. This young woman could be my daughter and I admire her pursuit of accountability in those who make such arbitrary rules and regulations to control ordinary people simply living their lives.

    It has to stop.

  21. Don’t you love the morning papers? I came across this in The Australian;

    “ATTORNEY-General Robert McClelland has launched a program against extremist indoctrination.”

    At last, I thought, a bit of balance in the Climate Change brain-washing of our young people.
    Alas, I read on…….

    //”He has invited community groups to apply for funding to run youth mentoring projects to steer young people away from extremist ideology. Grants will be available to organisations in Victoria and NSW that assist Muslim youths, identified as being vulnerable to extremist views, to disengage radical ideologies.

    A program to empower young Muslims who are experiencing difficulties in fitting into Australian society and need a secure footing when faced with those promoting violent radicalisation is laudable.”//

    Taxpayer “grants” (take note Harmony) are being offered to fight extremist ideology, but only for Religious Radicals.

    The rest of us will just have to get along the best we can. “All we are saying is give chance a piece. Of the action, that is.”

    Thank you O’Bear, I knew I’d find an excuse to borrow your wit – handy, since I have little of my own…LOL

    • A recent comment by Magic Turtle on the role of media:
      Magic turtle wrote:
      It does seem to me that the BBC has been blatantly prejudiced in its coverage of the global warming issue. But why are we shocked? Surely it has just been following its normal m.o. with respect to all current affairs. Wasn’t it always the main propaganda-outlet for the ruling elite of Britain?

      I think the BBC has been tasked by the established elite who created it with shaping the British public’s thinking in line with their thinking on every issue. It has been set up as a mass-communication device that will communicate in one direction only – from the ruling elite to the people they rule. There is no appreciable feedback in the other direction (except when the BBC asks for it on some topic of its own choosing). It has not been set up as an open debating-platform like this blog, where everyone can have a say about whatever matter is concerning them enough to want to say something about it. You can’t debate anything with the BBC and you can’t effectively argue with it either. Criticise one of its programs and a supercillious producer will tell you in no uncertain terms why your criticism is misplaced. If you dispute anything with it, it’s like charging at a mountain of putty. Your energy is absorbed and the mountain remains unmoved. But surely, that is how it was always meant to be.

      If the BBC’s primary purpose and function is to promote the ideas that it is instructed to promote by its elite masters, it is simply an illusion to think of it, as many people around the world do, as being concerned with conveying the unvarnished truth about anything. If it does do that, it is purely incidental and it occurs because the elite have an interest in conveying the truth on that occasion. But how are ordinary members of the public to know when the BBC is conveying the raw truth as it actually is and when it is spinning a yarn? Unless it makes a complete balls-up of its yarn-spinning, as it did when one of its news presenters in New York on 9/11 reported that ‘as you can see’ Building7 had just collapsed behind her when it was visibly still standing in the camera-shot, the ordinary public will probably have no idea when Auntie Beeb is pulling a fast one.

      So the BBC does not edit its programme-content for truthfulness before broadcasting it. It edits it for conformity to elite wishes, just like the way that the priesthood of the medieval church pre-edited their sermons and ordinances primarily for their conformity to the received wishes of the Pope. And today the BBC is doing with the elite-inspired idea of man-made global warming what the medieval priesthood did with the ideas of creation in seven days and the earth-centred universe. It is promoting the idea without judging or caring whether or not it is true. The elite want it promoted so the BBC promotes it. End of story as far as it is concerned.

      However it is not the end of the story, of course, for the billions of ordinary folk who make up world society and who always end up having to pay for the elite’s extravagance and recklessness that always are entailed in public acceptance and support for the elite’s illusions. The man-made global warming illusion is just one of many in a seemingly-endless line of fatuous elite-fancies that will literally cost us the earth if we don’t look sharp and stop going along with them soon enough.

      I am not putting this forward as an argument for getting rid of elites as such but only as an argument for rejecting their illusions. I suspect that there will always be an elite because it is in human nature to create one. But when the general public start accepting whatever the elite say just because it is the elite saying it and not because they know it to be true, then they are making dummies of themselves and placing themselves in the same abject position that the subjects of the Holy Roman Empire found themselves trapped in for over a thousand years. The Rennaissance and the Enlightenment were supposed to have brought us all our of that age of darkness and intellectual repression through the resolute pursuit of independent knowledge of truth and reality for oneself. The cult of CAGW and its powerful promoter, the BBC, are proposing implicitly that we should all go right back into that dark age again and stay there. And as we have seen on the Comments pages of these DT blogs, there are many people who believe that it is everyone’s moral duty to do precisely that.

      So I think the choice that we face in deciding whether or not to accept the CAGW-proposition is not merely academic but is an evolutionary one and it will determine our destinies and those of our descendants for centuries to come. We don’t have to return to the unfree culture of a more primitive epoch if we don’t want to but it has become the default option now if we do not choose otherwise and be quick about it too. I say this because the elite archetects and builders of the geo-socio-engineered neo-feudal Brave New World are in a tearing hurry and are not waiting upon our decisions before they start implementing theirs. I think this fact puts us all in Hamlet’s position where we each have to decide whether or not it is worth bearing the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and opposing this CAGW nonsense, or submit to it for the sake of a quiet life that we may know, in our heart of hearts, will be the last thing that it intends to give us. To Be, or Not To Be. I think that is very much the question of our time.

      • Farmerbraun,

        Thank you for bringing the Magic Turtle to our attention and seeing how this perspective on the Modern Media is so intrinsically bound to the preposterous theories of Global Warming. If I were fortunate enough to meet such a turtle, I’d like to shake his flipper and buy him a round of whatever turtles drink.

        Australia’s ABC exactly mirrors the role of the BBC and has become little more than the Media Arm of Socialist Govt, more latterly promoting Green Policies. Labor is in Govt, the Greens are in power.

        I see this time in our history as being pivotal in determining our future direction. It’s time to “put up or shut up”. People have a choice now – compliance = servitude – or grow some backbone and demand the return of our rights as free people.

        In Australia the silence is deafening. The few plaintive voices of protest are lost in the winds of Green/Socialism which seek to change our world. They can’t be allowed to succeed.

        Dylan Thomas spoke for me –

        Do not go gentle into that good night,
        Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
        Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

  22. Swanny
    But of course CC/Carbon Credits aren’t extremist indoctrination are they – obviously they’re for our own good??
    These “plonkers” are out to save the world no matter what the rest of us think – it makes them feel important and saintly to be able to preach their “we know what’s good for you” mantra. Just hope it all gets kicked out before it becomes accepted practice – we just can’t afford these stupid plans based on a lie!

    • Hello Mel,
      Great to see you here.

      For a while there I was beginning to think “It’s just me”, but it’s good to know that you and others share my concerns for the implementation of this nonsense.

      With the 3 year plan, Prof Trim (after collecting his $390K) will present the results of his ‘study’ to the Australian Govt just in time for the next election. We will then be told that “after extensive community consultation” the program was a “great success”, that Norfolk’s Carbon Footprint was drastically reduced (as though they ever had one in the first place) and it will be a done deal.

      That’s the way all Green/Labor policy is bulldozed through Parliament and Bob’s yer Auntie!

      Thanks for your comment Mel.

  23. After reading about the Carbon Credit Card Scheme a ‘feathered friend’ emailed the following;

    Those Boardroom Boys look down on us with more than just disdain
    They only plan to use us for their own financial gain
    Because they know that most of us are just too apathetic
    Their quest to fill their pockets becomes more and more frenetic
    So while the population are letting down their guard
    By sleight of hand they’ve introduced the Carbon Credit Card
    Who has to pay and just how much those Boardroom Boys determine
    Let’s face it, they see you and me as nothing more than vermin
    They have no civic duty, no morals, no allegiance
    Their single minded focus is how quickly they can fleece us
    But “Wait, I have no more to give”, I hear your plaintive cries
    Those Boardroom Boys will slink right back and pluck out both your eyes
    Just how did we allow this, I really do despair
    Make no mistake they’ll make us pay for breathing God’s fresh air!

    Thank you, my friend, says it all really.

    • Blackswan, really a super blogstream here.

      All I could think of is to download the full movie “Brazil” by Handmade Films for your reference and amusement, as its theme and style and content perfectly suit today to a tee.

      I am still looking online in vain for a TV show which ran in the 1980’s of kids in Mohawks prowling London in their drug-dazed pursuit of the avant-garde. One episode had one of the kids confronting Mussolini and calling him a fascist to which he replied, “You’re right! I am!” then he burst into song Mary Poppins like:

      When it comes election time
      And you don’t like the choices,
      There’s always something you can do:
      Go make funny noises!

      Then he did a tissue paper and comb solo which to this day merits the B. Zerk O’Bear Gold Cowpie Award of Approval.

      Can’t even find a trace of the show. Disturbing, really. LOTS of the 1980’s stuff is blocked out for good, methinks.

      • G’day O’Bear,

        You are generous – as always.

        As little kids we used to play the comb with a cigarette paper, did you ever try it?
        On the other hand, you could always try this…………

        Today’s world lends itself so well to a little ridicule – maybe that’s because so much of it is just plain ridiculous.

  24. Lot of hard work in there Swanny, all of it is very worrying, I have said before, that the nth degree for the Eco-loony brigade is exactly something like the above.
    It always starts small, Germany started by annexing Denmark and Sudetenland (“we were invited in!”), all the time looking towards, Britain and East to Russia.
    In EU land, I would bet my house on the fact that this type of control freakery has been discussed not in the name of saving the Polar bear, no, no, no. But in the name of keeping the masses under the yoke, in this, it ticks a lot of boxes.
    We must fight this tooth and claw and fight dirty if it warrants.

    • Sorry Swanny I am forgetting my manners, G’day mate!!

      I trust, that you are well and mother Swan and cygnets are also doing fine!

      • G’day Ed,

        Kind of you to ask, and things are fine, thank you.

        Your take on the Norfolk Project is along similar lines to mine – why spend a great deal of money on an innocuous little plan for a remote South Pacific island if it isn’t the forerunner to something else?

        What has a ‘minor’ health/environment initiative by a nutty professor (or ten in 4 Universities) got to do with an international Climate Conference in Mexico?

        I will keep asking questions until I get some answers.

  25. My comment is ‘awaiting moderation’? – You mean scrutiny by the censor.

    I don’t agree with any form of censorship.

    Pity, it looks like a nice site.


    • I’m afraid so, the content of this site has already ruffled a few feathers, you can read about it here.

      I’d rather take the precautions of a bit of censorship, rather than risk my readers clicking virus addled links put up by not very nice people.

      Everyone’s 1st comment is held in moderation, so I get a chance to work out if they are a danger to other readers or not, then afer that they are free to post, as you now are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s