Doctors for the Environment Media Release
Doctors call on the Liberal Party to resist caving in to pressure to abandon net zero, as doing so will put Australian lives at risk.
The call comes ahead of high-stakes meetings this week to debate the party’s position on net zero emissions.
Doctors for the Environment Australia’s executive Director Dr Kate Wylie says, “It would be reckless for our political leaders to ignore the scientific and medical evidence that clearly states climate change is a public health emergency. The World Health Organisation has declared it the greatest threat to global health in the 21st Century.
“Dropping net zero aimed at addressing rising emissions, which are the cause of climate change, threatens the foundations of good health, with serious consequences for our families and communities.
“As doctors we are aghast at attempts to reduce measures towards a safe climate.
“We are right now witnessing the effects of climate change on the health of Australians – increased emergency department presentations and hospitalisations due to heat, the mental health impacts of extreme events like floods and fire, and the emergence of infectious diseases like Japanese encephalitis virus in previously unaffected areas of Australia.
“Healthcare services are also vulnerable to a range of risks, including an increase in patient demand and threats to infrastructure and workforce.
“It is incumbent on the Australian government to fully honour its commitment to the Paris Agreement to adopt increasingly ambitious targets every five years in an effort to keep global mean temperature rise to 2⁰C. Current warming in Australia is already 1.5°C.
“The health impacts of climate change are an escalating threat that our leaders must be prepared to face and address.
“We urge all parliamentarians to put health before ideology.”
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
It is a pity that these doctors did not protest en masse when the Covid-19 mandates were enforced.
Mediocrates:
Why would they do that when all the evidence said that social distancing, masks and, eventually, vaccines, were the best option?
The pursuit of “net zero” is both a waste of time and money, humanity will never be free of fossil fuels.
Humanity would not be where it is (be that good or bad) without fossil fuels. the very means of our escape from fossil fuels, requires the use of even more fossil fuels!!
Leefe; “…all the evidence…” was simply a fearful bureaucratic narrative devoid of factual and scientific justification. My question is tainted by cynicism: it is well established now that any criticism of the official narrative resulted in medicos being sanctioned and de-licensed by registration boards largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Also, particularly in USA, medicos were/are financially dependent on supplemental payments for performing vaccinations according to the “well visit” vaccination program for infants. Ultimately, both administrative and financial controls coerced most medicos to keep quiet.
Health is a furphy and as easily ignorable as a 1000 years.
ps
Jonangel, progress is based on power and COO producing fossil fuels are not essential.
Eunice Foote, 150 years ago, showed why we should not produce COO. Her experiment is lost in the words ‘climate change’. Climate is an average which automatically will change NATURALLY, with each calculation.
Mediocrates:
You can’t have direct evidence of what will definitely work at the beginning of a pandemic involving a novel infectious agent. You have to make certain assumptions based on past experience and known effectiveness of various measures.
Lockdowns and other social distancing measures, along with improved hygiene, did actually work to slow down and even limit the spread. They were logical choices under the circumstances.
Yes, “progress is based on power” be it steam, electrical hydro or nuclear and all are reliant on fossil fuels. I repeat without our use of fossil fuels humans would still be living in caves.
jonangel:
Pretty sure Homo supposedlysapiens was well out of the ‘caveman’ phase long before we started using coal for energy.
I am happy to take your word for the relationship of “caveman” and “coal”, but “coal” isn’t the only fossil fuel.
As the saying goes, ‘it takes all types.’ leefe’s protagonist’s repeated offerings in these pages reveals him to be a staunch advocate & shill for the continuation of usage of carbon-based fossil-derived fuels that continue to be shown via evidence-based outcomes to be the worst sorts of energy ongoing, given the amount of damage their emissions have imparted on a global scale, no part of the earth untouched as it were.
Nothing new in this: the tobacco industry employed doctors to spruik the health benefits of sucking on durries, and tobacco smokers en masse defended their habits even while their lungs were incrementally clogged with tars and other poisons and their alveoli withered and collapsed; the fossil fuel giants similarly employ teams of lobbyists to ensure that governments around the world do as little as possible despite the mountains of evidence re. the damage being done, and no doubt jonangel is not alone in his defence of the continuity of fossil fuel-based energy sources persisting as long as possible.
Leefe: Was Covid-19 really a “novel infectious agent”? COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2, which is an RNA virus in the Betacoronavirus genus of the Coronaviridae family. Corona viruses have been present in the natural biome since time immemorial however, recent molecular biological analysis of its genome, (derived from human samples), reveal “inconsistencies” that do not occur elsewhere in nature and thus support the contention that Covid-19 virus was “manipulated” within a laboratory. Setting aside that contention it is also a fact that elements of the biologic research community have, both locally and internationally, been engaged in constructing narratives and legislative processes concerning “potential” pandemics since the early 2000s. Supported by vested interests, unsuspecting governments have complied with these lobby groups and so there exists a “legalistic” framework designed to counter dissent. OK, you may cry “conspiracy theory” however, if you were to objectively engage with the scientific criticisms (as I do, being a retired medical scientist), you will find numerous examples of revelations concerning suppression of truth and fact. As an example I offer this link to an interview that outlines a controversy that is ongoing in New Zealand. It is long but stick with it and you will experience the anguish of one person’s struggle to achieve justice through truth. And please don’t plead “safe and effective”! My 20yr old male relative has been twice hospitalised with myocarditis diagnosed separately on each occasion following 2 Covid vaccinations.
https://open.substack.com/pub/newzealanddoc/p/a-call-for-help-for-dr-tracy-chandler?r=qwls9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
By the way, I respect your entitlement to your opinions however, I think you can see where mine come from. I could rave on about natural immunity, actual lethality, medical and administrative mis-management however these can remain for another day.
OK, jonangel, I’ll bite – which particular fossil fuel was used during the transition from cave-dwelling to constructed shelters? Petroleum derivatives, perhaps?
Early fuels were wood and animal fats. Some use of peat later in limited areas. So please explain exactly what role fossil fuels played in that phase of human development, and which specific fuels they were. I await your reply with bated breath.
Mediocrates:
re myocarditis – you know what causes more, and more severe cases of myocarditis than any vaccine? Covid infections, especially repeated infections. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Of course various governments all over the world have been developing pandemic protocols – it has always been inevitable that future pandemics will occur. They have been a constant throughout human history and only a fool would decide that none would ever happen again. The constant pushing of development into previously unoccupied areas, the disturbance of habitats shifting populations and behaviour of wild animals, climate change – all these make such eruptions even more likely. Preparedness is essential to minimise the impact of such events. It requires a certain level of paranoia, however, to see that preparation as evidence of government complicity in creating said event. You might as well say that if there were no police, there wouldn’t be crime.
Please tell, do you read what you write and how I respond?
Just where have I ever suggested “caveman” used coal or any fossil fuel?
Leefe; I have read your comments; thanks for reading and commenting on mine.
jonangel:
You said we would still be living in caves without fossil fuels. That logically means that the use of fossil fuels was essential to the process of moving away from cave-dwellings; there is simply no other interpretation to put on your statement.
So, again, tell us exactly which fossil fuels were used in the process, and how.
leefe, what I said is very clear, what you read into it is very confused. In actual fact, it is you who dragged the “caveman” into this discussion. Can I suggest you stick to facts, I find your mental gymnastics some what confusing.
jonangel:
I repeat without our use of fossil fuels humans would still be living in caves.
Those are your exact words and you’re right, they are very clear. They specifically say that the use of fossil fuels is a major part of why we aren’t still living in caves. That means they had a direct involvement in our transition from being cave dwellers. This is simple logic. There is nothing confused about what I read into it, I am only slightly rewording your actual statement.
So stop trying to dodge the point and either admit that you went hyperbolic with that statement, or explain how fossil fuels aided that transition.
leefe, I have tried and failed to get through to you, so lets try another tack.
I ask you, had humans not used fossil fuels, how do you think they would have built dwellings, made medicines, cultivated crops, created cloth etc? All related directly or inderectly with fossil fuels and as time has progressed the demand on fossil fuels has increased.
They built dwellings, made medicines, cultivated crops, created cloth etc before the use of fossil fuels began. Your grasp of prehistorical timelines is not just weak, it’s nonexistent.
One does not need any fuel source to cut timber with a stone axe, or to collect rocks and stack them; this is how many early shelters were built. Making mud bricks or adobe does not require fossil fuels. Shearing sheep, treating the fleece, spinning and weaving were all initially done purely through physical labour; the use of fossil fuels enabled industrialisation, but had nothing to do with the development of the basic processes. Medicines and medical procedures (including trepanning in ancient Egypt) existed long before the advent of fossil fuel use; many modern medicines are laboratory derived versions of naturally produced substances that were used long before fossil fuels.
You keep digging yourself deeper. The use of fossil fuels accelerated the growth of civilisation, population and technology, but it was not the spark, and we now have technology enabling us to move away from its use.
Proof and references please, or are you just dreaming again?
leefe, wasn’t it Mark Twain who said “arguing with a fool is a waste of time, as the onlookers may not be able to tell the difference between the two, and you could end up being drawn down to their level?”
Aside from Clemens, the Bible’s Book of Proverbs offers “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him” (Proverbs 26:4).
Some verbal jousts are just not worth the effort.
I asked the question first, so debate rules say that you should prove that fossil fuels were used in the construction of early dwellings, and the manufacture of early woven cloth.
Still, let’s start with textiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_clothing_and_textiles
Still going to insist that the use of fossil fuels was essential to collect, treat and weave/knit fibres to make cloth?
We don’t even need to go overseas for examples of shelters being made by stone tool users. The early European “explorers” of Australia made numerous mentions of large Aboriginal huts made from a variety of materials, most commonly interwoven flexible branches covered with mud, earth or leaves although stone was also used. There are drawings, paintings and even a few photographs of such shelters.
You are correct, or should I say Mark Twain was correct? Sadly, I see little point in debating with a religious bigot.
leefe, you can run, but you cannot hide, can I suggest you put up or shut up. Your just rambling man.
I’m not a man.
Quoting bible passages does not make one a religious bigot.
If people have to put up or shut up, why do you refuse to put up anything in support of your contention that “without our use of fossil fuels humans would still be living in caves”? I asked first, yet you have done nothing but run around in ever decreasing circles and seem to be in the process of disappearing up your own arse. Or doesn’t that rule apply to you?
leefe, you sexualaity does not concern me, your lack of logic does. So let’s go right back to the start of this.
Can society as we know it survive without fossil fuels?
Do you have any understanding of the impact on society, should we stop using fossil fuels today?
Have you any idea how 8 billion people would live/survive without the use of fossil fuel?
Sadly, I don’t think you have a clue.
Leefe; This will be my last contribution to our previous discussion. I have many similar links collected from a variety of international sources, many technical, but this one will suffice to support my position. Sorry but it is a long read from a respected medico in UK.
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=3529488&post_id=178748253&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=4an0y2&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyNTk3MzUxNzgsInBvc3RfaWQiOjE3ODc0ODI1MywiaWF0IjoxNzYyOTk0NzU0LCJleHAiOjE3NjU1ODY3NTQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zNTI5NDg4Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.3NPIneIaPbHt94I9A62cKNIMNdDVuEKp-52wqq14OyM
jonangel:
Gender and sexuality are two very different things. I have said nothing about the latter.
You keep dancing around a very simple question, and you have the nerve to say I’m being illogical?
This isn’t about whether our current society can survive without fossil fuels (it can, we already have the technology, what we lack is the political will to make it happen). You made a statement that without our use of fossil fuels humans would still be living in caves. Those are the very words you wrote. I have been asking for evidence or, at the least, a logical argument to support that statement. You refuse to supply either. As you said yourself: put up or shut up.
leefe, this is off topic, but again you raised the issue, but based on the little I know gender and sexuality overlap, but as previously mentioned, I don’t care.
Back to your “caveman”, who, based on your posts, built dwellings, developed medicines and wove cloth!! Evidence of which you cannot provide, added to which, according to you they did without fossil fuels!!!!
I can only repeat, any attempted to strip society of fossil fuels would see the end of humanity as we know it, in fact leefe, it would be back to your caves.