Australian DIARY


ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +

Politics & TPP seems to be turning into a monthly column.  In June I decried the TPP. August I wrote about Media and Technology.  September about Abbott's downfall by falling Polls.  (Caused, like Rudd's downfall by unfavourable press?)

Now the TPP is reported by News Limited as
having being passed by everybody excepting for a few votes by US Democrats.  Hillary is simultaneously under heavy attack by Murdoch papers.  A warning perhaps to other recalcitrant?

And Drudge is mooting that the legal implications of the TPP may well cause his blog to end.

Hey Malcolm, was this all your idea, or were you always pro the TPP?

NB.  It goes without saying that the TPP is Murdoch's baby.


Last month I wrote about the NOX scandal.  I finished with:

So it would not surprise me if the US EPA had been given a few surreptitious pointers about Volkswagen NOX pollution by one of the (Your guess is as good as mine) petrol engine car manufacturers.

After further research, for passenger cars, the EPA requires NOX emissions be less than (<) 0.043 g/Km, while Euro5 (2009) requires < 0.18 g/Km and Euro6 (2014)< 0.08 g/km.  So the US EPA was 400% & 200% more rigorous than European NOX (Euro5 & Euro6) standards.

The main issue seems to be that NOX contributes to the creation of tropospheric ozone which in turn contributes to the creation of smog.   The word SMOG is derived from the combination of the words SMokey fOG.   T
he atmospheric pollutants that contribute to the formation of smog are released in the air when fuels are burnt. When sunlight reacts with these gases and fine particles, the non fog precursor of smog is formed.  Smog is a health hazard, especially for asthmatics and other breathing challenged people.

NOX (together with Sulphur Dioxide) also acidifies rain.  Acid rain has been a problem since the 19th century.  Among other problems, acid rain makes soil acidic which reduces fertility.

Of course there is no good fix.  One way to reduce NOX is to run a "rich" (meaning surplus of fuel) engine. That will produce lots of Carbon Monoxide and lose a lot of efficiency (i.e. less MPG).  The other way would be chemical treatment to remove NOX from the exhaust.  I would hazard that would be expensive.


What media does is create narratives, and hence political success for it's favourites.  A particularly good example is now on display in Australia.

Malcolm Turnbull is the darling of the national broadcaster (ABC ~ I think the Labour Party appointed current director).  Malcolm is also favoured by the SMH (Sydney Morning Herald).  To complete the circuit, he has just signed off on the TPP, thus making him Rupert's BFF.

And will you look at the Polling figures!  Malcolm has risen from around 51% to about 70% in about one month!  Unbelievable!!

The problem for mass media is that although it is more efficient, it is losing out to DIY.  Information is now spreading by word of mouth (i.e. Facebook et al).  And this is reflected by other DIY industries, such as bnb and uber.

Some wealthy industrialist said it first.  "The internet is the greatest destroyer of wealth".  (well, since the wheel or fire maybe).

All those moneymaking politically regulated monopolies are dead.  It will be interesting to see the coming battle.

My money is on the masses.  But then, maybe the masses are dumber than I give them credit for.