Protecting the climate is a job for everyone
Blog Post | Blog of Bob Brown, Christine Milne
Monday 4th May 2009, 4:15pm
by TimNorton in
We've just launched our new TV ad, pushing the Government to see sense on emissions trading. Australia needs real domestic action on climate change. Unfortunately, the Rudd government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is deeply flawed.
The Government has announced that it will delay the scheme by one year and deliver another $2.2 billion in compensation to Australia's biggest polluters-in addition to $7.4 billion the polluters are already getting.
The Greens are prepared to support a minimum unconditional 25% target - the bare minimum required by science and the global community - to end 12 years of climate inaction. And Treasury modelling shows it is affordable; by 2020 Australia's GDP will be roughly three times the size it is today whether we have a ‘worse than useless' 5% target or the minimum effective 25% target.
Now the Prime Minister faces a climate test. Will Kevin Rudd brown-down the CPRS by negotiating with the Coalition, or will he green up the CPRS by negotiating with the Greens?
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
Climate change reductions
We have now seen the UK has now a minimum of 34% reductions and what is australia doing, 5% what an embarrassment, the polluting industries shout, "jobs will go" "we are fighting for jobs" but in reality this is a very short term view, yes some jobs will go but many new jobs will be created by implementing green industries, we have enough choice of technologies to have a massive impact on climate change if only the government would implement changes, for example paying for solar cells on every residential and commercial roof, would have a huge effect and costs far less than building a new power plant. we have hot rock technologies that are 100% green energy that has huge potential. it would be nice to see our government leading the way, when Australia is in a great position to do so.
Delayed ETS May Result in Targets Being Reached
I would suggest that the Government has taken the correct actions in delaying the start of the ETS by one year, and implementing slowly over 10 years (actually I suggest that it will take probably 20 years+) to reach a 25% reduction if this figure is agreed later this year at Copenhagen.
It was obvious that business and the average family in the mortgage belts of each city, would never have accepted a start next year during the current economic problems, with potentially large cost increases to business being passed directly to consumers. Business costs will obviously still be passed to consumers, but if a slow implementation is proceeded with, then consumers have a period to adjust to these increases (if businesses and public do not accept proposed targets they will never be reached).
From the business side, slow implementation will enable a slower requirement to renew equipment as may be required, remembering that banks will be very cautious in lending to business in the current economic climate.
From the Governments view point, slower implementation reduces the risk of never reaching anything like the targets, and finishing up with egg over their faces like Canada had when they never looked like ever reaching their announced target. Remember target reaching cannot be forced on a population (the less impact on the population, the more likely a target will be reached), so it is very much a finger crossed exercise.
I suspect that the stretch target may be very optimistic when we take population growth into account. For example, the Melbourne population increases by around 50,000 per year (according to Sate Gov, majority through immigration and births) and to meet that increase thousands of new homes need to be built, all with electrical appliances, requiring ever increasing peak load power supply. With all state capitals basically being the same, we require huge increases in energy each year, which State Governments are having difficulties supplying. To meet this demand the Vic Government has had to start building a new gas fired generation plant.
If we look further at emissions, we need to look no further than the new vehicle sales of between 800,000 (in current economic climate) and 1 mil per year. These figures are expected to continue as Australian population grows, and new motorists come onto the roads.
Anyway delayed start and slower implementation will result possibly the proposed stretch targets being reached.
inconvenient truth
You could see this coming a mile away... and if you didn't, you weren't paying attention.
I've been scratching my head for some time as to why a government intent on jobs jobs jobs could not see the forest for the trees and work out there are far more jobs in renewables than coal. But after having done Chris Martenson's Crash Course (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse) I now realise that Australia, like all western nations, is literally bankrupt, or at the very least insolvent. What do people/companies on the brink of bankruptcy do? They go into denial, and try to stick it out for as long as possible in the hope of avoiding the inevitable. And that's what we're seeing here.
Selling coal overseas is far more profitable than building and installing alternatives. End of story. So for as long as other nations have enough folding stuff to buy our goodies, that's what will happen, and stuff the environment.
What we are now experiencing is Capitalism's death throes, as Limits to Growth, largely caused by Peak Oil, starts to bite really hard. A shrinking economy makes it impossible for us to repay our debts, let alone the interest owed on those debts. Selling off our resources is the only way Australia still has a cash flow, and as that cash flow dwindles because Asia joins the ranks of the insolvents, we will see major reductions in consumption.
This reduced consumption in everything (car sales were way down last month) is the best thing that could happen to the Climate Crisis, so I wouldn't worry too much about the collapse of the Rudd ETS... the Party's Over, let's make the most of it.
Motor Vehicle Sales Figures Not Too Depressed
Mike, sorry some bad news. New motor vehicle sales (all types) for Mar 09 were 63,965, and for the first 3 months of this year were 276,935 (http://www.fcai.com.au/sales). This appears to indicate new vehicle sales for the year will be in excess of 800,000, which, although down 20% is still one hell of a lot of new vehicles going on the roads. and is probably why the larger dealers still have smiles on their faces.
On the down side, hybrid card have such low sales that they do not even have their own category.
As for Capitalism being in its death throws, there is not many other alternatives as Communism / Socialism have also crashed in all but Nth Korea.. Maybe you are advocating for a dictatorship like is being run in Cuba, although I suspect not even the Greens would support this.
Motor Vehicle Sales Figures Not Too Depressed
Grant, I am not advocating Communism / Socialism at all.... they too rely on growth to generate 'wealth'. It really does not matter what you call it, or whether you like the idea or not, it's mostly out of our hands now.
I believe the only viable solution is a totally decentralised form of government, at Town level. But I'm not holding my breath, I just see a lot of chaos ahead.
Re cars, read this: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48767 it even has interesting things to say about alternative energy.
Systems of government
Not all forms of socialism are based on capital accumulation.
For Australia I would advocate a form of Steady State Green-Socialism, in which the democratic state would be based upon the three pillars of human rights, a strong constitution and a commonly agreed upon vision, which all politicians and public servants would be required to pursue when making their decisions.
By steady state I mean we disregard the fallacy of the need for economic growth and instead increase our quality of life through technological gains and the reduction of waste. Societies would be based upon the accumulation of knowledge and culture not wealth, and we would be as custodians of the planet, not parasites feeding off it.
Decentralisation, in my opinion, while important when addressing local issues would rule out any form of cooperation on issues requiring a coordinated national response, and would give rise to localist self-servingness.
Systems of government
Justin, I kind of agree with you. However, there is no "fallacy of the need for economic growth", at least not under THIS monetary system. The problem we have is that the current model is DESIGNED on the premise of economic growth, so of course, we MUST have it to keep it going. Furthermore, for as long as we do not slay the population growth monster, we will have to deal with growth, because all the new people need new houses, new hospitals, new means of getting around, EVEN if those means are bicycles!
As far as I am concerned, wealth IS culture and knowledge. My bank balance of $6.71 testifies to this!
To convert to your steady state model, we MUST cancel debts first. To repay debts and the interest on them, the money supply MUST grow, and the ONLY way it can grow is with economic growth. I cannot stress enough that you cannot understand the whole problem until you view the Crash Course I have linked to here several times already. It was the most eye opening thing I have ever witnessed..... it's a life changing experience. The Crash Course interlinks every problem we have, what Chris Martenson calls "The Three E's", Economy, Environment, Energy.
The Australian Greens Have My Vote
Out of a possible score of 10 this proposal would score perfectly. It's clear and straight forward whilst at the same time shows up the government as obvious and simple action not taken by them because they are on their knees to big buisness (polluters). Given the current "climate" perhaps Australians will keep an open mind and listen to all available options democracy has to offer them rather than accepting the two-party preferred system which is getting us nowhere fast. I look forward with great anticipation and hopefully to a better world for all.
Greens and Advertising.
Mr Brown and Associates,
Tonight I am trying to enjoy some "down time" after a stressful days work.
Instead I am attacked by continuous adds by your movement on "Climate Issues"
Frankly Im sick to the neck of being "forced fed" by the Greens.
Your "pushiness" is not gaining you any friends..or extra votes !!
In fact all I speak to,have had a "gutfull" of the Greens and what they are doing to this country.
You arnt saving this country and its people....you are in many areas destroying our way of life.
Get off the "band wagon" for Gods sake and give us a break.!!
Your group dont have all the answers ..and dont think all Australians support you...
Do something really useful and look into ways of "fixing the health dept,..providing more group homes for people with disabilities ...REAL, NOW, problems.
More inconvenient truths
Well S.E., the Greens might not have all the answers, but then nobody does... and if you're having a stressful time at work, then quit. That's what I did, and I've never looked back! Besides, I don't know how you can think the Greens are "force feeding" their issues on TV..... they haven't got the budget! If you don't like ads, then stop watching commercial TV. I did that too.
As the economy totally tanks over the next few years, I'm afraid I don't like your chances of getting your desired group homes for people with disabilities. Like the solutions bandied around to save us from Climate Change, it ain't going to happen,,,, there won't be any money left as everyone goes bankrupt. Your "way of life" as you call it is over, the Party's Over. This is as good as it gets, and, I'm afraid, you're going to have to get over it.
Green embarrassment in canberra
I hear ya S.E. Just the other morning I read an article in the Canberra times. The ACT Govt have lifted the tree preservation order for schools and kindy's in Canberra, so dangerous trees and limbs can be removed. The local Green candidate spat the chewy in the article - saying what about the poor trees. Mate - seriously. Schools and Kindy's are hardly responsible for native vegetation/biodiversity destruction. This is a safety issue for kids. Talk about green ideals gone mad. The ACT's pine plantation industry is dead now - thanks to the Greens. The pines used to protect our water supply and of course create a wood resource. Now the area is all weeds, huge fuel loads - just a mess. But thats what the Greens wanted... Someone pinch me - wake me up - this cant be happening...
Now the good news James!
Amongst those weeds (and also lots of natural regrowth of natives out there despite the drought) all around the Cotter are thousands and thousands of little trees and shrubs, planted by the good citizens of Canberra joining in community planting through Greening Australia. Hundreds of people have participated. School kids were out there last week planting away. The nice thing is that as it grows up, everyone and especially the children can get a feeling of pride and ownership.
The pines were always a ecological desert and I have a sneaking feeling that the industry didn't make a profit for the ACT. There really is very little in the way of fuel load out there in truth. The pine forests were always a bomb waiting to go off, and eventually sadly they did.
As preserving the trees, it must be on a case by case basis and certainly kids safety comes first, but old trees have their place so should not just be removed willy nilly.
Mike you are a hippie of the
Mike you are a hippie of the worst sort. IF you dont like your job, just quit, i dont like tv, so i just stopped watching it???? What does this sort of attitude achieve? Nothing. No wonder you reckon the economy is "tanking". Its people like you who are too busy trying to "save the world" then contribute to society as a whole you seemily live in your little pessimistic world.
The economy is failing, i hate my jobso i quit, tv is rubbish so i dont watch it, everyone is bankrupt. What sort of person has this sort of attitude? Do you consider yourself an environmentalist or a defeatist? If the world is this bad why do you get up in the morning? I have no problems with practical greenies, probably keeps the more reckless in line but you give them a bad name.
pessimism
Me, pessimistic? I think it's a good thing the economy as we know it is finished. It will be replaced with a much better one, a sustainable one. I don't think TV features much in a sustainable economy.....
And as far as calling me impractical...... well, my life;s in order thank you very much and I'm ready for the collapse of civilisation as know it.
BTW, I'm a REALIST.
If you to relax, watch the Simpsons
Firstly I'd note that for emphasis you can put in [i]emphasised text[/i], with <> in place of the [], you don't have to use quotation marks "". I find that having good English expression helps people take you seriously, not so good and people dismiss what you say however brilliant it is.
Next, if you want to relax, watch the Simpsons. These are serious issues we're facing, don't complain that the Greens are telling you they're serious. If you go to the doctor and she tells you "you need to quit smoking, eat less burgers, lose some weight and go for a walk occasionally," you can reply, "I am trying to enjoy some downtime after a stressful day at work, instead I am attacked by continuous criticism from you, Doc," but you'd be missing the point.
We've made a mess of things. The Greens are pointing that out to us, and suggesting ways to clean up the mess. Don't complain that they're telling us about the mess, it'd be here whether they told us about it or not.
If you prefer, you can just stick your fingers in your ears and say, "la la la I can't hear you!" The Lib-Nats tried that which is why they're now out of office. I've seen fellow workers try that and they lost their jobs, too.
We've made a mess, and we've got to clean it up. As the PNG delegate said to the US one at the climate change conference in Bali last year, "if you're not going to help, then get out of the way."
Re: Greens and Advertising
The Greens of course are strongly focused on fixing our health system but climate change is a very "REAL" problem too. Having said that, your reaction to the ads is understandable, especially amidst concerns of swine flu and a global recession. Perhaps there are different ways of presenting the arguments without generating a negative response.
My thoughts are a simpler message that doesn't scare people so much... eg "Sea levels will always be lower under the Greens". Presented along with a simple graph of the sea level rises for each political party.
Cliamte Change
I don’t have an issue with spending money... lots of money... on cleaning up our act, but I do have a problem being railroaded into it with misconceptions, mishandled data and outright scaremongering!
I particularly take exception to people that make claims with no proof, or at least putdated proof!
Despite CO2 concentration continuing, temperatures actaully peaked in 1998 and 2008 was as cold as 1990? So, if Carbon Dioxide is in fact the culprit why are currently cooling, while Carbon Dioxide is still increasing (on that point I am sure we can both agree)? In terms of the Greenhouse Effect, as accepted by most scientists in both camps, 95% of this effect is caused by water vapour and not Carbon Dioxide!
Are you aware that temperatures have gone through nearly two complete cycles of warming and cooling over the last 100 years. During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1980 temperatures were decreasing, to the point where in the seventies, some of the same scientists that are now on the Pro-Climate Change debate where in fact scaremongering about an impending ice age! Why... funding!
Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930’s and overall, the total average annual temperature increase in the U.S., in the last century is so slight the actual amount is uncertain - maybe 1/3° C.
Carbon Dioxide represents only 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere or thereabouts currently, and that in the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age (the Quaternary Period) have witnessed Carbon Dioxide levels LESS than 400 ppm?
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time Carbon Dioxide concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today at 4400 ppm. According to the greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today, clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming… the Sun for example.
(Ref: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)
MORE INFO THE DIE-HARD GREENIES IGNORE:
(April 18 2009)
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week’s meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown “significant cooling in recent decades.”
(Ref: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html)
Just read today - which hitherto I hadn’t, that West Antarctica in fact has a chain of underwater vocanoes which may, and I stress, may be the cause of the slight warming on the western side of Antarctica… I trust you don’t think we (humans) were the cause of that as well… or do you?
(Ref: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/babyIce.htm#antarctic)
(April 23 2009)
The Great Barrier Reef stretches for 345,000 square kilometres (133,000 square miles). A scientist said a section of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef — which scientists have warned could be killed by global warming within decades — has regenerated itself in record time.
(Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//090423/photos_sc_afp/b43d...)
(April 27 2009)
Arctic ice coverage, far from disappearing, is currently (04/26/2009) at the highest level for this date since 2002. It is nearly at the 1979-2000 average. Global sea ice (Arctic and Antarctic combined) is nearly a million square kilometers over the 1979-2000 average.
(Ref1: http://islandturtle.blogspot.com/2009/04/arctic-sea-ice-not-disappearing...)
(Ref2: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/babyIce.htm#antarctic)
Less rhetoric and more open science is needed, but I mean OPEN... it was after a lot of denial and bluster that the IPCC finally dropped the Mann Hockey Stick from it’s latest reports…. because the RESULTS were flawed… well they won’t say that... they just stopped using them!
I still agree we need to spend a lot more than we do on a number of issues including Energy, Deforestation, Biodegradeable Packaging, Whales, Water Conservation, Recycling and a myriad of other worthwhile planet preserving issues, but again I repeat, for the right reasons and without the shove-it-down-my-throat one-sided self-serving rubbish I hear & read everyday!
As for Bio-Fuels… drop them now, unless they are created from waste and only waste and aren’t a primary crop… else we will see nations of different peoples become extinct from starvation… and for what might be… all the wrong reasons!
Re: Climate Change (James Sefton)
James surely it is an error to demand proof that CO2 will cause a problem before considering reducing CO2 emissions. A proper approach would be to instead to require proof that CO2 does no harm before permitting further CO2 emissions to occur.
By way of analogy I do not require you to prove I will have an accident before agreeing to put on a seatbelt. Instead I would require proof from you that an accident was impossible before I entertained the idea of travelling seat beltless.
It will be straightforward to catalog data that does not gel with a simplistic view that all localised temperatures (in every place on earth) must rise in lockstep with CO2 emissions. This however provides no insight into the reality and dangers of warming.
It is very easy for a rising global temperature to be consistent with localised cooling in certain places. Shutting down the gulf stream will do exactly that, causing localised cooling in northern europe in the face of a warming globe.
Increases in total antarctic ice cover in the medium term are also completely consistent with net global warming.
Further all measurement is subject to error. It is probable that 1 in 20 research papers (since a 5% alpha is commonly used) will be flawed. A flawed paper almost certainly has a "finding". Interestingly only the research papers that show a finding are published which means there is a concentration of flawed papers among those that are published. If one thousand research papers on climate change are published then it will be a supremely easy task to catalogue many that appear to refute the climate change hypotheses. It will for reasons given above however be a fairly meaningless thing to do.
You can list some that appear to refute and someone else can list those that support. Where does that leave you in your quest to prove that CO2 emissions are harmless?
Science does not deal in absolutes, at best it can only estimate a range of possibilities and within that estimate what is most likely to occur. Any serious climate change scientist will readily agree that there is a possibility we might see global cooling for the next few centuries. But that does not mean they would necessarily think we should freely emit CO2 since they will also offer that there is a genuine risk of serious problems from emitting.
The possibility that CO2 emissions carry great risks coupled with the ultimate scarcity of fossil fuels should be more than enough to encourage serious investment in non-emitting generation.
If CO2 turns out NOT TO BE A PROBLEM we will have saved our coal so that it earns maximum export revenue in the future when it is scarce relative to global requirement.
If CO2 turns TO BE A PROBLEM then we will gracefully de-carbonised on our own terms in a far more pain-free manner than if forced to do so rapidly by a likely hostile global community.
Cleaning up our domestic energy is a hands down winner whichever way you look at.
Jim, how can you hold the
Jim, how can you hold the attitude that if we are wrong, we'll we will have more coal to burn, but if we are right we have saved the world?? Surely the topic has been around long enough to encourage an OPEN debate where sceptics and activists are invited and encouraged to put forward their view.
The CPRS has the potential to destroy the economy if its not done correctly, surely this is warrant enough to not be taking a punt on hoping you are right about carbon pollution.
There is overwhelming evidence that man global warming is not real, and its even been said that about 25 years ago, the UK committied a party to prove that carbon create global warming in order to justify the need for nuclear power. Now that the propagana has spead across the world, surely now is the time to be getting real answers.
If one scientist has evidence that this is not real, that is enough for debate. The greens may think they are saving the world, but if you are wrong you will destroy our country.
Re: Dirth
Hi Dirth, quite easily to answer your first question.
I am curious, do you believe the CPRS is likely to destroy the economy, or do you think its merely possible in the same way its possible that you might be personally abducted by aliens?
I take the view that climate change is a risk we should seek to mitigate, because:
a) our collective global infrastructure (cities, ports, etc) including means of food production is predicated on the current climate persisting. As part of this a climate derived disruption to ecosystems could well undermine the food web and thus imperil billions of people.
b) we are measurably increasing CO2 levels (and other GHG levels)
c) it is incredibly easy to comprehend that CO2 (and other GHG's) are transparent to incident radiation from the sun and opaque to low grade heat emitted once earth systems have absorbed and then responded to the incident energy. A ready example to demonstrate this concept by way of analogy is that ordinary glass is opaque to UV light but clear to visible light, which means a glass window will permit you to enjoying the light for an extended period while avoiding sunburn. GHG's operate on the same principle just at a different part of the spectrum. So increasing GHG's reduces the rate of heat escaping and over time this inevitably alters the steady state temperature. We have routinely used this technology in greenhouses for a long time. It is stunning in the extreme that this is so mysterious to people like yourself.
d) We don't know with certainty what the future holds. At best we can indicate a range of scenario's and assign probabilities to them. The probability attached to climate problems from business as usual is high enough (especially given the enormity of those problems) for us to quite reasonably seek a means to reduce emissions.
Dirth, the Australian economy has shown spectacular resilience and more than any other nation has the capacity act. This resilience may not persist and so if we wait too long we may indeed face the situation you describe that the economy is too fragile to mount any kind of response right at the time it is most needed. Ironically it is probably climate change itself that will be the thing that finally erodes the resilience of our economy.
Using precisely your argument about taking punts if one scientist (and many have) can produce research (my point 'c' above as a ready example of such research) that indicates there is a risk of climate change then how can you reasonably take the punt of hoping you are right that global warming not being real?
I am very confident the consequences of my punt being wrong are far less serious than the consequences of your punt being wrong.
This ain't the place
Here on the GreensBlog they believe in freedom of speech, and so they'll publish denialism; but they'll never respond to it.
You should come to my blog where your opinions can receive the full, frank and vigorous response they deserve.
This Ain't The Place
Sorry Kiashu, but James is stating what an increasing number of the public (Mr and Mrs Average) are thinking. I recently looked for a copy of the Ian Plimer book "heaven+earth", and eventually found a copy on the "Best Seller" rack at one of Australia's largest book distribution chains (only 2 copies left on the rack). Two other distribution chains had sold out. I am not say that everybody is buying books dismissing climate, but that people do not just accept the politically correct view, they want to make up their own minds.
For a number of years people were declared as heretics if they questioned the politically correct view of climate change. Remember that up to recent times, it was always called "global warming", and only after proof was overwhelming that "global warming" was a periodic, and natural occurrence, did the term seem to change to "climate change". People generally now accept "climate change", but are questioning if in fact we can do anything about climate change, and in fact, if we should even worry about it.
The Federal Government has decided to take out insurance with the planned introduction of the ETS. They are planning slow introduction, and subsidies, to ensure that Mr and Mrs Average have minimal cost impacts, as business will have to pass their increased costs back directly to the consumers. Canberra also knows that, if business and Mr and Mrs Average do not accept an ETS, targets / objectives will not be achieved, not to mention potentially the existing Government dismissed.
PS - Where is your Blog ?
Global warming, political correctness
I've never managed to get a decent definition of what is "politcal correctness" out of anybody yet and I can only assume it to be an attitude or belief set that you yourself don't really like very much but cannot come up with any means to refute it. I wont go into the argument of Ian Plimmer and his current, and desparately needed best seller, I shall leave that one to those with the necessary scientific knowledge to do a good job of it. Suffice to point out that a simple investigation of Prof Plimmer will reveal much of interest: no qualifications in climatology, meteorology what so ever; very close connections with and business interests in the mining industry and so on. But "global warming" being superseded as a term by the much more innocuous "climate change", now there's an interesting one. That was not due to proof of anything but was a deliberately engineered act by the Bush administration who quite deliberately used the term "climate change", and stopped using "global warming" for the reason that it sounded less threatening.
I am sorry that this blog is being bombarded by the denialist crowd, not because I can't answer their "arguments" - that has all been done numerous times before in more appropriate places than this - but because I get tired of hearing the same old crap getting trotted out time and time again. And now, after decades when anything concerning the environment struggled to get a mention in the mass media, it is all "politically correct", and this coming from the crowd that swallows just about anything that the establishment spin machine tosses out to them. Gimme a break.
This ain't the place
Why would that be Kiashu, this is the exact place I should post my opinions. I did a search for your blog and assuming I found the right one, it's a mess! At least here the threads bear some semblance of logic.
I am one of the not-so-silent-majority that feels there is far too much weight being given to climate change scaremongers... and yes, I do read both sides of the argument(s).
I consider myself a greenie (small g), but the difference is, I don't automatically accept everything I read that the Greens or the myriad of green groups publish, which appears to make me somewhat different to a lot of greenies! I also don't automatically accept what the skeptics say either!
So my question to you is this, did you bother to actually read my post? Did you go to any of the links I posted? If you have something to say for, or against my opinion... say it, don't advertise your own blog!
Tune up your denialism
I'm indifferent to whether you consider yourself a "greenie" or not. That's ideology, and what's happening to the world's resources and climate has nothing to do with ideology. Whether men and women should be paid the same, or permanent residents have the vote, or how we should structure our tax system, these are ideological questions. Resources and climate are scientific questions, so whether you're a greenie or Liberal or communist or anarcho-syndacalist or monarchist is irrelevant.
Certainly I followed your links. They're familiar arguments. The East/West Antarctic Ice Sheet's a new one, but anyone genuinely interested in the topic knows that the West Sheet's losing more ice than the East Sheet's gaining. It's like having triple bypass surgery and then saying, "one of my heart valves is working fine, so I must be healthy!"
The rest are old. Again, they won't be debated here, because they're tired old denialist arguments that have been debunked many times. But they can be debated on my blog.
Here you can find a list of the most common climate change denialist arguments, and their refutations. These are essential for your career as a denialist; you can try to counter the refutations, or you could even come up with new denialist arguments that haven't appeared before.
Tune up your denialism!
Tune Up Your Denialism
Kiashu
I do not think James is denying climate change, but is expressing a view like many of the articles I have read, which state that climate change has occurred since before man was on this planet, and will still be doing long after he has departed.
If we want to reduce climate change to a level that is not noticeable, then we would have to go back to living in caves, and even then it is unlikely to alter the climate change process of which global warming, and global cooling are just end results.
To me, the reduction in resource usage is more important to allow our children to have some of the benefits that we have had during the past 100+ years, and that is what we should be aiming for.
You need to remember that unless business and the Mr and Mrs Average of Australia, have a unified position (all political parties and scientists) put to them, then it is unlikely that they will accept any Carbon Reduction plan, with the result that we would never achieve any reduction objective. In other words the Government could do what ever they like, but they will not achieve any legislated targets.
What denialism is
Denialism is not really about denying climate change or peak oil or that smoking kills or any specific part of the science of those topics. Denialism has one basic tenet: "We should not change X."
In service of this philosophy, they go through several stages.
1. "Nothing bad is happening."
2. "If something bad is happening, it has nothing to do with X."
3. "X may cause some bad things, but it also causes some good things. The science is not settled. We should study more."
4. "X may cause some bad things, but shouldn't people have a choice?"
5. "X definitely causes some bad things, but change is impossible anyway."
The arguments are all shaped to the ultimate goal of doing nothing. The denialist only denies science and common sense because they want to deny the necessity of change.
"If we want to reduce climate change to a level that is not noticeable, then we would have to go back to living in caves, "
The current science tells us that is not so. Currently the world emits around 50 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. To keep warming under 2C, where bad things happen (as they do today), but it's not catastrophic, we need to reduce that by 50-85% by 2050, to 8-25Gt CO2e.
In 2050, we expect to have the highest world population we'll ever have, of 9-10 billion. That gives us about 2t emissions per person, down from 7.5t. Is that achievable with a decent lifestyle? I think it is, as I write here. Around half the per person emissions we have are things we can control at a household level - how much electricity we use and whether we buy renewables from our retailer, how we travel around, how much meat we eat and so on. The other half is up to agriculture, industry and so on.
It's possible for the average Westerner to reduce their household emissions to about a tonne each, down from 12 now. Anyone can live this way today, but not everyone can live this way today, because a lot of it depends on infrastructure - like having enough renewables so that everyone can buy renewably-generated electricity, or having enough trains going. However, it's obvious that if a growing number of people tried to live this way, as demand for these things rose they'd be produced - that's capitalism.
And many of the things we can do to reduce our impact, like using less electricity and gas, eating less meat, walking the 1-3km to the shops instead of driving, these require no new infrastructure at all, just a decision for the person to do them. Every household ought to be able to reduce their carbon impact by around a quarter overnight, spending no money and in fact saving money. This would translate to a 10-15% reduction across the West. With some building of infrastructure, every household could reduce its impact by 90%, meaning a 45% reduction across the West; this would take 10-30 years.
That leaves commerce, agriculture and industry to achieve similar reductions over the same timeframe. It doesn't seem that we need live in caves at all.
In any case the fossil fuels are running short. So we cannot continue our current lifestyle of SUVs and burgers every day. It's impossible. You may believe that change is impossible, but the fact is we have no choice. Imagine that you're about to lose your job: you can't imagine doing any other job for income, you think it's impossible - but this job is over, so you simply have to find another job, another source of income, or starve and die. Likewise, you may think it impossible for us to live in any way but by burning 300 million year old trees and algae, but we have no choice. We have to find a new source of energy income.
Luckily, we don't have to look far, only up in the sky. We have a very large working fusion reactor pouring its energy down on us.
I can understand denialism. I walk down the street and see all the cars honking at each-other, the people buying vast amounts of stuff from stores, the rubbish piled up in bins on the side of the road, the planes flying overhead, and I find it very hard to imagine it being different. But it will be different - it can be different and good, or different and miserable, it's up to us. I think of the words of the PNG representative to the US one at the climate change conference in Bali: "if you're not going to help, then get out of the way."
What Denialism Is
Kiashu
Much of what you say is logical, and I believe that probably the majority of the community are slowly moving in the direction of reducing the energy they consume. The Mr and Mrs Average need to see an immediate benefit to themselves and their finances. It may take 10+years to change a 100+ years mind set, but it will slowly happen.
In our case for example, we have made common sense changes:
1. Downsized from 2 family cars to a single car with a 2 litre diesel. Reduced usage due to more efficient planning and use much less fuel.
2. Turn off all (except the DVD recorder as this loses tuning with no power) power points when the appliance is not in use (eg. PC, 2nd TV, dishwasher etc.)
3. Reduced water consumption (allowed 155 l/day/person - our consumption down to 100 l/day/person and still reducing). Sourced a small (600 litre) tank that services many of our needs together with grey water as available from sinks etc.
4. Recycling every thing possible (still require to use about 50 plastic bags / month due to council law that states you must carry and use plastic bags when walking dogs and we have 2 dogs - although I am looking out for environmentally friendly plastic bags)
5. Only connect household gas (we need for heating) to supply at end of May and then disconnect again early October. The pilot light actually uses quite an amount of gas.
6. Ceiling insulation bought very cheap on sale, and self installed.
7. Fitted low wattage light bulbs to all points over a about a year as they came on super special at places such as Bunnings. (actually found a pack of 4 for $5 at one sale).
The above are only very basic reductions which effectively cost nothing, but if every family reduced just a little, it all adds up. I would suggest that many families are like ours and are doing the above. However if the average family is expected to install, generally costly items such as solar hot water etc. (even with state subsidies, installation is not cost effective), then the Governments will have to pay for the costs.
Fools
Perhaps you're right. We could take another angle more directly related to the all important economy that hardly gets mentioned and the "hard" two-party preferred system ignores. And that's the unsustainable practices of society in its use of oil, coal and other non-renewable resources. Did you know that once these resources are all used up that's it because it takes millions of years for nature to produce them? How's that for in your face logic! Alternate energy sources are hardly being considered for investment in our future by the government under the premises that they're not sufficient or "climate change" isn't important yet there's likely to be no fossil fuels left within 50 years. What's worse, if alternate energies are not sufficient to fossil fuels then why allow the economy and society to keep growing? It's complete stupidity, incompetant and arrogant to lead society down a path of no return, without some kind of backup or secondary plan that's not we'll just take it as it comes. What kind of away with the pixie fools are leading this country and the world?
Fools...
I am not sure if the subject of “fools”, followed by “Perhaps you're right” means you were adressing me in particular Richard, but I will reply despite the fact that I don't think I am a fool.
I agree, the two party preferred system is a joke.
I agree... Oil & Coal will ultimately run out.
I agree... that we need more investment & incentive to invest in renewable energies (not bio-fuels as a primary crop however).
I agree... it did take nature millions of years to produce the hydrocarbons we are using today.
Now I start to only partly agree... the current Labor government were elected because of the deal it did with the Greens... without which Labor would not have made it to power. The Labor party has made it a practice for as long as I can remember, of talking big and spending big and usually in all the wrong areas.... nothing appears so far to have changed!
Alternative energy does need to be promoted and investment is needed, but not for the wrong reasons, and Climate Change (ex Global Warming) isn't the right reason. Running out of energy is... making the world a cleaner place for our future generations is... but it won't get anywhere near the headlines as the Climate Change scaremongers are getting.
So, what do we do... do we use a lie, or if that's a bit strong, do we use unproven science to get what we want? Incurring a massive cost to the global economy... way way more than we would if we just invested in renewable energies and stopped worrying about carbon? I suspect that if the government (even Labor) really sat and thought about it, they'd ultimately get the right answer, but there are just too many vocal minorities hellbent on pushing their own agenda(s) making it near impossible to see the trees for the forest!
You are right... alternative energies aren't as efficient, convenient or safe (hydrogen) as fossil fuels - yet, but they can and will be, and of course there is always Nuclear... which for some reason is taboo in this country!
As for who's running this country and/or the world, in most cases it is the elected representatives of you and me and many many free folk like us that live in democratic societies, we may not always like what we get, but we did it to ourselves... no-one else did!
As for me, when I see things I don't like or can't believe, I do some research, I post my results and ocassionally I might debate the issues I have responded to or raised. That is what happened with me and Climate Change... I have been researching it now for over two years, my Bookmarks folder is full of pro & skeptic arguments... I am definitely now a skeptic... what can I say!
Post new comment