Carbon Pollution Reduction Green Paper
There is heaps around the blogs giving some detailed analysis of the government’s greenhouse green paper, (which doesn’t seem very green at all to me). I’ve put a bunch of links at the end of this post.
Given the seriousness and urgency of the threat, I’d rather a focus purely on the policy assessments of whether what’s been put forward is likely to have enough of an impact in adequately reducing Australia’s emissions (and I’d have to say it looks like this falls seriously short). However, the political strategy, and how the politics might unfold, are pivotal to whether or not the policy will improve.
There will be two crucial factors in where the politics goes from here. Firstly, how the Liberals decide to deal with the emissions trading legislation when it reaches the Senate. Secondly, whether community pressure can be strong enough to create the political will for the Labor government to be stronger than it is being to date (and to negate any potential political damage that might be caused by Liberal opposition).
As Ross Garnaut’s comments at his recent Brisbane public consultation forum made clear, public pressure is crucial in creating the necessary political will to do what is needed. As the party politics plays out over the next year or two, public pressure for stronger action will be crucial in tilting the decisions of the political players in the right direction.
If the Liberals whinge and complain about all the pain being inflicted by Labor’s scheme, but then let it through the Senate anyway, it will mean a weak scheme being put place – possibly even weaker than what’s been put forward in the Green Paper, once those with vested economic interests have had time to put the squeeze even more on the government and the government reacts to any negative focus group polls that pick up on any of the Liberals’ ongoing attacks. One could say that would still be better than no scheme at all – although I’m yet to be convinced of that – in part because it could always be improved and strengthened over time.
The alternative is the Liberals oppose it all in the Senate, in which case I can’t see it getting passed. This would also open the real prospect – indeed possibly even an obligation – for the government to pursue a double dissolution election sometime in 2009. Having the emissions trading scheme fall over in the Senate would reduce the greenhouse debate pretty much back to little more than political finger-pointing, mud flinging and blame games until the next election, with very little room for rational policy discussion or even greater emphasis on the necessary public behavioural/cultural changes needed.
Personally, I think Labor could come out of a double dissolution election based on climate change quite well. They could easily paint the Libs as having failed to act on the climate change crisis for the last decade while in government and then after they got tossed out, blocking Labor’s ‘balanced’ and ‘moderate’ attempts at action. Given their record on the issue, it is hard to see the Liberals coming up with any alternative for action that will be seen as credible by those who believe urgent action is needed (which is a majority according to current polls).
Not that I think Labor’s Green paper position is very balanced – unless you define balance in terms of balancing on a barbed wire fence. It is extraordinary that Ross Garnaut is now being painted as by at the extreme end of the debate. His report is reasonably strong, but far from extreme. It was also clearly constrained by the terms of reference the government gave him (which probably underestimated the level of emission cuts needed). He also made clear there was no certainty that what he was putting forward was going to be sufficient.
Whilst they will no doubt keep adding their views to the debate, the Greens and other Senate cross-benchers only come directly into play on emissions trading legislation if the Liberals decide to oppose Labor’s already very minimalist emissions trading/carbon pollution reduction model in the Senate. To get anything through the Senate without Liberal support, Labor needs BOTH the Greens and Steve Fielding from Family First. Given that Fielding’s main populist policy push for the last year or so has been to make petrol cheaper than it already is, and the Greens will rightly look to strengthen the application of Labor’s scheme, it is hard to see how Labor could reach agreement with both, no matter how compromising and negotiating the Greens aim to be.
It is impossible to predict precisely when Labor would have the trigger to call a double dissolution election on emissions trading legislation. It is partly in their hands, depending on how quickly they produce the legislation, and especially how quickly they re-introduce it if it defeated in the Senate. But the government can’t control how long the inevitable (and essential) Senate inquiry into the legislation would be, and probably not the length of the Senate debate either.
However, it’s probable the trigger would be in place by mid-2009. That would be at least a year in advance of when the next election would normally be called. On an issue as important as this, putting the whole thing on ice for a further year until an election (possibly) sorts it out is a problem, unless an alternative pathway for driving major emission reductions is put forward – which is certainly not visible at the moment.
SOME BLOGOSPHERE REACTION:
John Conner from Climate Institute, who has taken a very non-partisan approach to the debate thus far, gives his initial assessment at Crikey.
Tim Dunlop at Blogocracy reminds us that Green Papers are not final policy but an opportunity for people to point out to the government were they think it could do better (see my comments above about public pressure). He then points out what he thinks is the major area in need of improvement.
Gary Sauer-Thompson is also not complimentary.
dk.au at Larvatus Prodeo is seriously unimpressed. Other posts at LP examine the politics of the issue, while a major discussion thread (continuing some links to posts on other sites) is here.
Tree of Knowledge argues a pragmatic approach, suggesting the politics being pursued are necessary in making good policy (or as good as possible anyway).
Joshua Gans gives an economist’s perspective on why the handout of free carbon permits to trade exposed industries is a bad idea (for the same reasons Garnaut thinks it is).
Peregrine’s assessment – “The end result of Labor’s policy is that it puts the onus on the people to push it to take more action. It is almost the minimal possible response without jeopardising the integrity of action altogether.”
The Piping Shrike is not so charitable, taking the interesting perspective that the Green paper “aggravates the government’s basic problem. This government doesn’t have a problem of having to make unpopular decisions. This government has a problem of struggling to find any unpopular decisions to make.”
Possum Comitatus notes that while petrol is being effectively exempted from carbon pricing and coal isn’t, petrol currently has a sizeable excise on it and coal doesn’t. His assessment of the politics is “The overall document is pretty much an acceptable starting gun for a major long term reform …… I couldn’t actually find any seriously problematic issues here for the ALP on the politics of it.”
Andrew Norton is fairly dismissive of efforts that create a perception of conspiratorial, behind the scenes influence, saying it is just a case of democracy in action.
There’s a list of some other blog views and comments at Crikey’s blogwatch.
For a general reminder of just how serious the situation is now looking, and how urgent it is, read this post by Brian Bahnisch. He also notes that, regardless of how good or otherwise the federal government’s policies are, it’s just plain stupid for state governments to continue charging ahead spening billions entrenching business as usual expansion of coal mines (and one could also mention tunnel, bridge and road building, airport expansions, etc).
(AND Tree of Knowledge responds to some of the commentary (including mine) about double dissolution election option – links here to my comments and his further response.
64 Comments, Comment or Ping
Jacques de Molay
Good on you, Andrew. I enjoy reading your contributions both here and on Larvatus Prodeo.
Jul 17th, 2008
Retarius
Andrew, I’ve never understood why taxation has to be part of this. Why can’t the government just legislate for transition? E.g. If they ban carbon-fuelled vehicles, power stations, etc,. by a certain date, won’t it serve the same purpose? It doesn’t matter how hard they tax me, it won’t put a solar panel on my roof or find me a cheap electric car.
Jul 17th, 2008
philip travers
I have had a couple of terrible hours visiting DavidIcke.com and related sites.Thoroughly recommend this,on the basis of the question of climate change alone,even though the stuff to be found on the 9/11 event is remarkable,and my own eyes are opening again.KeeleyNet.com remains instructional when compared to what any Wong can create.Have a good day,soon.Andrew !
Jul 17th, 2008
LORIKEET
Don’t worry, a fuel tax will sneak up on us with the stealth of a skulduggerous paedophile, only to slip through a crack when we’re least expecting it.
The government knows we all have our beady little eyes on it, and a chastity belt on our wallets and handbags.
I think a reduction in the fuel excise will undergo a metamorphosis into a fuel tax gradually over time. If Labor wants to stay in power, it will need to use a “back door” approach.
I think Retarius makes some excellent points. The answer is for the government to make affordable solar panels and electric cars available.
A fuel tax is just a money spinner.
In relation to coal, instead of shooting ourselves in the foot economically, we would do far better to institute those “clean coal” technologies that Bob Brown says don’t exist.
Andrew:
Yes, I’ve thought there could be a double dissolution all along. Democrats better be ready with a few fresh policies. I think an amalgamation with Climate Change Coalition would be political suicide.
I think Rudd could lose a few seats (due to disgruntled pensioners in particular). Some people might vote for the Liberals to avoid paying a fuel tax, but I don’t want them again under ANY circumstances.
I know there are 5 Greens, 1 Independent and 1 Family First in the Senate. How many seats are held by Labor and Coalition?
Surely Greens will vote with Labor on environmental issues (?), notwithstanding the fact that the proposals are not good enough to meet their expectations – but in view of Liberals’ alternative attitudes.
Jul 18th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
“I know there are 5 Greens, 1 Independent and 1 Family First in the Senate. How many seats are held by Labor and Coalition?”
32 Labor, 37 Coalition.
There are a total of 76 seats in the Senate – tied votes are resolved in the negative, so a majority (39) is needed to pass any legislation.
Jul 18th, 2008
LORIKEET
Thanks, Andrew.
In that case, I think Xenophon’s vote might have the most sway – either siding with the Liberals/FF for 39/37 split – or with Labor/Greens for 38/38 split.
Jul 19th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Depends how you define ’sway’ – 39/37 and 38/38 are both a negative outcome in regards to passing government legislation.
Jul 19th, 2008
LORIKEET
But in the previous post, you said “so a majority (39) is needed to pass any legislation”. I don’t understand how 39/37 would be a negative outcome in those circumstances.
Jul 19th, 2008
LORIKEET
Sorry, Andrew. I meant a 39/37 vote against the legislation would be an absolute outcome. Half my mind was on an email I received from another politician.
If the legislation is not supported, I wouldn’t consider it a “negative” outcome. I think If Rudd forges ahead with this plan without the support of our major trading partners and allies (e.g. China and USA), the result may be somewhat akin to shaving a dog in the middle of Winter and then leaving it outside in the cold to die.
We already have Qantas slashing jobs faster than a dog can shed hair, and truck drivers threatening to bring the nation to its knees with non-delivery of food supplies, fuel, sewerage treatment chemicals etc – with a “hoped for” result of a dissolution of all state and federal parliaments, with no previous MPs being given the opportunity of reapplying.
The last bit is interesting indeed.
Jul 20th, 2008
GZG
Re: “a majority according to current polls think urgent action is needed”
I’m not aware of such polls, though certainly found Fairfax today referring to a recent AC Nielsen poll that did indeed reflect a frightened if not terrified population (without reference to their sense of urgency however).
Nothing quite like a good war bringing citizens & their government together as they “do it tough” while fighting the enemy (hopefully not one flying a false flag).
In fact, as Rudd progressively waters down the impact of an election year ETS, it would be best if the believers watered down any perceived urgency (but not too much mind you) to keep harmoniously in step.
On climate change polls, I could not find anything recent at Nielsen’s website, same goes for Roy Morgan (where I did however find an indirect link to a compelling article in the Australian by an ex “Australian Greenhouse Office” scientist who asserts that we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming
Are there any good sites to find detailed poll results?
Jul 21st, 2008
GZG
The link worked in preview mode, but not on publication. Here it is:
Ex “Australian Greenhouse Office” scientist asserts no evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Jul 21st, 2008
Tony
GZG;
Most of us on this site have been sceptical from the beginning.
(You, me and Lorikeet anyway)
It’s true though, people need to be informed of the truth before entering into this enormously damaging carbon trading/tax regeme..
Maybe Kevin will be a one term wonder
Tony
Jul 21st, 2008
ken
GZG – Probably even more mandatory and reality check reading is the lead articale in Section 2 News review, of the SMH, not a noted Greenhouse Denier) Saturday past.
While we might have some here with expurgatory tendenices due to our profligratance as a per capita emitter, if as reported the truth of what’s going on in China makes any feel godd effrots we put in palce here to self flagellate are completely irrelevatn.
We might as well party and wait for damocles.
Jul 21st, 2008
The Feral Abacus
According to Evans’ c.v., he hasn’t published a paper since 1989. Only two short publications in his career, both on computing algorithms.
Evans may well be a very good programmer, but it would be misleading to describe him as a research scientist. His training is in mathematics & computer science rather than in atmospheric physics, geology, ecology or any of the other disciplines more directly relevant to understanding climatic phenomena.
Jul 21st, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
As I’ve said on previous occasions, what if we are responsible for global warming, and the situation is urgent? All you people engaging in ‘hot air’ (pardon the pun) are wasting valuable time. If the whining, whingeing fossil fuel lobby wins, we might all live to rue the day? I don’t want to take that chance. Are those who question or disagree strongly convinced ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that you’re right? Do you have people many years younger than you who you love? Do you ever think that you’re living on the future of your descendants? Do we have the right to bankrupt them? I’ve watched a 2 week old baby(mine) with asthma; I’ve watched a grandchild who needed to be on a ventillin machine- it’s gut wrenching. Just an insight into the future? Let’s just get on with what needs to be done and don’t be bullied by the those in the fossil fuel industry and others. They’ve had it good at our expense for years – it’s pay back time now!
I want to be part of a positive future, not a guilty participant of the past?
I watched a documentary that I’d taped last year on solar energy. It was exciting. Germany intends to have 20% of its energy supplied by renewable energy (mainly solar) by 2020 – they are doing so well, it could be 30% by 2020. We’re lagging behind by a long way!The technology and ideas are available out ‘there’ – we just need to tap in! NOW!
Australia derives enough energy via the sun in one day to supply the worlds energy needs for ONE YEAR! Amazing! The technology exists to provide base load energy needs via solar power! The technology also exists to be able to store the days energy from the sun, and use it at night or on cloudly days. All that’s required is the will plus dollars????Let’s do it!
Jul 22nd, 2008
GZG
Naomi: This may surprise you, but I disagree with the “hot air” that you yourself puff, and for my part, am convinced ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that mankind has an insignificant effect on past worldwide “warming”.
Do you ever consider that a carbon trading scheme may be bankrupting your descendents? That we may in fact be “tilting at windmills”?
It would seem a fair corollary to put to you in turn, “what if all the whining, whingeing warming believers get their way, we might all live to rue the day”
“The technology exists to provide base load energy needs via solar power!”
This would appear to be an “easy sell”. Please name one city where this existent technology is being so used.
Nice at least to attempt to offer an easy solution on a platter. So being a passionate believer, just how far are you prepared to go for the sake of your cause (and you teherby believe, your descendents)? Specifically, how much would you be prepared to pay for start up costs, and ongoing costs to effect your imagined panacea? Couple of bucks?
“All that’s required is the will plus dollars $$ $$ $$?”
There’s some devil in that detail Naomi.
Jul 22nd, 2008
Tony
NAOMI:
Naomi says: “As I’ve said on previous occasions, what if we are responsible for global warming, and the situation is urgent?”
In few years time our kids will be saying why did our parents fall for this trick. Is it that they just didn’t care about their country and its traditions.
Why is that all the food we produce is sold on the futures market so we cant even afford a meat pie? Why are Chinese and Indians years ahead of us in technology, when we were once so smart ? Why mum
why.
Then you can say to them, that we werent sure but we thought it best to act (Just in case we were causing global warming).
I’m sure that will comfort them.
Tony
Jul 22nd, 2008
LORIKEET
Feral:
Then how does a gynaecologist fit in as an expert?
Why is one of these teams of experts attached to US Dept of Commerce?
Why does a Lord from the British parliament want to accuse cows, then get rid of them to grow more wheat? (Not to mention condominiums?) Here’s a little clue. Wheat currently commands the highest price of all of the grains.
So what’s wrong with being a computer scientist? My computer scientist son doesn’t believe in this claptrap either, but if “they” want to take drastic action, they can establish those vacuvortices and get rid of greenhouse gases the easy way, instead of starving us all to death with their stupidity.
Naomi:
Some of us don’t want our children and grandchildren to starve due to the greed and fear mongering of fools.
Jul 22nd, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
The climate scientists who research and write their findings have every paper perused/scrutinized by their peers. The sceptics don’t do likewise! Dr David Mills, an Australian, who was forced to go overseas to look for funding for his solar energy plant for base load power, got that funding from a wealthy company in California, who are doing and planning amazing things. They believe, that it could be as close as less than 5 years – cheaper than nuclear and maybe even cheaper than coal -without the dangerous emissions!(recently on ABC PM and last October on 7.30Report)
Watch ‘Saved by the Sun” (just put it into Google) and see what is being done (a fraction) and what is possible. Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen or heard anything from the sceptics on this post that reinforces their broad statements of ’scare mongering’? What if the climate scientists who are telling us that the escallation of warming is further than thought even last year are right?
A “computer scientist” isn’t really as good as a climate scientist. It’s a bit like a rheumatologist asking a gynae about the tecniches of performing caeserian sections, and then telling a pregnant woman she’s capable? I believe the sceptics have their own agenda? Making money out of mining coal?uranium? etc. I have no pecunary interests to declare – no shares, no job in mining etc.There’s billions invested in the status quo – lots of huge profits to eat into in the short term – now, we can’t interfere with that can we? What’s wrong with growing our own food? Watch Gardening Australia Lorikeet, Tony and GZG.My father used to grow lots of vegies for a large family. Vegies etc can be grown in pots or polystyrene boxes – the starving rubbish is just that – rubbish? The lies from the supermarket chains (main 2) re high fuel prices is rubbish too – they’re not paying the truckies anything to cover their increased costs, and I’m damned sure they don’t pay the farmers what they’re entitled to either .It’s bulldust!
Jul 27th, 2008
LORIKEET
Think about this then, Naomi.
A mining magnate has just paid a very large sum of money to amalgamate Liberals and Nationals in Queensland, no doubt to get rid of Labor and their carbon tax.
Money, money, money! It’s a rich man’s world!
According to our State Labor MP, mining companies are the backbone of our hospitals and schools. I guess that must be why the local high school is only getting a new toilet block, and 2 primary schools are getting access to little more than a few gold coins for maintenance.
Forget about the 5 new schools that have been sorely needed for eons.
In the Rudd camp, the entire electorate’s students will only receive 13 computers (shared between 2 schools).
The federal Liberal MP is complaining that companies which make solar panels will go broke because Rudd is means testing his $8000 subsidy at $100,000 household income.
I think that’s an indication of who can afford to even think about a solar panel.
Jul 27th, 2008
Steve Beck
Naomi’s comparison to Germany (earlier) is typical as we see ourselves in OZ as on a par with the other industrialised nations. But really… we forget ourselves. There are about 20.6 million of us here in OZ spread across 7.6 million sq.km of dry and mostly hostile land. Power distribution infrastructure is an enormous feat for us. Germany is one of Europe’s strongest economies with 82.3 million people living on a meagre 349,000 sq km. (stats compliments of the CIA!) And that’s just about the most efficient 10% of Europe’s poulation.
They (Germany) can afford to spend on the technology you speak of where we cannot. And yet we can proudly say that we have made significant contributions to research and development in all these fields. There is no doubt that Germany is more efficient on a per-head basis since they consume 545 billion kWh of electricity to our 220 billion but it is still over 300 billion more than us, which is a lot. They have a lot more at stake and a lot more people to pay for it. Not withstanding that fact, I am concerned that we are all kidding ourselves with some alternative energy sources and not doing our homework. For example; I read that manufacturing the solar panels creates a CO2 burden which also needs to be balanced against the power produced over the reasonable lifetime of the panels. In a country like Germany it is harder to offset this due to decreased sunlight and thus more panels are required. This equivalent carbon emmission (based on Euro power production mix) can be as much as 6000 kg/yr for an average home installation. As much CO2 as flying a 747 from Brisbane to Melbourne and back more than 10 times each year. Worst-case scenarios perhaps but maybe not such a great choice for Germany after all.
We all need a reality check. Are we going to send ourselves broke attempting but failing to fix a problem that we did not have a significant role in causing. We all care but we need to find the right focus and really do some good.
Jul 28th, 2008
LORIKEET
Naomi:
Today truck drivers are blockading the Brisbane CBD to get their message across. If they go on strike for an extended period, you will need to go out the back and start picking your fruits and vegetables.
I think there is little doubt that rising fuel prices will push supermarket prices up.
But you are certainly correct about farmers being ripped off. That’s probably why 2 groups of green grocers are doing a thriving trade at the local fleamarket.
Steve Beck:
I think you made some excellent points.
Jul 28th, 2008
muzzmonster
I’m not sure what Lorikeet said earlier about a fuel tax. After all, we already have one. Surely the point of a carbon trading scheme is to allow businesses (and individuals) to decide whether they would prefer to pay to emit extra carbon or find ways of reducing their carbon emissions – many cheap options already exist.
As for, those of you who disagree with the idea of global warming as caused by humans, you appear to have lost the debate – at least for the time being. Both major political parties in Australia obviously believe in it as they both support a carbon trading scheme. It’s just a matter of how and when. Europe already has one and other countries are preparing them.
After the Coaition’s response today, it’s still hard to determine what they’re likely to do in the Senate. I suspect they’ll propose amendments but what happens after that is a prediction best left to someone with more foresight than me.
Jul 29th, 2008
GZG
Muzmonster: You are “getting fed up with people on blogs making seemingly silly comments” but now you say that we “appear to have lost the debate – at least for the time being. Both major political parties in Australia obviously believe in it”.
Well that one is just hillario! I’dve thought a little bit of evidence, reason, and even (dare I mention it) science might have decided a debate, rather than as yet unseen, but nevertheless predicted policies from a bunch of Australian politicians.
I’ll grant you though that the coalition’s response today remains little better than a swinging voter who thinks he’s probably nearly made up his mind, and promises to he will by tomorrow.
Jul 29th, 2008
Steve Beck
I think I am becoming a cynic but… all I see with the political parties and their policies with this debate is a desperate effort to do what seems to be the most popular, and as a result, gaining votes and power. So muzzy, I am sorry but I personally do not think that either party “believes in it.” The vote grab mentality is so obvious. Tricky call since that is what government is about I guess… representing the will of the people. The trouble is that we are so easily swayed by the media and science can be a fickle mistress. Global warming? Just the latest in a line of issues I am afraid. What about the Ozone layer – when was the last time anyone mentioned that? Did we fix it?
Did you know the earth’s magnetic field is reversing, and soon (geologically speaking) North will be South? It does this every 5,000 – 50,000 yrs. and may or may not be catastrophic but we don’t really know. Worse, we can’t fix it with another tax. Globally, temperatures are cyclic. Remember the Ice age? Hey, here’s a quick poll: would you like to help save over 5million lives with immediate results and without paying more for your fuel? (yes/no/undecided) How to do that? – Ban tobacco! Too hard? Not politically survivable? You bet.
Or… we could spend $60million/ yr and save 140million under nourished children with micro-nutrient supplements with a calculated economic bonus to the world economy of 100billion dollars. We could spend the profit on trees. I am not kidding, these are real possibilities. (Copenhagen Consensus 2008 – look it up)
Look, I agree carbon emissions are a big issue or at least the most popular at the moment and carbon trading looks a better way to go than carbon tax but there can not be any nett added cost to the private consumer. We are stretched to breaking point already. Give us a few more years of boom time to catch up. Its been a long time coming and it’s our turn! let those countries with biggest mess clean up first.
Jul 29th, 2008
LORIKEET
According to a very recent television report, supermarkets make more profit from selling tobacco products than EVERYTHING else.
I’ve recently seen Brendan Nelson arguing hell for leather on “The 7.30 Report” and I think his ideas are more economically responsible than Rudd’s.
Yes, “let those countries with the biggest mess clean up first”, while we continue to protect our mining and livestock industries from those who would diminish, steal or destroy them.
Jul 31st, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
The West made trillions $$ over the last 200 yrs,while people from countries like India & China lived in squalor-many people still do, particularly in India,judging from documentaries etc.It’s a bit rich for us to have a go at the ‘biggest polluters’ while we get rich selling them the stuff that causes most of it-COAL! They use our coal to provide the energy to make the clothes that fill most of the major retail outlets-very few made in Australia these days-they cost more too!I’m not encouraged by the ‘clean coal technology’ debate,as,at best it will take too long,whereas there’s some very positive research about solar, wind and ‘hot rock’ to get us focussed. As for the energy required for manufacturing solar panels etc, this too will reduce in time, as solar power could ultimately be used to provide the energy for their manufacture.
Australia is in the unique position due to sun shine-it’s ridiculous, that there’s not more money given to research-frustrating for people like me who’ve been advocating solar power for 30 odd yrs(at least).
$100 billion allocated over 3-4 budgets in tax cuts,$10 billion (each yr) in subsidies to fossil fuel industry-probably heaps more lerks & perks that I’m not aware of.(diesel subsidies?)There’s 27 different areas in Europe that are yrs ahead of us-Germany is one.
IF the assertions of humans causing global warming are wrong,we could just end up with a cleaner environment, less asthma,cleaner lungs (forensic pathologists can tell the difference between (pink)lungs of country people, as opposed to ‘yukky’ ones in the city)but if the climate scientists are right and we do nothing-the planet is terminally ill-the Polar bears are gone plus many other species of ?I’m not convinced that an ETS is the way to go-not severe enough to get desired effect,but as we’ve wasted over 12 yrs(at least)we must get going.
I recently learned, that Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House, and Ronald Reagan took them down.Says it all really
Aug 6th, 2008
Graeme Bird
Great blog in general Andrew. But here you have the wrong end of the stick. There is no warming threat. There is a cooling certainty. And it is a very great problem indeed.
Aug 17th, 2008
Chris H.
What might be the part to play of climate change triage as discussed by Terry Root and on the website http://www.climatechangetriage.net ?
Aug 25th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
TONY,LORIKEET and other sceptics. I’ve just finished reading an article that states, that the carbon and other pollutants under the ice(which is melting)and if, as is predicted, the warming of the planet prohibits the formation of thicker,harder ice after the summer, this pollution will only add to the whole warming process.
It’s beyond me, why the corporations and indeed governments, are all racing the shore up their perceived rights to mine, drill or otherwise the oil, coal and other fossil fuels that will be revealed after the ice has melted. By this time of course, the polar bears will be no more!
Are the 4,000 scientists attached to the UN all wrong? What would their motivation be to tell lies?Are they in a position of reaping in profits just for their dire predictions? I think not!
As for the costs of food etc being increased as a result of ETS,what is motivating the huge increases now then? Just greed? The economy in the US?It certainly isn’t going to the producers or the truck drivers who transport the food to the supermarkets.
Previous govts are responsible for the closure of many of our manufacturing industries, and as the Coalition has been in govt for more years, they must shoulder most of the blame.Capitalism has always promoted profits over the needs re education, occupation,employment levels and living standards(including free of pollution & illnesses etc).I recently heard a representative of the Cancer Council state,that 1 in 2 people will be diagnosed with cancer. Doesn’t anyone apart from me think that this should be a national crisis?Why is it so high?What’s in the environment that has brought about this horrific statistic? Years ago, it was virtually unheard of. After WW2 it has increased, and gathered pace with each decade.Could it be the nuclear industry, nuclear bombs(1945) that has accelorated it to today’s level? Other mining activities? Plastics?Toxins in carpets and other commonly used products?Farming practices?
Aug 25th, 2008
GZG
Naomi: 4,000 scientists attached to the UN all wrong?
Source please, and don’t quote anyone regurgitaing (vomiting) Rudd’s prime ministerial idiotic mistake on ABC’s Insiders.
“People diagnosed with cancer”
Yep, that’s life (& death).
Any variance (other than a blogger’’s claim it was “unheard of”)? No spuking without a source please.
Aug 26th, 2008
ken
Naomi – the best available site for historical analysis of Cancer data is the US government web site seer.cancer.gov.
There are innumerable reports and statistical analysis on that site, primarily concerned with the US, but it shows two interesting and related things. The incidence of cancer diagnosis has indeed risen between 1975 – 2005 from 400 per 100,000 population to 455 per 100,000. However the diagnosis incidence peaked in 1992 at 510 per 100,000 and has been steadily declining since. Principally I suspect from the aggressive change in smoking behaviour that commenced around that time, coupled with other preventative health measures.
Of equal interest is that the death rates from cancer have declined over the same period. From 195 per 100,000 people to 184 per 100,000 people.
What this tells us in short is that detection and diagnosis have improved and that treatment has also improved.
I suspect the other key indicator for the greater incidence of cancer diagnosis is that people are simply living longer. By way of example the incidence of diagnosis of prostate cancer (old blokes) has increased by over 50% since 1975, but the death rate from prostate cancer has not changed.
I would also direct you to http://www.cancervic.org.au/media/speeches/cancer_survival_launch_de as another relevant Australian Site.
Aug 26th, 2008
LORIKEET
Naomi:
For a very long time, Mother Nature has not been allowed to practise “the survival of the fittest” due to medical advances. That’s why we’re seeing more diseases of various kinds.
I also believe people are becoming more susceptible to stress-related illnesses (and all diseases are made worse by stress), because of the demise of our sense of community and a fair go.
If you check out other people when you walk down the street, you will find that most of them are much too fat.
There’s nothing to stop scientists from dealing with excess greenhouse gases (if they exist). They can either pump them out of the Earth’s atmosphere using vacuvortices or use vortex tubes to convert gases into solids, which can then be reused as fertilisers. This is probably a sounder option, which would solve the issue of getting what is above back down below where it came from.
Aug 26th, 2008
muzzmonster
It might be off topic, but I’m personally very glad that medicine has advanced, because I and my older brother would be long dead from renal failure.
Lorikeet – you consistently demonstrate that you don’t seem to know much about science. While anecdotal stories from people you know is all very interesting, I’d be incredibly surprised if you found anyone who said that carbon dioxide could be used as a fertiliser. And I have never heard anyone apart from yourself suggest pumping gas out of the atmosphere – where Earth’s gravity would attract it back anyway. Similarly, carbon does not come from “down below”.
If you can’t make basic scientific points, I can see why people might ignore the rest of your arguments.
Aug 26th, 2008
ken
Muzz – I think the vacuvortices is intended to pump gases beyond earth’s gravity range. However I wonder if Lorikeet has commenced the drawing up of a patent specification or the like, to explain where the energy to drive the giant pump is going to come from. As anyone who has even just watched TV knows it requires massive energy to propel a relatively small spaceship out of earth’s gravity range.
To even consider some form of giant Hoover pumping thousands of tonnes of CO2 out of earth’s atmosphere and the energy need to overcome gravity, it would probably produce more CO2 to power it than it displaces.
Any idea is worth considering but we do need some fundamental laws of thermodynamics to be considered.
Aug 27th, 2008
LORIKEET
Ken:
Any emissions produced by the vacuvortices would be pumped out as well, but I’m leaning more towards the option of converting the gases into solids and using them as fertiliser – could be less dangerous and require less power as well.
There’s plenty of untapped free solar energy just waiting to be harnessed for the purpose.
It’s all about converting emissions back to their previous state. Makes sense, don’t you think?
I thought your post on cancer statistics was very interesting and made excellent logical sense.
Muzz:
I would like to say that it isn’t rocket science – only it is. Evacuated gases coming back? In the space age?
I think most people would know that every living thing is comprised of carbon (vegetation, animals, people, fungi, even single-celled organisms) – along with both the Earth’s atmosphere and terra firma (solid rocks and soil).
Underground there are decomposing trees, dead animals and human corpses – even the rubbish from your kitchen. The decomposing trees etc evolve into fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas.
Man-made fibres and plastics are comprised of carbon compounds – even the world’s favourite softdrink, Coke. Ever heard of carbonated beverages? How about carbon steel? Limestone (calcium carbonate)?
Excrement (poop) is comprised of both carbon and methane (hydrocarbon gas). Poop is a very useful fertiliser, comprising either decomposing vegetable matter, animal matter, or both. It is a necessary part of Mother Nature’s recycling scheme.
A good idea never cared who had it.
Could you please think before making naive comments such as “carbon does not come from down below”? It is everywhere and comes and goes both to and from everywhere. Such comments might ruffle someone’s carbon-based feathers – certainly not mine.
I think it makes excellent sense to convert carbon-based gases back into solid fertilisers – possibly even “new age” fossil fuels.
Aug 31st, 2008
LORIKEET
Ken:
Here’s another comparatively simple idea that might have merit.
Perhaps scientists could try widespread cloud seeding. In addition to making it rain, watering crops and quenching thirst, it might go some way towards preventing horrific flooding such as we have very recently seen in India. This resulted in loss of lives, shelter, food crops and livestock.
Instead of such losses, there might be more food to go around.
When it rains, environmental gases come back down in a liquid/solid form. More frequent rain might alleviate any warming effect and even cause glaciers and icecaps to refreeze.
The cows could have a regular shower and plenty of grass to eat, while the peoples of Africa, South America, Asia and Central America have plentiful access to grains.
Aug 31st, 2008
The Feral Abacus
Lorikeet, its the nitrogen and the phosphorus (and maybe potassium too) that makes excreta a good fertiliser, not the carbon content.
Tempted to say that your idea stinks, but shall desist.
Aug 31st, 2008
LORIKEET
Feral:
What do you think the soil is made up of?
One of my sons had to do an experiment for Agricultural Science studies. He had to collect a soil sample and examine it.
It contained dead grass, leaves, bark, twigs, cockroaches, lizards, ants, tiny bits of egg shell and various species’ poop – mostly carbon based.
I guess I should have mentioned that the carbon would become part of the soil. Take the carbon out of the soil and there won’t be anything (or virtually anything) left. That’s why we need what’s above to come back down for recycling and reuse.
Some of what would be returned to the soil would have a nitrogenous component. Carbon cannot just hang about in the air on its own. It largely exists in a compound of solids, liquids and gases. Perhaps I should have used the term “soil builders”.
If you think my idea stinks (not sure which one), where is your “brilliant” alternative suggestion?
But please don’t dish us up ANY MORE of other people’s worn out ideas.
Sep 1st, 2008
muzzmonster
My not incredibly brilliant idea – which has been suggested by many is simply to generate less of the stuff. Plenty of ideas have been brought forward as to how we could do this, many of them very simple, most of them do not require an austere lifestyle as some seem to be scared of.
I’m not sure why it matters if someone else thought of them before. They’re certainly not worn out.
I still think you should refrain from commenting about science because it seems evident that you know little about it.
Sep 1st, 2008
The Feral Abacus
Lorikeet, plants use their leaves to obtain light from the sun & carbon from the air. They get water, potassium, phosphorus & nitrogen (and a bunch of trace elements) from the soil through their roots.
Three of the most abundant constituents of soils – silica, iron oxides & aluminium compounds – are barely used by plants, if at all. Apparently it is possible for plants to acquire small amounts of carbon via their roots, but it is unclear whether this ever happens under natural conditions. In any case plants can more easily obtain it from the air.
Maybe your son could conduct some experiments for you. Like comparing the growth of seedlings in pots of clean sand with their growth in sand supplemented with crushed charcoal. Use a quick-growing plant, like radishes or peas or oats, and test whether they grow better when carbon is added to the sand. See if your idea shows any promise, and then refine it if it does.
Sep 2nd, 2008
LORIKEET
Muzz:
You seem to be fairly grumpy lately.
Feral:
Thanks for the suggestion, but I first did those experiments about 40 years ago, and many times since with hundreds of children. The particular study I was discussing took place 20 years ago.
I thought it was clear that my main aim was to get the carbon back down to the Earth for reuse and recycling.
On “The 7.30 Report” on Monday night, there were scientists discussing the natural ability of bamboo forests to sequester carbon stones (phytoliths) in the soil, with a similar but lesser ability attributed to sugar cane.
I was waiting for them to discuss rainfall concurrently, but was disappointed.
In early biblical times, the Earth was said to be watered every night by a mist and there were no earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, cyclones or floods (before Noah needed the Ark).
I’ve been thinking about this ever since I was emailed photographs of paraphernalia set up by my 3-year-old grandson in his backyard. He was hoping to cause rain to fall into his sandpit, with a mop on standby in case of a deluge. At least he seemed to understand the general concept that what goes up can come back down again.
Maybe if widespread use of cloud seeding (or a superior techonology) was implemented, we could get more rain falling on the land instead of into the ocean. If the land is moister, cooler and therefore more voluminous, maybe volcanoes wouldn’t erupt. Perhaps sea levels could be lowered.
If clouds were seeded on a regular basis, maybe dangerous pressure systems wouldn’t develop as frequently and create major damage.
As a result of resolving the drought problem, there might less carbon in the air and more food to go around.
Sep 3rd, 2008
LORIKEET
Here’s an interesting snippet from the local councillor’s bulletin, Moreton BAY Regional Council. (I don’t know when the word “Bay” sneaked in, but it’s repeated throughout the bulletin.)
“Did you know? Only 3% of the world’s water is fresh and only 1% of that is fit for human consumption. We are now starting to appreciate its real value, as a very scarce resource.”
I don’t think the resource is at all scarce. Mother and Father Nature are just dumping far too much of it into the ocean.
If we could get more of the rain falling onto terra firma, there wouldn’t be any need for desalination plants or any of the other expensive measures currently being undertaken.
The councillor also states that the Local Government Superannuation Fund has dumped its stocks/shares in the uranium and tobacco industries to invest in more green and socially responsible assets (types not stated).
Sep 4th, 2008
LORIKEET
I asked my son if he had any further input into how to remove greenhouse gases from the Earth’s atmosphere, but I don’t think he’s had much chance to give it any further thought.
When I asked him what he thought about my ideas on cloud seeding, he sent us the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud seeding
I had no idea the Chinese were already arguing over who might be helping themselves to someone else’s share of the rain.
Sep 12th, 2008
muzzmonster
welcome to the wars (or international disputes) of the 21st century, Lorikeet. All over water, which we used to think was so plentiful. I understand one of the main rreasons that Israel doesn’t want to hand back the Golan Heights to Syria is because of the water catchment.
And yet other countries will have far too much of it – notably in their low lying areas.
Sep 14th, 2008
Sarah Smith
Hi Andrew,
Nice article. Since moving to Silicon Valley I have been following politics back home. I think some firmer regulatory action is necessary on climate change and leaving it to “the market” is a mistake. Its interesting how many traditionally conservative enclaves are producing proponents for that view too – like Stanford’s Professor David Victor: My own view is that the carbon markets are a mistake – its created a casino. Should be a tax..
Sep 15th, 2008
LORIKEET
Sarah Smith:
I read your link and found it frightening.
It really worries me that the Chinese want to import our coal at any cost, while reserving their own extensive unmined stocks for later.
I guess it is yet another form of warfare (Muzz will appreciate). Use up everyone else’s resources no matter what they are, but keep your own for yourself.
Anna Bligh has just smilingly agreed to allow the Japanese to sequester their greenhouse wastes in Queensland’s backyard.
Are we only here to be used as sitting ducks? Walked over by everyone?
Sep 17th, 2008
muzzmonster
You’re more correct than you know, Lorikeet. I read the other day that Saudi Arabia are buying huge tracts of land in Ethiopia and Sudan to build huge farms (that will be well guarded), specifically for providing food for Saudi Arabia’s future needs.
Sep 18th, 2008
LORIKEET
Muzz:
That’s terrible. It seems we need to protect ourselves from numerous skulduggerous exploiters.
Sep 20th, 2008
muzzmonster
I imagine we should be fine. After all, our land (and labour) is probably more expensive, and as a well-off nation, we’re more likely to be exploiting others.
Sep 20th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
One of the senior scientists who believes that humanity is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, is the head scientist at NASA, James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies -he’s highly respected and recognised as an expert on the subject of climate change and its effect on all forms of life.
I’ve just listened to Tim Flannery on ABC 702 (Sydney) who always says interesting things I find. He said, much to my surprise, that the “atmosphere” is 5 times smaller than the oceans – like many, I thought, that the “atmosphere” was everything – out there? He also said, that the warnings re the damage of climate change are worse, twice as bad as originally thought.
I’ve read several articles in GreenLeft ( weekly newspaper – can read it online) that prints much of the info available, but deliberately not published by corporate media, and certainly not by politicians, whose only goal is to protect their wealthy interests.Read, “How to crash a planet:just follow Garnaut” by Renfrey Clarke. Politicians and others are more than willing to inform us of what won’t happen, but won’t even mention what the damage might be if the Great Barrier Reef or the Tasmanian and other forests are gone. The Amazon for example? If the temperature is high enough to destroy these, what other damage will be done? The oceans rise, resulting in loss of life and countries even.
I don’t think that the incidence of cancer should be just a ho-hum that’s life (or death) situation. There are 3 recognised causes of cancer; genetics, environment and stress/personal components (smoking, over eating/drinking etc). I query the environmental causes?Toxins;how do they affect us?. Why do babies get cancers?
LORIKEET, medical science is one of the reasons(better nourishment, hygiene etc) why our kids survived past the age of 5 – and their mothers too! Apparently, the average rainfall hasn’t dropped that much – it’s just not falling in the ‘right’ places; too much of it is wasted – down the
Sep 22nd, 2008
LORIKEET
Muzz:
What about the Japanese dumping their filth here?
What about Chinese buying all our coal, while keeping theirs in reserve?
Isn’t that exploitation?
Sep 22nd, 2008
LORIKEET
On the ABC news at midday today, it was reported that the Chinese own almost 100% percentage of one Australian mining company, and are looking at purchasing another.
They don’t need to bring in a huge army to take what we have. We are handing it to them on a silver platter and thanking them for the opportunity.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
LORIKEET – Re China and its presence in Aust. At least China doesn’t send in its military to keep the people down, oppressed and poor while they ’steal’ their resources, unlike the US; and Australia does too. Look at the disgraceful ‘agreement’ with East Timor over gas and oil due to Downer’s bullying tactics – an impoverished country, whose children are malnourished, hundreds not housed etc deprived of $$millions per day. What about Papaua New Guinea, where most of the companies removing the goodies, destroying the sacred sites, way of life, poisoning the waters, ruining/killing fish stocks, and keeping the people in horrific poverty are Aust owned or majority shared? Solomon Islands? We’ve been doing it for years, with military ‘back up’ too.
We’re (BHP Billiton)in Iraq helping the US steel Iraq’s oil from the people, and there’s other companies looking to ’share the spoils’. We don’t have the right to engage in these practices, and condemn China for engaging in legitimate activities in Aust. No Chinese military in this country, whereas the US has about 700 foreign military bases around the world; usually where there’s resources/multinationals etc, and impoverished people, with destroyed lives and environments. Do you think the US is in Somalia to help the people? No it’s about the OIL. The US still refuses to acknowledge the horrific effects of Agent Orange, even though the effects are still causing death & deformities etc. Aust is also responsible!
The death toll in Iraq from cancer is escallating due to more (from 2003 on)depleted uranium, of which we’re also responsible! I suppose when Aust service men & women start suffering the effects, they’ll have the same problem – denial by the govts responsible, including ours!
Sep 24th, 2008
LORIKEET
Naomi:
Well, yes, but think of it this way. How stupid are we, handing everything over, without even a single gun being pointed?
Sep 24th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
LORIKEET – “How stupid are we, handing everything over, without even a single gun being pointed?”
I’d have thought, not using ‘guns’ is a positive thing? I don’t understand; do you think we should take up arms against China? Who do you think would win that? Not us, I suspect? What do you mean by “everything”? I think you do exaggerate. How much real estate etc does the catholic church ‘own’? How much tax do they pay, land rates on their properties? I think you’re making a grand sweeping statement. We sell heaps of coal to China I realize, we import lots of clothes from them. There’s TV’s etc too, but it’s demand & supply? Who buys their products? Do you have any figures that show they’re ripping us off? What’s the balance of payments look like? How much tax does the US pay for Pine Gap? Or? What do we buy from Japan, Indonesia?What about the one-sided so-called Free Trade Agreement with the US? Many countries in Latin America have given the US the ‘middle finger’ over their so-called free trade agreement. Why? They know from decades past, that they’ll get screwed-they said NO. That’s why Bush etc are causing trouble in the region. Up to their usual ‘tricks’? The US has invaded over 40 countries since the end of WW2-some more than once. They’re more aggro than any other country. How much land etc do americans own here? What about Indonesia?
So, I’m not worried about China! I AM worried about the US!
Oct 1st, 2008
muzzmonster
Should we then complain when Australian companies buy foreign companies?
Oct 1st, 2008
LORIKEET
Naomi:
Perhaps you could tell us the answers to some of your questions.
Remember that Hitler took over a large part of Europe before a single shot was fired.
I think we should concern ourselves about all nations with huge fire power.
Muzz:
I think Australia is much too small and too stupid for anyone to be worrying about us.
I think Anna Bligh will need to start auditioning for those toothpaste commercials, instead of selling us out, and doing nothing about our substandard education and health systems. She’s even starting to make the LNP look attractive to voters.
Oct 2nd, 2008
muzzmonster
I think countries like Fiji, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Noumea are a lot more affected by Australian governments and companies than we imagine.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
muzzmonster -I recall watching a documentary about Vanuatu in relation to ‘big money’ building luxurious hotel type accommodation on indigenous peoples’ lands. It will destroy their lifestyle, fishing employment and food gathering, homes etc and the people are being ripped off big time. Australians are in the thick of it, which is very sad, and makes me angry. I haven’t seen/heard anything since, so I don’t know what’s happening now.
LORIKEET – Indonesia? When Soharto took power in 1965, and then proceeded to purge the country of alledged communists, the Australian Govt like the US govt knew all about it and sanctioned the actions. It was thought that approx 1 million people, including trade unionists, ’sympathizers’ etc were murdered-a later documentary called, “Indonesia-the years of living dangerously” put the figure closer to 3 million.Many survivors, too scared to return during those yrs have returned, and the stories they told led to the new figure. The ’spoils’ of Indonesia were divided up-forests to this company, minerals to another and so on. The CIA had given the dictatorhip the names(of activists) and we stood by and let it happen. Apparently under the guise of ‘getting rid of communism’, although anyone who disagreed was rounded up and slaughtered. We also allowed East Timor’s ‘demise’ for about 30 years. Our role of playing ‘empire builders’ and ‘colonialists’ is pretty despicable.We’re ripping off East Timor by millions every day, thanks to Howard and Downer?I recall the trouble in Bougainville, West Papua and we have troops in the Solomon Islands, Fiji etc.
Oct 6th, 2008
muzzmonster
I have the feeling that as many Americans don’t realise the impact their governments and businesses have on the rest of the world, so do many Australians not realise the impact our governments and businesses have on our smaller local neighbours.
Oct 6th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
muzzmonster – Sadly, too true! The US is stirring up trouble in Bolivia and Venezuela as we speak – supporting the minority ‘white’ people in Bolivia, who’ve got wealthy for decades at the expense of the impoverished indigenous peoples.The CIA in conjunction with right-wingers who object to Evo Morales spreading the wealth by initiating policies to counter lack of education, poor health and housing etc. Evo Morales was democratically elected, and recently won overwhelmingly in a referendum. Hugo Chavez or his party have been elected over 10 times in as many years. He has changed the education system from a very high % of people not literate, to being recognised by the UN as having attained literacy and numeracy no’s that comply.
Women are receiving medical care during their pregnacies for the first time in decades, low paid workers have had several increases, the country is growing more of its food(they used to have to import almost 80% prior to chavez) land (unused)is being taken from the rich to provide employment and improved housing (not a popular move) elderly women are enrolling for university courses; people are encouraged to be involved in all areas of their lives via village radio and community meetings.
The US wants control over both countries, as Bolivia is rich in gas, and Venezuela is the 4-5th highest oil producing country in the world. Both these leaders have sent the US Ambassadors packing, due to their ‘meddling’ and the pro multinational media are spreading lies about the facts. Both countries have new Consititutions, which were brought about after lengthy discussions with the grass roots, then voted upon by the people, with overwhelming “yes” votes. The Venezuelan Constitution(used to be online) is far better than ours, which doesn’t really guarantee any protections or rights at all, particularly not for indigenous, women or other minorities.
I salute the people in their struggle for self determination!
Oct 7th, 2008