political climate changing on climate change
The first couple of days of Parliament have seen the intense focus on climate change continue. While there is always the prospect that too much effort will be put into finding solutions to the political problems caused by the issue, rather than preventing and solving the real world problems climate change is bringing, it is certainly better that the issue receives attention and debate, rather than be mostly ignored as it has been for the last decade or more.
My efforts to spotlight trying to reduce personal greenhouse emissions seemed to have caught on more widely at the start of the week, with the media focusing on MPs using Comcars to travel short distances. The media pack that wait at the Parliament House entrances each morning were asking MPs who arrived alone why they weren’t carpooling. I doubt this type of thing will last long, although if it can get some small improvements like converting more of the car fleet to hybrids it would be worth it. As I’ve written before, flying has much more impact, but I doubt the extent of MPs plane will get much attention.
The Prime Minister also released his issues paper on emissions trading. The Daily Telegraph headlined its report on the paper as “Australia Changes the World“, while The Age headline was “Australia can take lead on climate“. They were referring to the rather self-evident fact, mentioned in the issues paper, that Australia could take the lead in setting up an emissions trading scheme rather than wait until one involving the whole planet had been agreed to.
Unfortunately, as the Daily Telegraph report also noted, the issues paper had just “one firm proposal …. there should be no tax on carbon emissions.” Presonally, I think the market-based nature of emission trading would be better once it was up and running, but that does not preclude a carbon levy or tax – particularly until an emmission scheme is up and running. We have to keep reminding ourselves that we don’t have the luxury of time on this issue – the longer we wait the steeper the emission cuts will have to be.
This article by Tim Colebatch makes a reasonable case for a carbon levy, although that is partly based on his belief that the world is unlikely to ever get it together to agree on an emissions trading scheme.
While governments dither, we should still look to our own behaviours. This isn’t to let governments off the hook, but rather a recognition that we will need to change our lifestyles significantly anyway, and the more we lower our greenhouse emissions now, the less difficult it will be when carbon pricing mechanisms kick in.
A week or so ago I wrote about a Courier-Mail article on the water intensive nature of meat consumption, which some see to instinctively see as an attack on farmers. I see it more as making people more aware of the environmental impact of their personal choices. One of the blogs in the Life & Style section of The Age website had a post pointing out a recent UN report which found that “that meat production generates more greenhouse gas than transport.” The focus of public and political debate on emissions has tended to deal with power generation and transport, but reports like this emphasise that activities like agriculture and retailing of produce also need attention. A genuine market based carbon pricing mechanism will shape behaviours in these areas anyway, but public awareness of the impact of their consumer choices will also be essential.
UPDATE: This article (found via The Daily Briefing) by Robert Samuelson in The Washington Post takes a very pessimistic view of our prospects of genuinely reducing emissions. It also suggests a carbon tax is much more likely to have a genuine impact than carbon trading (which is why he thinks it won’t be adopted)
36 Comments, Comment or Ping
Megan
It does seem like our PM is squirming a little on climate change – viz a vis when he bizarrely went back into Parliament to clarify a previous remark on greenhouse gases. I suppose if it progresses beyond an issue du jour depends on whether the “media pack” extend their questioning from “why aren’t you carpooling” to “what are you going to do about climate change?”
Howard won’t do anything and neither will any other politician who is backed by big business.
His utter faith in the free market as a panacea for everything extends to the environment and was wonderfully captured in an interview with Tony Jones on Monday evening’s ‘Lateline’.
Feb 8th, 2007
ken
It hard to argue the current government has an overwhelming faith in the free market. There is little pure Hayekian principles in many decsions made and in fact in my view they have benn quite market interventionaist.
Hawke and Keating were far more free market than the current government.
Feb 8th, 2007
Robert Merkel
The argument over whether it’s a tax or trading system is a bit moot if you ask me. Any sensibly designed trading system is going to involve people buying the permits from the government in an auction. It’s a tax by another name.
The good thing about a permit system – and it’s the thing that bothers me about the McKibbin-Wilcox proposal, which has outs if political pressure to allow more emissions are too strong – is that the acceptable level of emissions is set, and the cost of achieving that sorts itself out accordingly. A carbon tax makes it a bit hard to predict what the level of reductions achieved will be, and will probably require political courage to raise the tax if it’s not reducing emissions quickly enough (though there’s reason to believe the cost of reducing emissions will be lower than the naysayers at the Institute of Public Affairs and their ilk claim).
As to hybrids, the trouble is that none of the local car manufacturers make them. Our car industry is based exclusively around large, heavy, powerful, and not particularly fuel-efficient cars (though for their size, weight, and performance levels they are pretty efficient). I suspect that the political pain worn for not driving hybrids is less than that if Labor or Coalition MP’s were seen driving around in foreign-built vehicles.
Feb 8th, 2007
Paul Walter
Am really going to stun some here, but actually sympathise with Howard’s position slightly, as to emissions.
Can it be said that we are so delinquent in our use of resources compared to China or India, that we should have to move unilaterally to wind down or up-price our use of carbon-based fuels unilaterally ?
It’s true that third world countries have been more or less coerced to follow our glamorised example as to profligate use of resources, but I can’t get past the egregious and surely wilful policies of China, Indonesia etc. In particular, the Chinese had a more responsible system in place before it was widely scientifically acknowledged how serious Greenhouse is, yet moved to their current ever-increasing extravagant patterns AFTER greenhouse became apparent as a fact in the eighties and nineties ( of course it could be claimed that the West egregiously egged China on to a ‘growth’ paradigm ).
It’s also true that Western countries have perversely postponed acknowledgement and action of the problem, for at least a decade, and Howard and Bush are as bad examples and symptoms of denial as any curently existing as could be found any where, including third world countries which have at least the excuses of ignorance and poverty.
But, is there any point us acting to our own detriment if many other countries try to equate progress in terms of our squandering ways and do not also act a bit more responsibly?
Feb 9th, 2007
Adam Burke
We may not be ramping carbon up, but we do emit 6 times as much per capita than the much maligned Chinese economy. We will have to cut from that, regardless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Given the stonking great economic boom we’ve been running on, the lack of political leadership on carbon solutions has been pretty cowardly.
Feb 9th, 2007
Geoff
The per capita point is totally moot.
This from Turnbull…
Well, that’s right, Kerry. But the ways in which you reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this is the International Energy Agency’s opinion, not mine, is firstly by fuel efficiency, or energy efficiency, and that could be anything from better light bulbs to hybrid cars to all of the measures that are being promoted and used, deployed around our society. The second one is clean coal. Now, clean coal is actually not all years away. You’re talking about carbon sequestration that has a way to go. But you can have power stations that are much more thermally efficient, and the more efficient they are, the less coal they need to burn, the less carbon they need to emit to generate a unit of power. That is, it may not be clean coal, but it is much cleaner coal. Now, that technology may well be the most important thing Australia does in terms of greenhouse, because we are working through the AP6, with the big emitters America, China, Japan and so forth and directly with China, to develop clean coal technologies. Why is that so important? Because China consumes 2,200 million tonnes of coal. We consume 125 million tonnes of coal. They are heavily coal dependent. That’s not going to change. They are increasing their generation capacity every five or six months by an amount that’s equal to ours. So unless they clean up their act and unless we can help them get the technology to do it, anything we do in Australia, any of the sacrifices to living standards, to jobs, that Peter is prepared to make, will not only hurt us, but be completely in vain.
Feb 9th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
I wouldn’t say the per capita issue is totally moot Geoff. It is a sign that we are emitting far more than we should and thus have a lot to do to reduce it to acceptable levels. However, it is true that acting on our own in the absence of genuine global action won’t achieve anything significant. Which makes it all the more disgraceful that our government has put so many energy into doing everything possible to spike any moves towards a global agreement.
However, I agree the coal debate is an important one Geoff. We do need to cut back as much as we can, but to dismiss efforts to develop carbon capture technology just because it waters down a ‘coal is bad’ message would be very foolish.
By the way, I’ve added an extra link to the main post to an article in The Washington Post which also touches on the carbon trading vs taxes issue.
Feb 9th, 2007
Ian K
I agree with you Andrew about the per capita issue. People worry about China’s future emissions but don’t seem to acknowledge that our affluence is built on 100 years of emissions. We in the West have economically benefited from emitting that CO2 which is currently in the atmosphere and despite taking that benefit we whinge about taking the lead on removing our own pollution. A fair system country-wise would be to tell each country to remove that portion of anthropogenic CO2 that country has historically put into the atmosphere. Lets deal with other countries future emissions in the future and carry our fair share of the damage we have already profited from. If we havent profited from emissions it shouldn’t hurt us to cut them!
I am sure the above points bear heavily on the Chinese when the wealthy West makes them out as a future green house problem. We should not only encourage them to be more efficient energy-wise but we should also encourage them to produce solar hot water heaters, wind turbines, etc which they can export cheaply to the world. They have the potential to be part of the solution and the government there has the dictatorial power to make it happen.
Feb 9th, 2007
MarkL
Australia produces what, about 1.6% of global emissions and China about 15-16%, yes?
So if one is silly enough to actually believe in the green religion of global warming/cooling/climate change (or whatever scare de jour is jangling the chimes of the credulous this week) AND then silly enough to accept that it is all humanity’s fault (excuse me while I chortle at the sheer hubris of that concept) one logically should be concerned about gross tonnages entering the atmosphere, yes?
So a per capita measure is an especially useless statistic.
Mind you, as water vapour accounts for 95% of the planetary greenhouse effect, and people are sweating bullets about putting plant food into the sky, I honestly don’t expect sensible debate on the topic until this particular scare’s bubble is popped.
Or I might start banging on about the global cooling scare of the 1970s-80s, when ye olde greenies were proselytising about the ice sheets that would doom us all by 1995 – all due to the proof that air pollution was causing global cooling doncha know…
(The buggers are a bit late)
Hmm. To help stop incipient deadly global cooling with a bit of eco-friendly global warming, I might just break out the 1974 V8 I have and drive down to the coast. Lucky I still have access to a goodly supply of super (leaded) fuel, isn’t it?
MarkL
Canberra
Feb 9th, 2007
red crab
re post 3
robert merkel
if anyone wants prof that govts are not genuine on the issue of emissions control get a copy of a dvd called
who killed the electric car.
i think mark mite be on to something
here s a tip get some tru facts on what unleaded fuel is putting into the air that we breath i think you will get a shock.
Feb 9th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
To address the one bit of Mark L’s comment which isn’t focussed on denying global scientific consensus:
the argument that “a per capita measure is an especially useless statistic” is a dangerous one, which of course matches one of the guys backup arguments the government has been using to butress their denialism for years.
We might like to think that concepts like ‘a fair go’ are somehow unique to Australia, but they are not. If we are to have any hope of building anything resembling global cooperation on this issue (which we must if we are to have much hope of avoiding the danger), then we need to acknowledge the value (and morality) of “pulling our weight”.
For those who still don’t give a stuff about anyone else, it is also worth nothing that by refusing to make serious efforts in this area, we are already missing out on significant economic opportunities and restricting the flexibility of our economy.
Feb 9th, 2007
Ian K
MarkL:I will agree that gross tonnages is a logical place to start, but where do you go from there? If you are really into logic then the logical endpoint of the AGW debate is that each person in the world has an equal right to pollute. This is the same logic that gives us each the right to one vote. Given that endpoint, if we determine what emission level we are willing to end up with (eg the CO2 level which will leave us with only having to live with a 2 degree warmer world)then logically each country would be allocated an emisssions target based upon their respective populations.That is a logical position, it may not be the most politically practical but at least it is logical. What is your logic?
The “science” underlying your denialism is way out of date and shallow. If you are into denialism, can’t you read what Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen have to say rather than repeating scientific nonsense? Better still go to realclimate. They covered “water vapour is 95% of the greenhouse effect” and the global cooling “scare” of the 70s a long time ago.
Feb 10th, 2007
CORAL
I think Mark L’s thoughts are progressive.
We’re at the warm end of an Ice Age where everything dies. We need to concentrate more on getting those desalination plants up and running to sustain agriculture as well as quench thirst.
What do people think caused the last global thaw? Too many fire-breathing dragons? Cavemen cooking too many dinosaurs?
Yes, red crab, what did happen to the electric car?
It bit the dust just as quickly as the completely biodegradable plastic supermarket bag. But the good news is that someone has started making the bags again recently. I think I got some from the Super IGA.
But is there any way we can convince people to stop using disposable nappies? Such a waste of resources, including financial.
At Xmas, our letterbox used to fill up with brochures on a daily basis. Now it’s like that all year. The recycling bin is very well fed on unsolicited items from greedy traders. I don’t know how the Brisbane City Council could think that DOUBLING COLLECTIONS is the answer.
It is said that 80% of people are still driving their cars to work.
If the government hopes to clean up the environment/atmosphere, it will need to put paid to Me Syndrome first.
Feb 10th, 2007
MarkL
Federal Greens Leader Bob Brown today proposed that Australia should shut down its $25 billion a year coal industry within three years to help reduce global greenhouse emissions.
/
Feb 10th, 2007
MarkL
That will teach me!
heh
To address the one bit of Mark L’s comment which isn’t focussed on denying global scientific consensus:
Comment: Erm, Andrew, science is not about consensus, but about replicatable results. How is it that one can raplicate the infamous ‘hockey stick’ for example, with random data sets as input? But if you want ‘consensus’, look here at 17,200 scientists who have reached a consensus that the cocncept of causal linkage between human generated gas emissions and global warming/cooling/climate change is purest bunkum: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
Essentially, global warming/cooling/climate changers are acting religiously. Look at the literature, it is about consensus, group-forming and shared belief systems. And having seen this utter twaddle for 30 years, why on earth should I ‘believe’? It is irrational, emotively based counter-factual messianism by narcissists. And the solution is always the same (for global cooling, for global warming, for climate change, and for overpopulation). How can one professed outcome supposedly address all of these incipient and urgent disasters which never happen? And where IS that damned icecap over Tasmania? Greenpeace said in 1979 that it would arrive by the mid-1990s! And they had the scientific consensus to prove it.
the argument that “a per capita measure is an especially useless statistic” is a dangerous one, which of course matches one of the guys backup arguments the government has been using to butress their denialism for years.
Comment: This statement is a logical fallacy. You have constructed an argumentum ad ignorantiam here. Therefore, it is an invalid statement.
End Pt 1
Feb 10th, 2007
MarkL
We might like to think that concepts like ‘a fair go’ are somehow unique to Australia, but they are not. If we are to have any hope of building anything resembling global cooperation on this issue (which we must if we are to have much hope of avoiding the danger), then we need to acknowledge the value (and morality) of “pulling our weight”.
Comment: One does not often see argumentum ad misericordiam, but that is what you have here. Again, if makes this statement (irrelevant in any case) valueless in the case of the present discourse.
For those who still don’t give a stuff about anyone else, it is also worth nothing that by refusing to make serious efforts in this area, we are already missing out on significant economic opportunities and restricting the flexibility of our economy.
Comment: Ah, so the whole clean coal and nuclear proposals indicate ‘not giving a stuff’ and ‘missing out on economic opportunities’. Sorry, but that is the argument of your very own religious supporters, Andrew. After all, they are the ones saying nuclear is bad and that clean coal technologies are no way ahead when China represents a huge market for both!
Your arguments here have neither value or worth – in fact, they are remarkably emotive.
IanK
The “science” underlying your denialism is way out of date and shallow.
Funny, I could swear this stuff was in the latest journals. Nice labelling, by the way, you DO know that your label ‘denialism’ is a religious term? Essentially, you have accused me of the heresy of not believing that human activity is causing global warming/cooling/climate change.
You are correct to do so. I do not share the religious belief system that evil mankind is raping mother Gaia and causing global cooling/warming/climate change.
End Pt 2
Feb 10th, 2007
MarkL
The climate is a dynamic system with a self-correcting mechanism. Of course it is warming slightly and will do so for the next 200 years. Then it will cool for about 500 years – we already know this. These trends are overlaid on a longer warming trend as insolation has increased 6% in recent epochs. In fact, the globe has warmed so much the sea has risen (IIRC) 120 metres in the past ten millennia. Just how much of this did human activity cause?
If you are into denialism, can’t you read what Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen have to say rather than repeating scientific nonsense?
Comment: I have. What they say does not match the facts available in primary data (especially the 10,000 year combination core global temperature trace, insolation increases over that time, and the Milankovich pattern), or in much other scientific work: essentially they seem to me to be following the grant money, and their tracts are written in a style similar to religious dogmas.
Better still go to realclimate. They covered “water vapour is 95% of the greenhouse effect” and the global cooling “scare” of the 70s a long time ago.
Comment: Yes, they did, and most amusing it was. These holy roller ‘green religion’ sites are always hilarious If you wish to rely upon political commentary on a website concerning the religious issue you are peddling, well, whatever floats your boat. While I recognise that there are big bucks to be made from the credulous and gullible on the back of this scaremongering, I prefer to go to the actual papers, thanks, and to eschew the religious and money-making side of it. Oh, you DID notice that some of the names discussing the “global cooling “scare” of the 70s ” were the same people promoting it at the time, did you not? You did notice that they are peddling the current scare too, did you not? Tell me, Ian, why are they right this time around, and not merely making money off the scare? (like they did last time)
End Pt 3
Feb 10th, 2007
MarkL
Like the other true believers, they are pointing to a natural phenomena and ascribing human causes to it. Just like the primitives did in thinking their actions had offended the storm-god, hence the lightning outside the cave. I understand the thunderstorm dynamics, you prefer to believe in the storm god who needs propiation. Hey, whatever jangles your chimes, it’s no skin off my nose.
At least you’re no raving loon like Bob Brown. His statement today is so stupid it’s unbelievable:
Federal Greens Leader Bob Brown today proposed that Australia should shut down its $25 billion a year coal industry within three years to help reduce global greenhouse emissions.
M’kay, that is $25Bn in exports, 30,000 jobs (directly), maybe 2-3 times that indirectly, and we lose the base-load power system on this continent. That means NO electricity except hydro, because wind/wave/solar/the sun from the greenies rear-ends cannot be used to run a base-load power supply. And of course, nuclear is out of the question for this …. thing.
He REALLY wants to propitiate your storm-god! So tell me, whaddya think of his proposal?
MarkL
canberra
Feb 10th, 2007
MarkL
Amusingly, more of those blasted heretics: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
‘In another study, directly relevant to today’s climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth’s temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 — instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.’
Heretics! Damn their use of science and nuance!
MarkL
Canberra
Feb 10th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
No, Mark L, science isn’t just about consensus. Indeed, a scintific consensus is sufficiently rare that you’d have to be arrogant in the extreme to ignore it when it occurs.
Perhaps you’re right and thousands of expert scientists are wrong, but it would be irresponsible for me to take the risk of ignoring them.
People have used nit-picking about details as an excuse for delaying or preventing action.
You can spout rhetoric about ‘logical fallacies’ and your ‘argumentum ad ignorantiam’ nonsense all you like – I’m happy for you if it makes you feel clever, but don’t expect me to pay any attention to your views if that’s all you can come up with.
Australia’s failure to pull our own weight, and our deliberate efforts to spike any form of global cooperation amounts to culpable negligence. We can’t keep complaining about China and India if we (a) do nothing ourselves and (b) deliberately frustrate global efforts that would lead to the involvement of China and India.
Feb 11th, 2007
red crab
coral
get a copy of the dvd is very interesting how greed and politics can kill a good idea.
mark L,
i tend to lean towards your point of veiw .but would like to ask you if the scientific senario is mostly acuate what actions do you think that australia should try to take.
andrew,
do you think that the govt and oposition is just trying to get a political advantage from this .it seems to me that the debate on global warming and water shortages is a set up to justaffy the govts grab for power over water in australia.
Feb 11th, 2007
MarkL
Andrew: I think it important that you, who have a (hopefully very limited) ability to influence policy on these matters consider it important to consider fact and logical discourse as part of that process.
That you can be so easily and simply demolished by the most basic rules of logical debate bodes ill for the pilicy discussions in the senate: to be blunt I expected better of you.
Your emotive response also bodes ill.
‘Not pulling own weight’. Hmm. Please run the funding for reducing pollution (yes, yes, and CO2) emissions in coal fired power stations through that ‘not pulling our weight’ filter. You know, cleaner coal-burning research. More practical than ANYTHING suggested by the Democrats, Greens or other religious converts to the simplisme of global cooling/warming /climate change have done in 25 years, seeing as how much baseload power is gernated by coal.
Especially as China burns 2.2 billion tons of coal a year, and rising fast.
And what was that partnership thing Australia is doing with China and India concerning such pollution?
And you prefer to ignore this as it does not fit your religious views!
MarkL
Canberra
Feb 11th, 2007
MarkL
PIMF!
Red Crab
‘.but would like to ask you if the scientific senario is mostly acuate what actions do you think that australia should try to take.’
Look at the actual issues (ignoring the nonsense about a human causal link to climate change with which the present crop of cynical con-artists are lining their own pockets).
Understand that burning fossil fuels is bad housekeeping, they are more valuable as industrial feedstocks, but they are necessary for a century or so.
Learn how to burn them cleaner so as not to befoul ones own nest. Sulphide gases and fly-ash are among the major problems here.
Move away from liquid hydrocarbon fuels in transport to LNG, not least to starve the arab world of ‘free money’ and force them to deal with their own problems (poverty, crime, the cult of honour, illiteracy, self-pity and theocratic fascism) and not export them to preserve the present vile crop of autocratic governments so beloved by ‘progressives’.
Mandate a transition to gas powered vehicles would help free Australia from oil dependency, and it burns cleaner. Remove excise taxes from it to give Australia a trade advantage by lowering internal transport costs. I’ll even convert my treasured 1970s V8.
Move to nuclear for base-load power generation (including breeder reactors) where economically sensible to do so, understanding that it is a precursor to fusion which will eventually replace it. Where wind/wave/solar make economic sense, use them. But not one cent in subsidy shall they receive.
Put serious money, into fusion research including a very, very large particle accelerator here in Australia for fundamental quantum physics research.
Remove HECS from maths, physics, chemistry history and engineering degrees. These are important, froth and bubble degrees are not, business, medical etc degrees are lucrative so they can pay their own way.
That would be a half-decent start.
MarkL
Canberra
Feb 11th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Mark L says:
That would be why I endeavour to make logical arguments and use facts in the process.
If you consider what you are writing to be ‘logical’, then good luck to you. Your emotive responses seem to be little more than premeditated attacks on what you think I believe, rather than any considered response to what I’ve written. I can only assume you have no idea of the totality of what the Democrats have proposed (and achieved) in the climate change area in the last two decades.
If you genuinely believe the whole climate change debate is just some religious-style fervour with no basis in science, why are you praising money being spent on emission reduction technology for the coal industry? The ‘pollution reduction’ reason has no worth in Australia. The ‘partnership thing’ with India and China is simply another way to trying to break-up genuine global cooperation and prevent genuine emission targets being adopted.
Feb 11th, 2007
MarkL
‘If you genuinely believe the whole climate change debate is just some religious-style fervour with no basis in science, why are you praising money being spent on emission reduction technology for the coal industry?’
Because it is good housekeeping, as mentioned in what I posted, which implies avoiding waste (have you SEEN the fuel efficiency figures for Chinese coal fired power stations?), and to reduce deaths in the industry and caused by the industry. Resources should be used efficiently, not wasted. I oppose indiscriminate pollution, who does not? Coal is valuable stuff, it is a very important industrial feedstock and burning the stuff to make electricity when we could use nuclear (as France does) is ridiculous. Indiscriminate industrial pollution kills – check out the Donbass or any other glorious socialist industrial hellhole.
‘The ‘pollution reduction’ reason has no worth in Australia.’
Eh? You never lived in Newcastle when BHP could get away with murder on the pollution front, did you? If it has no worth in Australia, why on earth has so much been spent on cleaning up Sydney Harbour? Why do YOU support air quality legislation if it has no value in Australia?
‘The ‘partnership thing’ with India and China is simply another way to trying to break-up genuine global cooperation and prevent genuine emission targets being adopted.’
OK. Let me get this straight. Y’reckon that Kyoto, which completely ignores China and India is good, because it is global except for most of the ACTUAL globe.
AN effort to get the countries NOT involved in Kyoto into arrangements which would involve concepts like getting them to use less polluting coal fired power stations… is trying to break up genuine global cooperation.
Ahem. Right. About that logic thing… (and you call ME emotive? Sheesh.)
A question. Have you ever seriously studied paleoclimatography?
MarkL
Canberra
Feb 11th, 2007
Deborah
Why should developed nations, (those who have already built their nations up and created most of the problem, with no constraints imposed on them), expect that third world countries (those who are in the process of nation building) meet equal greenhouse targets?
A gross inequity where the rich and powerful point fingers at others, who have not had the same privilege or enjoyed the same advantage and profit.
Feb 11th, 2007
The Feral Abacus
For an intelligent and nuanced commentary on the anthropogenic climate change debate I’d recommend this presentation (warning! 3.3 Mb) from Peter Bloomfield (Professor of Statistics, North Carolina State Uni). Bloomfield offers a hierarchy of conclusions based on the available data, from things that can be stated with a high level of confidence, to things that are plausible, to statements that have less empirical support.
MarkL, Bloomfield’s presentation has some important messages about the use of proxy measurements to reconstruct historical data. There are insights to be had, but considerable difficulties in obtaining data with sufficient resolution to be useful in this context.
BTW, you’re not chanelling Graeme Bird by any chance?
Feb 11th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
If you want to hold yourself up as a paragon of logic, Mark L, you should figure out what your actual position is first – apart from a position of automatically opposing any view which supports acting to prevent/modify climate change. This isn’t demonstrating logic, it’s just producing an automated oppositional response.
You say you supoprt the coal industry to put many millions of dollars developing technology whose main use is removing carbon from emmissions, whilst saying in another comment that we “we need to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible.”
And then you try to link lower emissions from coal fired power stations with “cleaning up Sydney Harbour”?!
Finally, you say China and India are “not involved in the Kyoto Protocol”. In fact, both China and India have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol (unlike Australia).
Feb 12th, 2007
MarkL
Andrew, read the post.
‘And then you try to link lower emissions from coal fired power stations with “cleaning up Sydney Harbour”?!’
Sigh. About that ‘logic thingy’…
Andrew:‘The ‘pollution reduction’ reason has no worth in Australia.’
MarkL: ‘Eh? You never lived in Newcastle when BHP could get away with murder on the pollution front, did you? If it has no worth in Australia, why on earth has so much been spent on cleaning up Sydney Harbour? Why do YOU support air quality legislation if it has no value in Australia?’
I was debunking your statement that QUOTE:‘The ‘pollution reduction’ reason has no worth in Australia.’UNQUOTE
The mention of QUOTE ‘…why on earth has so much been spent on cleaning up Sydney Harbour?’ UNQUOTE is called an EXAMPLE. It relates to that demonstrable fact that Australians do actually care, and rightly so, about ‘pollution reduction’.
Emitting plant food (CO2, at very low atmospheric levels now compared to most of the planet’s history) is NOT pollution. I am speaking of sulphides, fly ash, etc etc. You know, REAL pollution.
MarkL
canberra
Feb 12th, 2007
red crab
mark L
i like most of your solutions espesialy getting rid if hex fees in maths etc.
i have aproblem with nuclear not because i think its not sale but bacause we may become a waste dump for other nations.
if enough is offerd to any govt the temptation will be to much .
thanks for your answers.
Feb 13th, 2007
Paul Walter
The Wilcox mentioned by Robert Merkel in #3. Is this the same Wilcox that just got busted for Hardie?
Does this relate to comments made over time that CSIRO, like the ABC, has been “stacked” with pro-Howardists?
BTW, speaking of the Great Man, where was he today, after his smearing of Rudd for lack of guts and then refusing him a one on one debate?
Sneaked of to NZ, where auntie Helen had to rescue him from a mob of anti-Iraq demonstraters.
Feb 16th, 2007
CORAL
I seem to have lost a post, probably due to Telstra Bigswamp again.
Mark L and red crab:
I think the idea of getting rid of HECS debts for Maths, Science and Engineering courses is excellent.
Consensus among scientists sometimes has very little value. Luckily, Albert Einstein didn’t care for consensus at all.
People need to start thinking for themselves instead of blindly believing everything they read.
I don’t think we should commit financial suicide by destroying our own coal industry, considering that greenhouse gases are making very little contribution to global warming.
I also think our tiny 1% contribution to greenhouse gases is negligible, especially when weighed against our small population being spread over a relatively large area.
The USA need to clean up their own very filthy act before expecting the same from others. This applies across the board on most things they do – environmentally or otherwise.
Feb 16th, 2007
Deborah
“People need to start thinking for themselves instead of blindly believing everything they read.”…in the papers.
…and everything they hear – from neighbours, family members, radio opinion, co-workers, vested interests.
…and everything they see and hear on TV.
People need to start thinking.
Consensus amongst scientists, the best and brightest of the clearest, logical thinking minds amongst us, has the greatest value of all, IMO.
Feb 16th, 2007
CORAL
We’ll see about that over time, Deborah.
Feb 18th, 2007