satire
23 Jul 2008
What's the Worst that Could Happen?
Ben Pobjie suggests we all relax, try to get some rest, and humour the Government while it goes through its little Save The Planet phase
What is climate change anyway? I think before we get down to the serious business of perpetuating it, we should first try to determine exactly what it is. There are so many different sources out there — scientists, economists, idiots — that it’s hard to know just who to listen to.
But there are some basic facts that we can be fairly sure of. Those who dabble in science and other left-wing ideologies now believe that recent climate change on our earth has been caused by human activity; specifically, the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. To understand the concept better, it may help to imagine the earth as a giant bathtub. Then again, it may not. The main thing to remember is that we are pumping many millions of tonnes of noxious gases into the atmosphere, and that this is causing the world to heat up. The other thing to remember is that, like most of the world’s problems, climate change is China’s fault.
Now, one may well ask: why shouldn’t the world heat up? Isn’t it often cold and uncomfortable here on earth? Isn’t a more balmy atmosphere just what we need to chase away the blues? The answer to these questions, of course, is yes. But it is important to consider the flipside: you like it when it gets hot enough to go swimming, but you probably don’t like it when you catch on fire and die.
This simple example demonstrates a very powerful point at the heart of the climate change debate: there is such a thing as Too Hot. And so, for this and many other reasons mostly involving polar bears, we can see that while warmth is good, warmth is also very bad.
Not, of course, that we are all about to burst into flames; even the most pessimistic projections do not foresee that happening until 2025 at the earliest. But there are alarming consequences in store — drought, rising seas, smug Greens, etc — and this is why action has to be taken immediately to address the looming crisis.
So, what can we do?
Opinions vary widely. The coal industry, for instance, thinks a good response would be to buy lots of coal. On the other hand, conservationists think it would be good not to buy lots of coal.
Which side is right? Frankly, such a question is outside the purview of us in the media; our job is simply to present both sides of every issue, without bias, prejudice or analysis. We make no judgment on whether to believe the scientific consensus or the right-wing columnists, who possess the power of graphs. We leave the reader to make up his or her own mind, slow-moving and inadequate as it doubtlessly is.
The Government, on the other hand, had to make a decision, despite its better instincts. And its decision in this case has been to implement what is known as an Emissions Trading Scheme, or “ETS”, for the time-poor.
How an ETS works is this: the Government sets a cap on the amount of carbon that can be emitted, and companies then buy permits that allow them to emit a certain amount of carbon. This forces the price of carbon-intensive goods and services up, encouraging people towards renewable energy. The Government then gives money to carbon-intensive industries to compensate them for the higher prices, which encourages people away from renewable energy. And thus balance is maintained, and everyone is happy, except for Bob Brown, who is never happy and should probably just go live in a tree somewhere and stop bumming us all out.
But one of the most interesting developments in this story is the news that Australians are apparently willing to pay more for goods and services to help cut emissions.
Pay more? Pay more? I would like to state, quite categorically, that I do not support this madness. When I look at what has made this country great, I don’t see “paying more” on the list. I don’t think “self-sacrifice” or “altruism” or “community-mindedness” are the things that we built our great nation upon. I want to make myself clear: if the Government’s ETS causes me to have to pay a penny more for a single item, I will personally egg Penny Wong’s house. Believe me, I’ll do it; I’ve been trying to get her to notice me anyway, so it’ll be convenient. And if there is one principle I am willing to fight and die for, it is convenience.
So yes, go ahead and implement your precious trading scheme. I am totally on board with the idea of emissions caps, and market-based solutions frankly turn me all gooey inside. I don’t want the ice to melt, I don’t want the bears to die, I don’t want the islanders to sink beneath the ocean. But doesn’t $300 more for electricity seem a little … extreme? Isn’t there a simpler, more painless way to avert disaster, like bombing India?
And what is this obsession everyone suddenly has with riding bikes? My experience driving on the roads of Melbourne has indicated to me that people who ride bikes are, in fact, the most annoying people on earth. Is it worth joining this army of the blighted and godless, just to save a few measly exhaust fumes?
Thus we see once more the eternal tension between competing human interests in the climate change debate: environment versus economy, renewables versus the mining boom, carbon-free transport versus the innate urge to drive your car repeatedly over cyclists’ helpless prone bodies.
Of course it won’t come to that anyway. I mean the ETS — the dead cyclists will probably happen soon. We won’t end up needing an ETS. We’ll build a better solar cell, or cars that run on honey, or move the planet six clicks towards Mars, or something. Something will come up: it always does. Remember how we were so worried about Y2K? And everything turned out fine. Remember how we were so worried about Hitler?
So as abhorrent and downright unpatriotic as the idea of making people pay more for things seems to me, I’m not overly worried. In all my years on this earth, I have yet to suffer from a nightmarish global catastrophe. History’s on my side. I suggest we all relax, try to get some rest, and humour the Government while it goes through its little Save The Planet phase. What, after all, is the worst that could happen?
I mean, apart from that.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
"I have yet to suffer from a nightmarish global catastrophe" - you have forgotten the Howard government, and, amazingly still in action, the Bush administration.
But I worry, Ben, that this article is a bit like the recent New Yorker cover on Obama.
"the innate urge to drive your car repeatedly over cyclists’ helpless prone bodies."
getting stronger with every pillock who can afford to live within 5 kms of the CBD, writing to the Age to claim 80% of Melbournians could go about their day quite reasonably via bicycle, such as one particular tool from Nth Fitzroy did today.
I will happily trade my cruddy shithole for his Nth Fitzroy pad. I will even give him my car AND $100 a week for petrol for when he very quickly discovers that riding a bike would have him out of the house at 4.30am and home at 9.30 every day.
I will be EVEN more pure than him, living in Fitzroy I could walk to work, therefore not using the oil based products used in bicycle manufacture.
David - if you mean the subtle Islamophobia woven into the subtext, then yes, you’re right. Did anyone else catch that?
(incidentally, did you find the reaction to that cartoon a little baffling? I did)
MissnOmar - living in the outer Mongolia of Melbourne, I could save lots of money by riding a bike to work, since I would no longer need a house, being permanently commuting. So it seems a good solution for me.
Oh no, don’t tell me I missed the Islamophobia - sometimes it’s so subtle it just goes right over my head. But on a lighter note …
No, I meant with the cover that satire shouldn’t just be a reporting of the thing ostensibly being satirised. The New Yorker cover could easiy be read as an accurate portrayal of the real world, not as a satire of the prejudices of the Right. Similarly your piece here could be read as a matter of fact - climate change denialists are not very smart. But I understand the problem, it is impossible these days to take conservative attitudes to such an outrageous point that the satire is obvious. The most satirical piece could easily be an accurate report of the ravings of any troll on a blog, or any shock jock or National Party politician.
Wish I had Ben’s wit , nobody invites me to dinner parties any more, the subject of global warming and climate change comes up and my main points seem to kill conversation :
- Climate change has already happened , you mean mitigating the effects so there is a small chance of a future for your 3 year old daughter.
- You can not destroy the planet , this would be a very difficult thing to do , it is quite big and heavy. However you should have been concerned about the future of our species about 30 years ago.
- And anyway the oceans are warming which disrupts the pattern of the seasons so even if we stabilize carbon levels , we will probably run out of food.
Things could be worse, … what is all the drama about ?
But David, newmatilda readers are very smart, aren’t they? They’ll always get the joke…
Jonah, nobody ever did invite me to dinner parties - I kept breaking their chairs.
well……………….
Why do you think that issues have two sides Ben? Why not 3, or 40? Is there some reason that you used 2?
Now be realistic if all the governments told the truth that climate change (remember they don’t say global warming now) is inevitable as they damn well know it is there would be street riots and anarchy. So our government persists with this rot so we will have a nice warm feeling thinking we are doing something positive. When the crash comes the present government will be gone. If a Howard type succeeds it we won’t really mind the earth demolished.
Funny that "they" are now talking about securing Adelaide’s drinking water through next year and maybe into 2010.
I am selling my property in a seriously well-populated part of provincial Victoria - to which they actually provide financial incentives for people to migrate.
We have less than 9 months water supply left and the super pipe is bringing water from the Murray Darling basin: you can count the drips - like counting the Victorian Cabinet.
And the Catholic Pies in the Sky are saying populate or perish. Ben Elton: can you get more extreme?
I would have thought John B [and I’m not talking abut the sloop] coming home would have been far more frightening to his wife than a few protesters about another stupid political pipe dream but then Vonnegurt never really took a flying whatever at a rolling donut so what what would he know.
Ben Elton placed his satire just in time: Ben Pobjie leaves his far[cically] too late.
People who love surfing are buying up property in previously unheard of parts of Victoria and may their wetsuits last that long. I’ld hang in with my property but it would be on a sandbank 50 metres out at high tide.
However many sides you have there is always one more…the truth.
Now I don’t know if I am being overly sensitive,but I don’t read the New Yorker, nor the Jew yorker for that matter, but I digress, was’nt there a PM of Israel Barack? Obama could be one of them! Oy vay.
In any case the climate has changed, the political climate that is.
It resulted in Howard’s end and the Flaming Bush being extinguished, not the one Moses spoke to.
So guys and doll (I presume MIssn Omar is a she) it does’nt matter what talk the govt of the day talks, what matters is what we little individuals reps of man-(person)-,kind does with our grey waters, plastics, recyclings, and general consumption. We are the ones who have to walk the walk.
Mama Mia
Revilo,
I agree - with one foot. With the other, I wish fervently to kick you through the hi-diddle-diddle for a sausage roll. We have been doing our bit for years, even got on the front page of the local rag for doing our bit - and do you think it has done anything apart from making us feel occasionally smug. NOOOO!!!!
If everyone does their bit, it might contract the problem by a year or two but we have do regulate for everyone to do their bit now - even young Ben P who could have used his contribution to the NM to much better purpose.
mbolan - issues frequently have dozens of sides. However, it is the media’s job to present just two of them. I don’t make the rules.
Phermon, you vastly overestimate my abilities. This is genuinely all I can manage.
The Plug the Pipe protesters finally got the point through to the Premier that you cannot have pipeline workers trespassing on farms , if he had been a man of grace and intelligence he would have immediately defused the situation by going ‘fair enough you have a point I don’t like strangers turning up unannounced at the family home when I am not there either’ , instead he once again demonstrates his arrogance and hubris.
When the people rise up governments die.
It seems it is a natural result of our bi-partisan emphasis in politics that all matters are reduced to two sides - ‘centre right’ and ‘centre left’ and then there’s the right side or the left side - which in this case is the green side (or maybe in Australia’s case it’s always the Brown side).
Ben your article asks the question "What’s the worse that could happen?" But it doesn’t even attempt to inform us about the possible horrors that might be upon us in the near future, you just laugh them off with the impunity of youth and naivity.
The worst case scenario is: That civil wars are raging all over the world, fighting desperately over the last remaining fossil fuel resources and food.
The seas have risen substantially along with the price to produce everything, forcing people off the land and into already overcrowded cities with limited resources. The food chain has breaken down due to high CO2 levels and as a result the few successful farmers are forced to fortify their properties and protect their meagre crops from food thieves.
GM food production has only exacerbated the problem by producing crops that are sterile and will not reproduce themselves.
People are forced to arm themselves into small militias just to ensure their families eat by hunting feral animals.
Law and order has broken down worldwide due to a shortage of food and limited fuel resources, all being sold at exhorbitant prices. This is no laughing matter.
And "The other thing to remember is that, like most of the world’s problems, climate change is China’s fault."
Now I know this is tongue in cheek, however, I believe that if any country is going to actually have the potential power to save the world from eternal damnation and a burning furnace of fossil fuels, it’s going to be China.
They are actually making more headway into the alternative energy R&D than any other nation. And if they want a change in the attitude and actions of its populace towards energy conservation - they just demand it and get it!
that scenario doesn’t seem all that different to what is actually happening
"Now I know this is tongue in cheek"
And Denise, you demonstrate that knowledge splendidly.
Denise,
Your comment about the Chinese rulers just demanding something from the populace and getting it - yes, you did say ‘tongue in cheek’ - but that naivete did verge on the idiotic. Yes, Mussolini got the trains to run on time, and the Nazis got almost all blue-eyed blonde Aryans back into full employment producing Panzers and Messerschmidts, and yes there is a lot that any fascist government can achieve, vast monuments to themselves, dams, submarine harbours, Siberians airfields, etc., just ask any Cambodian about mass labour. In China’s case, it also has the bonus of mass public executions, which tend to focus the attention of that populace remarkably, I’n sure.
As for their leading role in pollution control, well, we’ll see about that when the Olympics get going. There’s no disillusion as deep as an ex-Maoist’s.
Joe
Just watch the pollution subside in Beijing as the Games approach.
When the planet is in dire straits and cooperation rather competition is the only rational approach to the massive economic and environmental problems we face, a Communist form of governence may be the Earth’s best option.
Capitalism is in its death throws right now - the US economy is now heavily propped up by the government and is far from just letting ‘market forces’ have their wanton way.
The main reason for its failure is that Capitalism relies on an endless supply of resources and unlimited growth, both unrealistic concepts in today’s world.
Capitalism is in its death throes ?? But China now has a capitalist economy and so does India - there is no place on earth (apart from Cuba, maybe) where there is a ‘communist’ economy. Yes, the US is going down the tubes, and not before time either. But don’t confuse capitalism with the US: capitalism has an inexhaustible genius for regenerating, for rising out of the ashes, and quite frankly, the Arab countries, China, India, Austrlia and even western Europe are not anywhere near burning yet. The US is just another country.
As for an endless supply of resources, I would have thought that that is exactly what china is currently relying on, and getting, notto mention its relatively unlimited growth. Again, don’t confuse China with communism - it’s been a long time since China was communist - don’t think that just because its ruling class calls itself a Communist Party that it is actually communist: after all, the Nazis called themselves a Socialist Workers’ Party. Look behind the nameplate, Denise, and don’t depend on pat formulas.
Yes, and let’s see if the pollution does subside in Peking, without a few executions to ‘pour encourager les autres’..
Cheers,
Joe
I suppose you also believe that Russia isn’t Communist anymore too!
And if you think the US is ‘just another country’ you’re kidding yourself Joe. The US is by far the most influential political (military) force in the world. The only people that have more indoctrinated idiots prepared to die ‘for a political or religious cause’ than them are the Arab nations, which is why they are both at war with each other right now.
And with enforced Super schemes, National health and education agendas that are egalitarian, a form of Socialism or ‘spreading the wealth of a nation’ is already at play in most Western democracies.
Democracy is merely a system of voting, Socialism or ‘social harmony’ is the actual effect of good governance, no matter what the political label is, although the Left is generally more compassionate and thoughtful of the marginalised.
Capitalism is really just an open fiscal system that idolises profits and can be a danger to the ‘labour force’ the term it uses to label and distance itself from people.
And Capitalism without a vigilant IR (and environmental) watchdog to ensure the rights of individuals and the greater good are/is honoured, is a threat to our social harmony and perhaps even our future existence.
Hi Denise,
Russia hasn’t been Communist or socialist since about 1920. I think it turned fascist even under Lenin. And China certainly hasn’t been Communist for a very long time, if ever. I have too much respect for socialism to think those criminals exemplify it.
And yes, in a short time, the US will be just another country: wait and see. Their militar ycouldn’t mount another war of aggression, although who knows, they might try in Iran, or perhaps Syria, they are stupid enough.
If socialism could work, then I agree that yes, of course it is a better system, and maybe, if it can encompass all the good points of democracy and still transcend them, if it can protect the rights of individuals AND promote genuine social harmony for all (not just a few chosen groups), if it can genuinely inspire the genius of the masses and implement genuine succession plans (instead of keeping the same leaders in place for decades), then it might last a bit longer than some of the so-called socialist regimes up to the present time.
But it’s not just either-or, socialism OR capitalism - there must be better ways to organise society and protect people from political abuse at the same time. Utopias are out - they all degenerate into fascist regimes, under which all would be heaven on earth IF ONLY such-and-such a group was exterminated, for the good of the rest.
Cheers,
Joe
Sinclair Lewis US journalist made a prophesy years ago he said "When fascism comes to USA it will be wrapped in our flag and carrying a Cross.’ Nuff said
Pretty much the same could be said for any country, Harry. Patriotism and God have been the bulwarks of chauvinist and populist movements since Moses.
Joe
Only God and NM know why I can’t seem to post on Ben Eltham’s article…
So I’ll post it here.
The Claim: "Energy EFFICIENCY is a common sense strategy for REDUCING carbon emissions"
The Rub: Making your kilowatt/hour more EFFICIENT means doing MORE with the SAME amount.
"Here’s an example: energy efficiency. In other words, what to do with the electricity we already have."
The Problem: Making things MORE efficient means that level of carbon emissions remains the SAME.
The Reality: The climate science (that I presume we all agree upon) states that the CURRENT level of carbon emissions CANNOT remain the SAME. So doing MORE with the SAME amount is pointless.
The Logical Flaw: It is assumed that doing MORE with the SAME amount of emissions, is equivalent to doing MORE with LESS. (MORE=LESS or EFFICEINCY=REDUCTION)
The Contradiction: How can MORE be LESS? It cannot. Either we can do MORE things with the SAME amount. Or we can do the SAME with LESS. We cannot do MORE with LESS. This is ‘common sense’ only in the abstract world of economics.
Solution 1: Remain in the abstract world of economics and rely on concept like EFFICIENCY that assume that MORE = LESS. That way people consuming LESS can offset the fact that power plants produce MORE.
Solution 2: Come back to reality and realize that carbon emissions need to be reduced at their source. Power plants need to produce LESS carbon emissions. We all need to focus MORE on how to solve this problem.
Luckily for us the German and Spanish governments have been doing this.
[Google FEED-IN TARRIFS]
Don’t know why you can’t post there either Bob, but the idea is that efficiency reduces emissions, because if we can do more with the same, that means we can do the same with less.
i.e. if efficiency means getting more done with the same amount of emissions, that means we can get done what we get done now with LESS emissions.
So Ben, are your saying that energy efficiency is the same as emissions efficiency, because they are both efficient? This is what I believe Mr Eltham is arguing.
If so, then what you are doing is called tautological reasoning. You are determining what is "efficient" and then instead of explaining how you have defined "efficiency" you simply assume that it is a universally valid measure. Therefore something (in this case efficiency) is what it is because you say it is. Of course, this allows you to relate energy efficiency and emissions efficiency and - hey, presto - the problem is solved.
The "big secret" in physics (that many pseudo-economists just can’t grasp) is that "efficiency" is not transitive.