climate change
12 Dec 2008
Climate Hope Disappearing Faster Than The Murray Darling
On Monday, Penny Wong will announce Australia's emission reduction targets for 2020. This is an opportunity to end the year the way it started: on a climate-positive note, writes a cautious Anna Rose
My 15-year-old cousin has a t-shirt that says "Green is the New Black". She's more interested in partying than in politics, but, like the vast majority of young Australians, she cares deeply about climate change because she knows it will directly affect her future. Penny Wong will announce a decision on Monday that will affect her for the rest of her life: Australia's emission reduction targets for the year 2020.As we continue to wait hopefully for the Rudd Government to show some guts on climate change, I'm left asking the question: when will the Government get on with what they promised the Australian people at the last election?
Was it just me, or did things seem so hopeful at the start of the year?
It all began with Kevin Rudd receiving a standing ovation in Bali after Australia finally ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The appointment of Wong as Climate Minister was promising: she was one of the most intelligent and articulate members of the new Government, someone who clearly understood the significance of her portfolio not just to Australia's environment, but also to our future economy. Her early statements gave us reason to hope that Australia would finally shed the vice-like grip held by the "greenhouse mafia" over Australia's energy and climate policy. Similarly, Professor Ross Garnaut's early statements indicating he supported much stronger carbon cuts than Kevin Rudd's weak proposal of 60 per cent by 2050, was a sign of great things to come.
Or so we thought.
By the time the 2020 Summit came around in April, the shine had started to wear off. Despite the obvious commitment that I still believe Rudd and Wong have to the issue, I witnessed the "greenhouse mafia" in action: Australia's biggest carbon polluters lobbying for funding for so-called "clean coal" and agitating against the mandatory renewable energy target, energy efficiency, and large-scale nation-building renewable energy investments.
The polluting lobby got into full swing after the 2020 Summit, when they realised that they had an opportunity to rort the emissions trading scheme. Groups like the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network will certainly be celebrating at this year's Christmas parties for the role they've managed to play in watering down and destroying the initial hope of strong climate change targets and an emissions trading scheme uncompromised by vested interests.
Instead of the carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) that we're now likely to get — which will be full of holes, and include free permits and compensation to industry — it would have been better to go with a simple carbon tax.
One of the other features of this year has been the battle of the economic models, with industry groups firing off report after commissioned report to show that their arguments about the CPRS and its impact on the economy are correct.
When the financial crisis hit, it gave these business lobbyists the perfect excuse to encourage the Government to back away from strong targets. In reality, of course, a green economic stimulus package, focussing on new green jobs and green infrastructure projects such as public transport, is exactly what we need to solve both the financial crisis and the climate crisis.
But the courage and commitment the Government showed at the start of the year seems to have faded as quickly as the trend for tie-die t-shirts.
Now, the negotiations are grinding to a close in Poznan, where Australia's refusal to announce targets has been condemned by senior commentators from several nations including China.
But Penny Wong isn't the only Australian having her views heard.
The AYCC Youth Delegation, made up of 20 Australians aged between 16 and 26, achieved an extraordinary feat last night: negotiating an international statement based on the "survival principle" and getting over 80 countries' senior negotiators to sign their countries up to it.
Countries including the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Norway, Tuvalu and Bangladesh — as well as eminent scientists including Australia's Tim Flannery — signed on to the statement that a global climate change agreement should "safeguard the survival of all countries and peoples".
Minister Wong declined to sign Australia on to the statement, but surprised us all in the afternoon Environment Ministers' Plenary when, in front of delegates from around the world, she concluded her speech with these words from the youth statement: "We must safeguard the survival of all countries and all peoples".
Back at home, as we prepare for Monday's target announcement, the muddy world of climate politics is finally front and centre in the national debate about Australia's future.
As I write, we have a team of high school volunteers in the office making kites to fly outside the press club on Monday that say "Aim Higher: 40 per cent by 2020". These are the Australians most affected by the decision Penny Wong will announce on Monday, and their opinions are just as valid — if not more so — than the demands of business.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Anna Rose writes, "Penny Wong will announce a decision on Monday that will affect her [Rose’s 15-year-old cousin] for the rest of her life."
Well, let’s hope Penny Wong has enough sense NOT to do that. Anyone who has even a modest understanding of climate science knows with certainty that there is nothing Australia could do to affect global climate, whether or not the science backing the scheme is right. Australia is simply too small a player in the world emissions game to have any impact in the real world whatsoever.
Wong’s decisions could very well affect Rose’s cousin "for the rest of her life" financially though, in that, if public funds are poured money down the drain on the hopelessly impractical goal of influencing the world’s climate, less money will be available for her schooling, health care and emergency services as well as protecting the environment in a truly meaningful fashion.
The truth is, human emission of carbon dioxide are almost certainly having an insignificant impact on global climate. It is just an hypothesis that has never been proven and the latest research is showing to be increasingly unlikely.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
Congratulations on a wonderful article and on achieving the signatures of senior negotiators. And the kites are just a great idea!
As for the Climate Science Coalition, anyone following the politics of this knows it is just another group funded by Exxon with links to the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition’s Dr Fred Singer, Junk science.com, the Lavoisier Group, Australia, and others who have no credibility.
Dear desgriffin,
Could you please provide evidence for your assertion that ICSC "is just another group funded by Exxon with links to the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition’s Dr Fred Singer, Junk science.com, the Lavoisier Group."
Sincerely,
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
Tom,
It seems the name of your organisation has a touch of the Orwellian to it. The home page of the website is essentially quotations from various sources stating - amongst other things - that, "It’s the sun, more than humans, driving change," and, "more Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims".
Now, I’m sure you can - and should - put forth your argument, but do be up front with the purpose of your organisation.
As to your comments, while I am certainly more of a believer than you clearly are, I do agree with you that issues like health and poverty should not be made subordinate to the hype for ‘Climate Change’ which is a much trendier and less confronting issue.
As far as the importance of Australia’s policy, I think you should go back to the drawing board on that argument. As Australia is the second biggest emitter per-capita, we are generally the kind of country that China and India point to as an excuse. If developed nations like Australia with such high pollution ratios refuse to legislate, why should major developing nations?
If only all lobbyists were as dumb and heavy-handed as Tom Harris.
It should be noted that Harris "is a paid lobbyist for energy companies, that he has tried to change his Wikipedia entry to conceal the fact that he is or has been employed by the PR company High Park Group, and that at least one other website has pulled his articles because he is a paid political lobbyist." (See sourcewatch & other sites.)
Also, the International Climate Science Coalition, as one might expect, is a small group of climate change deniers who have named their "organization", cynically, to sound benign, harmless, and scientific.
It has been noted that Harris has been part of other groups closely tied to energy and fossil fuel companies that actively try to confuse the climate change issue — the above comment is quite obviously intended to do the same, even if it’s a laughably bad attempt.
Also, "executive director" indeed. How important sounding! Aren’t you a clever man!
We are up front about what we stand for - click on "about us", "mission statement" and "core Principles" on www.climatescienceinternational.org . Our goal is simply that sensible, science-based climate policy be developed, instead of the current approach of simply doing what gains the most political points in the short term. Admitedly, our home page is lacking in sufficient information and obviously needs work. We do however have a lot more there than "quotations from various sources" - if you scroll down you will find my recent presentation at a water conference in Arkansas, for example - see http://tinyurl.com/696xce , or our 1300 strong (not all posted yet) Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change at http://tinyurl.com/6znkpn .
You ask "If developed nations like Australia with such high pollution ratios refuse to legislate, why should major developing nations?"
The answer is simply that they shouldn’t legislate carbon dioxide any more than Australia should. Legislating actual pollutants where needed is important of course but legislating CO2 is vastly premature. The science is still evolving and it will be a long time before we know what, if any impact, we really have on global climate change due to our emissions of this otherwise beneficial gas.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
More on the ICSC and Tom Harris here:
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/category/climate-cranks/climate-inactivists…
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/2855
If this is your argument: ‘The answer is simply that they shouldn’t legislate carbon dioxide any more than Australia should.’
Why bring up this: ‘Australia is simply too small a player in the world emissions game to have any impact in the real world whatsoever.’
Those are two seperate beleifs that are incongurous and cannot be simultaneously held.
For a time ‘Professor of Ethics’ Clive Hamilton, got away with the "paid lobbyist for energy companies" claim against me and I simply ignored him since I have never been a lobbyist of any kind and most people know that. However, Graham Young, the Australian On-Line opinion editor asked me to respond properly since Hamilton made the assertion in a piece he wrote for On-Line opinion and so I did. Hamilton had no substantial justification for his assertion (which isn’t surprising since none exists since it is not real) and so the editor judged in my favour and eventually ruled against Hamilton, posting an editorial note (and even posting the whole discussion between the editor, Hamilton and myself) on line - here it is so you can see the "paid lobbyist" claim is bogus:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580&page=2
I could make up an ad hominem (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack against Tim Flanery too, you know, but it would be unprofessional and beside the point since the discussion is about what is correct scientifically, not the background of the person who presents the idea.
I often know I am succeeding when my intellectual opponents depart from intellectual arguments on the topic at hand and start attacking me and my background. That won’t work anymore though - people can think for themselves about the issues (which is all we are encouraging - I can respect those who disagree with us for valid reasons). The public are also becoming generally too well informed for that ol’ "you’re wrong because I don’t like the company I think you keep" trick now.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
My quote was "Anyone who has even a modest understanding of climate science knows with certainty that there is nothing Australia could do to affect global climate, WHETHER OR NOT THE SCIENCE BACKING THE SCHEME IS RIGHT."
… and that is true, no matter your stance on the science. The fact that the science is shaky simply makes the debate even less meaningful. Besides, if you are concerned about CO2 emissions, Australian IS just a bit player. The right stance is to simply forget about CO2 emissions, except in a continued research sense and possibly as a measure of energy efficiency (if you ignore nonsense schemes such as CO2 sequestration).
Glad to see http://www.desmogblog.com/node/2855 being cited against me since that indicates that they have not made up anything more about me since then (I started with ICSC in March, 2008)
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/category/climate-cranks/climate-inactivists… is interesting. Thanks for telling me about it - I’ll have a look. I am glad to see we are being noticed in such a way since I remember my old Air Force trainers telling me (I was an aerospace engineer and worked on fighter aircraft, occasionally flying them, which was great fun!) "one one gets the most flak when over the target."
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
Great article, congratulations. However, I don’t find it surprising that Minister Wong finished her address with words from your statement "We must safeguard the survival of all countries and all peoples", but still refused to sign the international statement based on the "survival principle". It is typical of the manner in which the Rudd government operates. Prepared to "talk the talk", but definitely not prepared to "walk the walk" especially with Climate Change action that requires vision, decisive actions and a new way of seeing the world. I am so disappointed. Where to from here…….?
I think these slack low level emissions targets show the coal industry and the polluters in Australia are lining the ALP coffers.even blind freddy can see it. Rudd and Garrett have no backbone and have rolled over like Howard would have done. Its not good enough for Australia.
Excellent article. Totally agree with your excellent comments, leestubs.
The Rudd Labor Government is an immense disappointment over Climate Change - the only thing to recommend the Labs is that the Libs are WORSE.
It is estimated from US Energy Information Administration (US EIA) and Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) that Australia’s Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas pollution under Rudd Labor INCREASED by over 2% in 2008 from that in 2007 and is projected, barring recession effects, to increase by 6.5% over the 2007 value in 2009 (see: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-inc… ).
Australia’s ACTUAL current carbon pollution under Rudd Labor EXCEEDS that required under official Labor policy which is in effect to DOUBLE Australia’s 2000 Domestic and Exported CO2 pollution by 2050 - whereas most EU countries want to REDUCE carbon pollution by 80% by 2050 (see: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australian-ca… ).
People should not be fooled by irresponsible climate sceptic obfuscation and should seriously consider the views of the following outstanding scientists - “we face a climate emergency” (Head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Research, Professor James Hansen); “it has reached the level of a state of emergency “ ( Professor David de Kretser AC, eminent medical scientist, Governor of Victoria); ”we are in real danger” (Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty) (for other opinions of top biological and climate scientists about the Climate Emergency see: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emerg… and http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emerg… ).
For a clear, authoritative, One-Page "Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions" Statement see that provided by the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emerg… - please transmit this important message to everyone you can.
As Australian Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty says: "we are in real danger" - pity pro-Coal, non-scientist politicians Rudd, Wong, Garrett don’t realize it..
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
@DrGideonPolya,
Let’s not forget the meaningful views of Tom Harris, who is no less than EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of the esteemed INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE SCIENCE COALITION: "the science is shaky." ;)
For more about Tom Harris - summary para:
Tom Harris, described as "an Ottawa-based engineer and science and technology communications specialist" is the Executive Director of International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a group of climate change skeptics. Harris started in the position in approximately March 2008. From late 2006 until he started with the ICSC Harris was the Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), another group of climate change skeptics. Prior to the launch of the NRSP Harris was a Director of Operations of the Ottawa office of the High Park Group (HPG)*, a Canadian PR and lobbying firm.
*HPG web site - Our dedicated team of advisors is committed to providing timely, customized services that provide maximum value to our clients.
And there are still paid prostitutes to the polluting industries out there fighting madly for the world to commit to total destruction.
Sometimes one could wish for godlike powers to silence these people in the name of world survival, but unfortunately we do not, and the financial backing of Big Business to these people is enormous, ensuring that they control Governments, including that of Australia.
Minister Wong will do what Rudd demands of her, and he plays to the beat of the Coal Industry. Minister Garrett…what is he? A joke, in my estimation, and not a very good one.
We have all been dudded, but then I really did not expect anything else. We in Queensland are well aware of the disposition of Mr. Rudd.
Always has been a friend of Big Business, and Big Business in Qld. IS Big Coal!
I see no chance for the survival of the world..greed and self-interest ALWAYS wins! Human nature! Dazza.
What does it all Mean????
While bob, bob, Bob Brown and KR "darling downs" Kevin Rudd and Co continue to tell us to go and suck, when we do not believe their dribble on global warming,
(OH !! how cold is it this summer boys?)
And, While, the cap in hand "supplicant/business" spin merchants are lost in hyper drive wondering how they can suck more out of the shareholders on the down/up cycle as the euphoriants slowly deflate and the teat empties .
What a lazy "suckers bait" way to produce a productive economy.
But then the media school only likes to watch !!!!
Oh, I must not forget the other levels of government who are increasing the bribe by reducing the living lot size down to 180 sq meters.
That should keep values going up for ???
Left over "Cake Now" !!!
I can’t figure out what on earth Dallas Beaufort is trying to say, except that he’s ranting at something.
* * *
Tom Harris the climate ‘skeptic’ says,
"I am glad to see we are being noticed in such a way since I remember my old Air Force trainers telling me […] ‘one one gets the most flak when over the target.’"
Oh, and I thought you don’t actually go attack any "targets" in person, but instead get your willing lemmings to do it for you. I remember that you gave this concept a catchy phrase… ah yes, "coordinated local activism", is that right?
I am glad to see all the ad hominem attacks against me and ICSC - this means our actual points must be pretty solid.
dazza complains: "Sometimes one could wish for godlike powers to silence these people" - yes, this is the wish of most of the dictators in history. Thankfully, our countries still allow dissent from the politically correct wisdom of the gods.
I am interested in real debate about the points I raise, if you have any.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
Tom Harris,
They aren’t ad hominem attacks. They are people legitimately making the point that you have spent a lot of time as part of the denialist lobby, and have well known links to major vested interests, corporations who fund misinformation campaigns to derail urgent action on this issue, and other issues as well.
You keep saying that when people bring up these connections of yours it means that you must be making some "solid points" so they attack you personally. Actually it doesn’t mean that at all, and I suspect you know it. What it means is that people don’t want to give you the same attention they they would give an honest player.
You say it should be all about the science, but it isn’t really all about the science when one is posting comments on a site like this. It’s about how the science is represented, because no ordinary person is going to become a qualified climate scientist just by reading comments on a website. Like a lot of our lives, we’re forced to decide who we can trust, part of which involves deciding who is acting in good faith, and who is acting as part of a vested interest.
People bring up your background because they understandably don’t trust you to act in good faith, and don’t like to see other people waste their time falling into your traps.
Besides this, suggesting that others would only mention your associations as a last resort is utterly offensive. This is a serious issue. People are tired of listening to lobbyists and PR hacks acting in bad faith, taking up oxygen in a debate that’s much more serious than the share price of the corporations who fund lobby groups like yours.
Please, for the sake of us all, stop wasting our time.
Yes, they are indeed ad hominem attacks, as is most of your post. You say:
- "denialist lobby"
This is a term that has very unpleasant and unnecssary undertones, implying an analogy with Holocaust denial when in fact we are not denying climate change (even severe and dangerous climate change) occurs - we simply question the causes, as do many scientists around the world - see my piece at http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/nbr121208_036.pdf .
BarneyG- "have well known links to major vested interests, corporations who fund misinformation campaigns to derail urgent action on this issue, and other issues as well."
This is obviously ad hominem as well, besides having nothing to do with me since it is false.
BarneyG - "You keep saying that when people bring up these connections of yours it means that you must be making some "solid points" so they attack you personally. Actually it doesn’t mean that at all, and I suspect you know it. What it means is that people don’t want to give you the same attention they they would give an honest player."
Ahem - and you don’t think this is ad homenim?
BarneyG - "You say it should be all about the science, but it isn’t really all about the science when one is posting comments on a site like this. It’s about how the science is represented, because no ordinary person is going to become a qualified climate scientist just by reading comments on a website. Like a lot of our lives, we’re forced to decide who we can trust, part of which involves deciding who is acting in good faith, and who is acting as part of a vested interest."
After the sub-prime mortgage collapse, I would have thought most rational people would want to think for themselves more and be reluctant to simply accept what the authorities say. Of course, I go to other avenues when I want to discuss serious and complex science - you are right, I am here to try to convince people that the science they hear from most of the media and politicians is not so ‘solid’ is not at all. What’s wrong with that?
BarneyG - "People bring up your background because they understandably don’t trust you to act in good faith, and don’t like to see other people waste their time falling into your traps."
Ahem, another AH. No one has shown I have any nefarious or lobbying connections, for one simple reason - I DON’T. It would be obviously offensive if I asked you the same question since it would imply that your opinion is for sale. Why will you not extend me the same courtesy?
BarneyG - "Besides this, suggesting that others would only mention your associations as a last resort is utterly offensive."
Actually, this has been one of the first things mentioned on this site, quite insulting I would say.
BarneyG - "This is a serious issue. People are tired of listening to lobbyists and PR hacks acting in bad faith, taking up oxygen in a debate that’s much more serious than the share price of the corporations who fund lobby groups like yours."
More unsubstantiated (and false, of course) AH’s.
Anyways, I hope everyone reading this sees how BarneyG has just provided evidence to support my point about ad hominems being the weapon of choice of many of those who disagree with what we refer to as climate realism.
"Please, for the sake of us all, stop wasting our time."
It is not a waste of time if even one person sees things in a different light as a result of my posts.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
Harris,
"This is a term that has very unpleasant and unnecssary undertones, implying an analogy with Holocaust denial"
What bollocks. Mark Hoofnagle says it well: "If a doctor confronts an alcoholic about their denial of their alcoholism, they’re not suggesting they hate Jewish people too. When a psychiatrist tells their patient they’re in denial, that’s hardly comparing them to the Nazis. When we say a public figure has issued a denial of some scandal, we’re not suggesting they advocate a new holocaust. […] It should […] be clear that holocaust denial has not ruined the word deny or denial or denier for any number of other applications — this is just another example of denialists claiming persecution after being called on their BS."
It’s also interesting that, when jmm and Dan bring up your employment at the PR company High Park Group, you simply ignore them and scream I’M NOT A LOBBYIST! I’M NOT A LOBBYIST! I’M NOT A LOBBYIST! and then act like you’re being unjustly crucified.
And for all the talk about how you’re just concerned about the "science", I don’t see much science in any of your rants so far, or the rants on your ICSC site. Why is it that, instead of numbers and equations, I keep seeing nothing but conspiracy theories and names of politicians?
(Uh-oh. by writing the above reply, I think I just accidentally oppressed Tom Harris in ad hominem Nazi comparison fashion. Forgive me, O Great God of Freedom!)
— bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/
What would you suggest I say when people assert that I am a lobbyist, paid by Exxon, etc. when such accusations are unfounded?
The term used to attack us was "denialist lobby", not "denial". There is an important difference. The simple word "denial" is, as you point out, not loaded. "Denialist lobby" certainly is.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
Harris,
Well, it might be a good idea to, you know, address the numerous pieces of evidence of your PR connections as presented in the SourceWatch article, instead of merely screaming I’M NOT A LOBBYIST! I’M NOT A LOBBYIST! I’M NOT A LOBBYIST! at the top of your lungs.
So you’re saying that, the term "denialist lobby" is a Nazi comparison, while the term "denial" is not.
So much on focusing on the science. If you’d any scientific points to bring up against the global warming theory, you would’ve brought them up here already. Instead, all I here from you are lots of cries of persecution.
— bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/