climate change
16 Dec 2008
Rudd's Emissions Target: A Policy Analysis
Anna Rose gives a detailed report on what the Government's White Paper will mean for industry, the public and the climate
Protests are kicking off all around the country today as ordinary Australians react to the Government's White Paper on climate change. After a late night driving back from Canberra, I‘ve written a summary on what exactly is in the White Paper, since it's 850 pages of complex jargon. Here's how I've deciphered it: your quick and simple guide.
Target: 5 per cent
The Government has committed to cutting Australia's carbon pollution to 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. Beyond that base commitment, the obligatory reduction could be as high as 15 per cent "in the context of a global agreement under which all major economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on reductions comparable to Australia".
The Government's household support package, its industry support package and the carbon price it is using are all based on a 5 per cent target. Treasury estimates that revenue from the scheme will be $11.5 billion, at a carbon price of $25 per tonne. They estimate that a carbon target of 5 per cent will result in permits priced at around $23, but they've set the $25 estimate based on expectations of market fluctuation.
The Government did not leave the door open to a 25 per cent reduction by 2020, which had been a feature of the earlier Green Paper. The White Paper states that Australia's target may be changed after 2020 if we get a global deal based on 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) with sharp reductions from developed and developing countries. This seems to be code for increasing the Government's 60 per cent reduction by 2050 target to move in line with Obama's 80 per cent by 2050.
Compensating Australia's biggest polluters
The Government has significantly increased the amount of compensation it will be giving our biggest polluters from the model proposed in the Green Paper. Thirty per cent of the permits from the scheme will be given away for free, and there will be direct cash handouts to some industries like coal-fired generators, who score a cool $3.9 billion — untied to any structural adjustment programs to transition out of this dirty fuel.
In the words of Tim Colebatch in The Age, "Come to Australia, polluters' paradise!"
The Government will give free permits to new and existing firms in "emissions exposed trade intensive industries" (EITEs) like aluminium producers, iron and steel makers, petrol refiners and LNG producers.
The Government has divided these industries into two categories depending on how much greenhouse gas they emit. The more polluting you are, the more free permits you get. The biggest polluters get 90 per cent of their pollution permits for free, and the second biggest polluters get 60 per cent of their permits for free.
The principle of growth has been used to set the compensation package to trade exposed emissions intensive industries. Put simply — the more that polluting companies expand and the more greenhouse gas emissions they emit, the more compensation they receive. If a firm doubles its output and doubles its pollution it will get double the amount of free permits.
This means the Government is not seeking any meaningful structural adjustment to a clean energy future. And keep in mind that the more assistance given to polluting industries, the greater the burden on other sectors of the economy.
It's worth noting that LNG companies like Woodside and Santos are huge winners from the scheme, as they had been excluded from receiving assistance in the Government's Green paper in July. Now, they'll receive 60 per cent of their permits for free, despite being well positioned to make windfall gains from emissions trading since LNG is a less polluting fuel than coal and oil.
The Government will "review" its assistance to EITEs every five years but has committed to providing five years notice before any changes take effect. Five years is a long time when it comes to climate science; so again we're locking Australia into a situation that will be rapidly outdated as the climate science gets worse.
Compensation for companies if the scheme tightens up
Even though so many pollution permits are being given away for free, if the Government needs to take them away from companies to reduce the cap on carbon, these companies will get monetary compensation from the Government.
That is because carbon pollution permits will be personal property, and companies have been guaranteed that these rights can't be extinguished without compensation. This means that in future, when climate change impacts start really kicking in, and the climate movement becomes stronger and governments have no choice but to strengthen the cap, the Government will have to buy back the permits from polluting companies.
It's like what happened with the Murray, where water rights were over-allocated, and now the Government has to buy back what they should never have given away for free in the first place.
Risky business: banking and borrowing
One thing that may be overlooked in the mass of other bad things in the White Paper is companies can "bank" and "borrow" permits from future years. Banking means that companies can purchase emission permits from future years in advance of that year, if they think the price will go up in the future. This means they can continue emitting high levels of pollution even if the carbon price goes up in future years.
Borrowing is even worse, because, say I run a company and am not doing very well financially, I can "borrow" permits from future years to make up for excess emissions that I've emitted over the cap this year with the "intention" of paying them back in future years. How convenient it would be if I go bankrupt and avoid having to pay my carbon liability...
And just to make sure the scheme can't be too effective, here's a price cap
Just in case the carbon price rises too high, the scheme will have a price cap of $40 for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. This price cap will be in the form of "access to an unlimited store of additional permits, issued by the Government at a fixed price".
Let other countries do the work for us: overseas credits
There's another reason why the scheme is not contributing to a structural change to a low-carbon economy in Australia. There is no limit on the amount of permits companies can import from other countries' emissions trading schemes. This means that if it is cheaper to buy emission reduction units from overseas, companies could make no changes domestically in Australia.
Companies can profit from this scheme — but it will cost the government money
The White Paper suggests that the cost of compensating business will be fully met by the revenue received from the auctioning of permits.
However the scheme allows polluters to deduct the cost of the permits they need to buy from their taxable income. This means the Government will likely receive less tax from our major corporations, which will impact the bottom line, leaving less money for renewable energy, schools, hospitals and public transport.
So if I hate this scheme, should I put solar on my roof and "do my bit"?
Unfortunately, this is one of the worst aspects of the scheme. It negates the impact of individual household emission reductions, in that if I put a solar panel on my house, it doesn't lower Australia's overall emissions but just frees up permits for my generator that they can then sell to Alcoa to produce more aluminium. It also lowers the carbon price, meaning companies have an incentive to produce more greenhouse pollution.
This is because the scheme "locks in" net emissions, aside from reductions in total permits through people buying and retiring permits.
This means that if an individual decides to do their bit and reduce their energy usage or put up a solar panel, they are making no difference our total levels of carbon emissions.
Unavoidable conclusions
The scheme is supposed to start 1 July 2010. It will have to pass through the Senate first. I hope you're all gearing up for a big year in 2009, because we'll have to build this climate movement a lot stronger than it's ever been before.
We've got a big task ahead of us in order to get the Government to realise it can't take the Australian public for granted anymore on climate change. The people who voted Kevin Rudd in can also vote him out.
Time now for the biggest movement in our history — the movement where we unite across our differences to build a movement to solve climate change.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Well said , this idiocy requires protest.
Suggest that Plug The Pipe , the group fighting the north-south pipeline provide many lessons .
Well organized , always operating on good legal advice and in discussion with the police . The Brumby misinformation and fabrications indicates the methods government will go to to discredit any protest group.
Should be quite a fight indeed.
What a great article, thanks Anna. Just one question, if you read this: WHY do you think the government has arranged things to benefit companies, cost the government money, cost us individual tax payers money, and feed any individual emissions reduction back into industry emissions production?
I know that WHY question seems naive, but i keep banging my head on the wall with it: what the fuck is the labor government HOPING to achieve?
Or is the Australian Labor Party really just that cynical?
I think this latest effort of Anna Rose is interesting, not so much because of what she says but because of her selection of words and phrases. Those of us who work in both climate science and communications are always on the alert for news articles that use propagandic language to distort (either in ignorance or otherwise) the message in favor of one side or the other (and that is why I saw Ms. Rose’s writings in the first place since I have Google alerts set up for the particular phraseology she uses).
The following propagandic, and misleading (or downright wrong) word selection is used by Ms. Rose in this piece
1 - “carbon price” (used five times in this piece)
2 – “Australia’s biggest polluters (three times)
3 – “Carbon pollution” (twice)
And all of the following one time each:
carbon target, dirty fuel, polluting fuel (it is largely how you combust a fuel that makes it dirty, not the fuel itself), polluting, pollution permits, polluting companies, pollution, clean energy, polluting industries, polluting companies, pollution permits, cap on carbon, emitting high levels of pollution, carbon liability, low-carbon economy, polluters, greenhouse pollution, carbon emissions …
Of course none of these words are appropriate for a discussion of carbon dioxide reduction plans since carbon dioxide is not “carbon” any more than PCBs or any one of thousands of carbon compounds we find on Earth are. It is like calling water hydrogen and so trying to ban water because it is supposedly dangerously explosive.
I am afraid what Ms. Rose is doing is simply a language trick to make it seem as if CO2, an invisible, odorless, benign gas, is somehow dirty, as are some common forms of carbon such graphite and soot.
Ms. Rose must consider her readers to be wholly unfamiliar with basic chemistry to be thinking she can get away with such obvious mistakes (or does she not know they are mistakes?)
As in her previous piece there is some genuinely humorous language as well:
We need to “build a movement to solve climate change.” Ms. Rose tells us, as if “solving” climate change makes any sense at all
And, finally, the blooper of the day goes to the following excerpt:
“… we’re locking Australia into a situation that will be rapidly outdated as the climate science gets worse.”
Most scientists are working hard to improve our scientific understanding of climate science. I certainly hope climate science doesn’t “get worse” (if it is accurate forecasts we are looking for, then it actually could not get much worse that it is right now – we’re cooling when the theory says we should be warming).
Here is Ms. Rose’s bio: http://newmatilda.com/contributor/21082 . It is disturbing that someone with a combined Arts (Asian Studies)/ Law degree and no obvious science training at all should have such influence on young people concerning such a deeply scientific field as climate change.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
Children are People.
Tom Harris, she has a law degree and its a document that has legal implications , or are you too stupid to realise that. You draw so many warning flags that I would rather take the word of a McDonalds chef than yours on climate change.
People in glass houses:
Mr Harris’ ISCS website has the following arguably propagandist and sensationalist (arguably misleading?) headlines on its front page:
FOUNDATIONS OF CLIMATE SCARE CRUMBLING
NEW ZEALAND COULD LEAD WORLD TO CLIMATE SANITY
PUBLIC STARTS TO REALIZE FOLLY OF ‘FIGHTING’ CLIMATE CHANGE
ABC (AUSTRALIA) TAKEN TO TASK FOR WARMING BIAS
MASSIVE US SENATE REPORT NOW AVAILABLE: HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS SPEAK OUT TO COUNTER ANTHROPOGENIC GHG CLIMATE SCARE
… the list goes on.
No, you didn’t write these articles, you sourced them from various international media. However you did not use the original headlines, you created your own, and it seems that you are guilty of what you accuse Anna Rose of.
Should i be scared that someone who purports to be a advocate of objective journalism - or at least a judge of it - and someone who is a scientist, has such a knack for using words? pffft.
Excellent article by Anna Rose. Key sentence for unreasonably, glass is half-full optimists like me: "Time now for the biggest movement in our history — the movement where we unite across our differences to build a movement to solve climate change. "
The Rudd "5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020" is a huge betrayal of Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere - it also hides an immense LIE because it ignores the GHG pollution deriving from Australia’s LNG exports and from Australia’s world-leading coal exports.
Using US Energy Information Administration (US EIA) data one can estimate what it actually means in terms of Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution - under the announced Rudd Labor Government policies Australia’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (Mt CO2-e = millions of tonnes of CO2-e produced) is projected to INCREASE from 885 (2000) and 1130 (2008) to 1245 (2020) and 1586 (2050).
A very detailed, comprehensive and documented analysis entitled “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and Biosphere” has been placed on the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website to assist public information and informed advocacy for Australia, the Great Barrier Reef, Humanity and the Planet: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5… ).
A fundamental key issue is Public Honesty in Word and Deed. Thus it is egregiously dishonest for the Australian Government to call a scheme that will INCREASE Australia’s ACTUAL Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution as a “”Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. Further, the Rudd Labor Government was elected in 2007 with Climate Change as a major public concern – however, in 2008 Australia’s annual Domestic and Exported Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollution INCREASED by 2.1% from that in 2007 under the Coalition Federal Government and , barring recession effects, is expected in 2009 to have increased by 6.5% over that in 2007 (see “Australia INCREASED Greenhouse Gas pollution in 2008 by 2% over 2007”: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-inc… ).
A further key issue is that Australians should listen to the expert opinions of top climate scientists rather than uncredentialled propagandists. Thus according to Professor Andy Pitman (University of New South Wales, a top Australian climate scientist and a lead author on the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) we cannot go above 450 ppm (indeed that will kill the Great Barrier Reef according to top coral scientists). In response to the Labor Government announcement of “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” Professor Pitman has stated today on Australia’s ABC Radio National that we need to keep atmospheric CO2 to below 450 ppm to avoid a catastrophic 2 degrees C temperature rise and that means a global 25%-50% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020.
Further, the top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA’s prestigious and world-leading GISS say that we must URGENTLY reduce atmospheric CO2 to below 350 ppm (see "CLIMATE EMERGENCY: what top world scientific experts say": http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emerg… ) - indicative of how scandalously derelict the Australian Government is in its derisory, dangerous and potentially terracidal and climate genocidal "5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020".
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
Imagine how busy poor Tom Harris must be, constantly chasing down, in far flung corners of the Earth, any hint that the populace of a country might become aware of the rapidly developing danger of global warming. Running backwards and forwards, like a man trying to put out a bushfire with a bucket. Doomed to fail because people are now aware of the denialist industry and what it has been up to all these years on behalf of big oil and big coal, and they are becoming outraged by it. He still hasn’t tackled me at http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Climate_change/ but he keeps attacking Anna. Go for it Tom.
Oh, and you won’t stop the outrage directed against this denialist-informed rubbish policy from Labor. And just when you were congratulating yourself on a job well done. Must have been one or two anxious moment when your denialist friend John Howard vanished, but Kevin Rudd is proving an excellent replacement, is he not?
And now you’re going to have to be wary of what Obama is up to. Oh, and will your friend Mr Harper survive? So much to do, so little time.
"she [Anna Rose] has a law degree and its a document that has legal implications"
Fine but how does this relate to her commenting and leading young people concerning a science-based issue?
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
"you are guilty of what you accuse Anna Rose of. "
No, this would only be true if what is written on our Web site is incorrect, as is much of what Ms. Rose writes. If you think what is on our site is incorrect, then please show why you believe this. I didn’t just assert without evidence that Ms. Rose’s language was distorting the situation, I showed where her errors are. I am open to having our specific errors outlined, if you can find any.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
Good Article Anna.
The truth is out there Tom Harris! Can I be your Scully?
"carbon dioxide is not “carbon” any more than PCBs or any one of thousands of carbon compounds we find on Earth are. It is like calling water hydrogen and so trying to ban water because it is supposedly dangerously explosive."
Not really Tom; with so much public discussion on climate change it is reasonable to assume that the ‘carbon’ in ‘carbon emissions’, ‘carbon pollution’ or ‘carbon trading’ etc is short-hand for ‘carbon dioxide’ (a greenhouse gas, as all of us without science degrees now understand). If you can find an instance for someone assuming these terms refer to the contents of a pencil or or the shiny bit on an expensive ring then I will take the rest of you tirade a little more seriously.
Mr Harris, i quote you:
"Those of us who work in both climate science and communications are always on the alert for news articles that use propagandic language to distort (either in ignorance or otherwise) the message in favor of one side or the other".
This *is* what you accused Anna Rose of, among other things. And i suggest, above, that this *is* something which i think you do on your website.
Additionally, i think is quite unfair - and disingenuous, because i suspect your intention is to obfuscate the actual issue, the white paper and its assumptions about the state of the environment - to target Anna for using terms that are in common parlance, such as "Carbon" rather than Carbon dioxide, and assume that she is too stupid to understand the difference, or is simply trying to trick her audience. Actually, you assume that Anna intends to trick her audience, or play language tricks.
You don’t actually attack any scientific position, just the language Anna uses, her intentions, and the fact that a non-scientist could possibly have an opinion worth listening to with regards to the environment.
Even though, as Graeme F says above, this White Paper is such an obviously legal - and political - issue.
Of course, i am interested in what you say about language. I just think it is quite hypocritical - and other less flattering things - to take the position you took above, given the website that you run.
But if i have misunderstood something, please let me know. I am sure you will.
Most of the public do not really think about the fact that ‘carbon’ is shorthand for CO2 and so are tricked, at least subconsiously, into accepting the sort of language Ms. Rose uses. They associate CO2 with pollution, a PR tactic that is reinforced effectively by writers like Ms. Rose who use the word ‘pollution’ and complementary words ‘dirty’, ‘clean’, etc. throughout, even though these words are out of place in the context of the issue we are discussing.
It is not just one word that is being used as a weapon like this; it is a whole climate campaigner vocabulary ("climate change is real" is another - see my piece at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=104… ) that is being used to get people to emote, rather than think rationally. I would say Ms. Rose has been very successful in this regard, juding on the angry responses to my postings.
No Tirade here - just realism and striving for accuracy and the labeling of things what they really are so people will think more clearly. What’s wrong with that?
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
ICSC would only be doing what Ms. Rose is doing if we are saying things that are incorrect. In her previous piece, I outlined a number of her errors very clearly - please see my 4:08 posting on http://newmatilda.com/2008/12/15/rudd-has-betrayed-generation . If you find errors in our work, please let me know.
"Actually, you assume that Anna intends to trick her audience, or play language tricks."
With regards to what Ms. Rose is doing I wrote "(either in ignorance or otherwise)" and later I said "(or does she not know they are mistakes?)". I can certainly accept that Ms. Rose may simply not know that her word choice is distorting the actual situation. If she is doing this by mistake, I hope my postings will encourage her to re-consider how she writes about this topic. Others on these blogs have suggested her writing is too emotive for such a serious topic and I would agree with that.
"this White Paper is such an obviously legal - and political - issue."
Yes, but it is in response to a deeply scientific issue and if the science is wrong the rest is moot.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
lol. Fair enough. I am all for accuracy, where possible. I just don’t agree with some of your (apparent) assumptions.
e.g. I don’t agree that emoting about an issue necessarily precludes thinking rationally.
I don’t think that there is a conspiracy of language amongst writers concerned about climate change. And even if there were, then i would say it exists on both sides of every issue covered in the media!
Neither am i so comfortable assuming that "most of the public" don’t have a basic grasp on the relationships between the word Carbon, the gas Carbon Dioxide, and the effect that excessive carbon dioxide has on the environment.
And i wouldn’t assume that the responses to your posting here are
a) angry
b) based on people emoting about the issue, because of Anna Rose’s choice of vocabulary.
To disclose my own prejudices: when i see someone attack an argument on the basis of language, i automatically scrutinise *their* use of language. And if i feel that they don’t practice what they preach, i tend to think that they might be obfuscating an issue, leading us down the merry path of picking apart a word here, a sentence there, rather than the argument.
Having said that, yes, i have just spent quite a lot of time doing just that: picking apart your language. Hopefully also your arguments.
So:
I agree with you on at least one thing: how we use language is important, and it should be examined, and never more so than on the issues that are most important. I
Sorry Tom, you won’t draw me on discussing errors in your science - that was never the point of my posts. I was, as i keep saying, examining your argument about language.
For me, that issue is not a matter of evidence but of opinion - i think using phrases like "Climate Scare" repeatedly in your website headlines is propagandistic in the same way you are accusing Anna of. I don’t say i have a problem with it, i just say: if you hold Anna to a standard, what of your own use of language?
I think we are talking across purposes actually. What a waste of time! oh dear.
Regardless: i prefer not to comment on the science, it’s not something i have background in ;-)
And i don’t think the White paper and its assumptions about climate change are not a political and legal - and social - issue in their own right. The science is not likely to be resolved in the short term, but this particular solution *is*.
And when i say science, i mean scientific debate…Sigh…
Tom, As I have said to you previously …balls.
Given the incredibly eminent organisation by which you are employed, and the number of household Australian names listed in the website, how come you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness?
What is your problem with cleaner energy production, a sustainable economy, an intact ozone layer and honest politics?
Why do you need to decry what can only be good for the planet? What’s your investment in the status quo?
Come clean, Tom. And no more of the pedantic hair-splitting which seems to be your modus operandi - I’m bald so it won’t wash
Tom,
This article is not about the science of climate change, it’s about the Rudd government doing something which we, the Australian public, voted them in to do.
This is not the place to argue about climate change, carbon CO2 etc; that debate has been had and we, the Australian voters, voted for policy to combat climate change. It now appears that Rudd has chickened out of real action and won’t do much.
Slagging off the author shows your single minded approach to belittling climate change proponents in all dialogues, even inappropriate ones when the issues you want challenged are not in contention: she wasn’t examining the science behind the paper but rather analysing the policy. In fact, simply summarising the paper for all of us wouldn’t necessarily require any training in science at all: a law degree should do I think!
I for one am appalled that Rudd has let me down so badly. I voted for him mainly for action on climate change and now I feel betrayed. I certainly will be taking to the streets to protest about this issue.
Nick Car
Tom Harris is a quack, a propaganda mouth piece.
Why are people giving this impostor/pseudo scientist gravitas
C’mon guys, this two bob gun for hire should be treated with the contempt that people of his ilk deserve.
Tom Harris, go back to the hole, that is paid for by big Polluter!
This rubbish works in America! Oh wait Bush is gone….
Watch the door on your way out mate.
http://pyrmontvillage.com.au/
Tom Harris, get off the computer, Big OIL and coal is on the phone for you, they want to know if you got their check in the mail.
Come on folks, I really do not think that Harris deserves a reply to anything. Utterly brainless nincompoops are just not worth the effort.
deej, back when John Howard was in power, a group of Big Businesspeople called the "Green Mafia" by some, were invited by Howard to actually write any laws that may affect Big Business. Well, they might not have actually written them, their minions would have done so. This they did, and we always had laws on pollution ( and lots of other things) very nice to Business. I can only assume that this group are still writing laws that affect Big Business. Certainly, Rudd would invite them to do so. In truth, I doubt that any Government would be strong enough to be able to deny them.They control our economy, to their own benefit. Much as the Carlyle Group controlled the Bush Governments in the US. Biggest shareholders…the Saudis, including the Bin Laden family. Our ‘Green Mafia’ includes a lot of very ‘big’ names in Australia. Dazza.
One thing is for sure. The Greens are going to pick up votes in the lower house.
Now that we have seen Rudd’s true colours.
http://pyrmontvillage.com.au/
What is the point of New Matilda if people don’t discuss issues? Do you really want a site where someone like Tom Harris comes in with an argument - yes he actually made one, he backed it up with evidence, no one here agrees with it but he took the time to engage - and we just tell him to shut up?
I hate going to right wing sites/blogs and everyone on the site just agrees and pats the journalist on the back.
And can’t we raise the tone of our disagreements with Tom Harris above "you suck", and whole lot of predictable prejudices? Which actually replicate a favourite tactic of the right wing: ad hominem attacks on any "liberal media" journalists, instead of attacking their ideas…
Dazza, if this is approximating the truth, can we have some names and portfolios, please. I love conspiracy, but I prefer when people are out in the open to be pole-axed! Nicely, of course - because we are nice huming beans, aren’t we - now we’ve dispensed with Tom. Christopher
Deej,
I agree: please keep it civil people as we need to make sure these important issues are reasoned out not just shouted up or down.
But, once again, I think Tom’s comments were off topic (see my previous post). Nick
Sorry Deej, your post came up after I’d finished my last. Very happy to engage with Tom, if he answers my questions.
As far as I am concerned the science is no longer the issue - we’ve had that discussion. The question is what are we going to do to meet the obvious problems we face - no water, filthy energy, very high UV levels and fast receding polar ecologies.
I live in a provincial city which cannot supply its own water and is stealing from the Murray-Darling basin and inadequately monitored aquifers. There are no natural lakes still extant within a duck’s flight. Tell me again this is all in my imagination and we need do nothing.
I am not arguing the science - I am arguing for a sustainable approach to our ecology - which includes the economy. Growth is no longer an option.
To the Thought Police on here,
I am going to say whatever I like to whoever I like, and stand by it. If I wish to attack someone so be it.
Just move on to the next comment
If you wish to participate in a pointless yet clever obfuscation exercise well managed and well run by what I perceive to be PR hacks for big polluters so be it. Participate,
Do Not however deem to tell people how to behave in a public forum !!!
http://pyrmontvillage.com.au/
Tom Harris: "It is disturbing that someone with a combined Arts (Asian Studies)/ Law degree and no obvious science training at all should have such influence on young people concerning such a deeply scientific field as climate change."
What about you, Tom? You had a respectable existence as a space activist once. Now you’re the spokesperson for a group whose website, as of this writing, is promoting theories which deny that CO2 induces any warming at all! And you *do* have scientific training!
"it is largely how you combust a fuel that makes it dirty, not the fuel itself)"
Hee hee, good one Tom. We shouldn’t tar all fossil fuels with the same brush: the fossil fuels that don’t get combusted are perfectly harmless.
I must agree with deej about the treatment of poor Tom Harris on these posts.
The issue is not whether Tom sucks. Clearly he does suck, but it is important to identify why and how he sucks, and to engage with the suckiness of his arguement rather than just the fact of him sucking.
So for contributing to making climate change just another battleground to fight out already outdated and tiresome culture wars, Tom, you suck.
In Tuesdays SMH they had a table showing how much of a cost of living increase there would be and how much compensation was forthcoming with the emmisions target. What I found interesting was the basic assumptions that were made to determine how much compo.
A single income couple on $90,000 was assumed to use more electricity than a couple on $50,000 and was therefore compensated more.
I get the feeling that the system was calculated more on how easy it would be to implement under the current income tax system than it is a real indication of peoples energy use or needs.
As a single man on a modest wage I was interested to calculate that after my alloted ‘compensation’ of $390 and calculating that my bills would increase by 10% on electricity and 5% on gas to a grand yearly total (based on existing bills and my half share) would come to approx $425. So I will get a full years gas and electricity for a total of $35. That’ll make me turn the compact fluro lights off when I leave the room.
"The issue is not whether Tom sucks. Clearly he does suck, but it is important to identify why and how he sucks, and to engage with the suckiness of his arguement rather than just the fact of him sucking."
Yeah, sort of. But engaging with arguments that have been definitively and repeatedly proven incorrect — or manipulative AND incorrect — only lends credibility to the utter falsehood that the science around climate change remains uncertain.
We need to get past being drawn into the talking-point-fueled "arguments" of a third-rate PR wannabe still using tactics from the Big Tobacco playbook.
I’m not interested in the so-called debate or the various rhetorical tactics ("I’m making rational scientific arguments … Oooh, she said carbon when she meant carbon dioxide!"), but I am interested in observing amazingly graceless, ham-fisted attempts to convince people that the so-called debate is still taking place. And I am certainly interested in making fun of them.
Thanks Anna!
I now feel like going to the public info session this morning was a waste of time, this was far more comprehensive, and assuringly honest :) Urgh, I am so devastated though.
––––––
In February, community climate action groups from across the continent and other concerned Australians are joining together for Australia’s Climate Action Summit in Canberra, the weekend before the first day of the 2009 Federal Parliament: 31st January – 3rd February: www.climatesummit.org.au
Deej - you ask the question why? Simple - you live in a capitalist dictatorship where its all about maximising profits regardless of the environmental, social or human costs. The govt siding with big business shows in itself -it is a govt for the ruling class - the minority in our society that control the majority of the wealth.
As I said on a previous blog, it is probably good to see all this ad homenim attacking against the ICSC and myself, not to mention the avoidance of science, as it reveals vulnerability on the part of those doing the attacking.
Folks, if the science backing the climate scare is wrong, or even in serious doubt (as most of it obviously is), then all the other discussions about Rudd and other politicians ‘betaying’ you is totally moot from a real world climate perspective. I can certainly understand you resenting what seems like broken promises (and I have a similar feeling towards our pollies) but I suggest you pick on issues that really matter, such as air pollution, toxic waste dumps, species at risk, energy conservation, waste disposal and recycling, instead of the hopelessly impractical fairy tale that we can control the world’s climate.
Anyways, I am glad I got your attention.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
www.climatescienceinternational.org
Well said Tom,
I dig your words man. People are getting pied pipered into this emotive bullshit debate and sorry to hear your good self has been targetted by the chardonay brigade.
The lessons of the macrocosm are in the microcosm and if our politicians were acting on immediate issues of concern, and the planet collapsed under the weight of the human species, at least we all died with a conscience, but to be sucked in by the headlines is a woeful tale indeed.
As a proponent of CNG for clean city transport, I can verify that this government does not give a toss about the future of Australians or Australians and is operating on the bottom line agenda of oil, coal and gas profits. Ferguson has given the green light to the absurd continuation of LNG exports and Rudd and his funny dumb guy stooge Garret would never come clean on the solar facts because they are contracted to other concerns that arn’t quite ready for that.
The more I hear people rattle on about the ‘targets’ and the carbon emissions schemes the more I am realising how stupid Australians really are and how well the media have done in creating myth and debate and steering public thought in exactly the direction that the politicians have planned.
Well done Tom for getting our attention!
It is interesting, Tom, that you criticise us for not entering a scientific debate with you, yet you offer so little in the way of scientific evidence for your own views. You make the very true point that cardon dioxide is a different compound to soot or graphite, but then follow this by implying that this means it doesn’t count as pollution.
Tell us, if man-made carbon dioxide, released into the atmosphere, doesn’t count as pollution, what does? Do man-made plastics, discarded into the ocean, also not count as pollution, because rather than being pure carbon they are polymer chains of carbon with oxygen, hydrogen and other elements thrown into the mix? The fact is that anything humans add to their environment is pollution, even if it is of an identical chemical makeup to preexisting, natural compounds. Luckily for us, different compounds have different effects on the planet, and most of our waste (food scraps, fecal matter, etc) breaks down without having any great effect. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, however, (when in sufficient quantities) are known to have an effect on how the atmosphere reflects/absorbs heat.
So what is your argument? Are you contending that we aren’t releasing enough carbon dioxide to have an effect? If so, maybe you should take a look at the figures for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past several million years - recent increases are of a level comparable to the increases which have triggered warming in the past. Or do you think that the carbon dioxide increases we have observed in the past two hundred years are coincidental, and have nothing to do with humans? In that case, it might be wise to note the more recent atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements - it is possible to identify on these graphs events such as the advent of the motor car and the introduction of London’s "clean air" laws, etc.
Also, since you brought it up, what language would you reccommend we use, if the phrasing of Anna’s article is biased?
Finally, if the case for climate change is so flimsy, maybe you could point us to a peer reviewed article supporting this claim, preferably published in a decent international journal. Of course, it might be harder that way to maintain the illusion of actually having any evidence on your side, but we all know that you’re not going to change the world by posting here.
Bob Futtocks
somewhere in the past.
ALLOW ME TO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR YOU …
The sun warms the earth.
As oceans warm they release more carbon dioxide than usual.
Water vapour is the main element surrounding the earth.
Earth sometimes gets cooler.
Earth sometimes gets warmer.
The Emperor has no clothes on.
There is no evidence that we are, or ever could cause global climate change.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be.
FINALLY and before you type another word, I offer you, two, simple, straight forward questions: if you do give the correct answers you will be given some respect.
Q 1.
What is the meaning of the word "quantum" ?
Q 2.
Of the entire gas elements surrounding earth, what percentage of those gas elements is made up of carbon-dioxide (CO2) ?