climate change
11 Mar 2009
The ETS That Couldn't
The draft Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation launched by Penny Wong on Tuesday contains few surprises, writes Ben Eltham. It's absurdly inadequate, just as we expected
Yesterday, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong released the Rudd Government's draft legislation for this country's response to the challenge of global warming.Called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the draft legislation contains no fewer than six bills and commentaries and, if you were to be so environmentally unfriendly as to print it out, would be roughly the size of a couple of old telephone books.
It contains few surprises. The Rudd Government's absurdly inadequate 5 to 15 per cent cap stays. The free permits to polluting companies stay. The unnecessary complexities and Byzantine paperwork requirements have, if anything, expanded.
"Laws are like sausages," runs the famous quote erroneously attributed to Bismarck, "It is better not to see how they are made". And as Liz Jackson reported on ABC TV's 4 Corners on Monday night, the making of the CPRS has been a particularly ugly process.
Recall that Ross Garnaut's original draft report strongly stressed that no free permits should be handed out. The reason is simple enough: the more free permits that get handed to polluters, the more costs have to be borne by the rest of the economy. That means you and I, through our utility bills and taxes, subsidise the major polluters.
Recall also that Professor Garnaut — hardly a heart-on-his-sleeve environmentalist — recommended that Australia aim for a 25 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, with an eventual 2050 target of 90 per cent reductions. The Government's response to this was to commit to 5 per cent, with a promise to go to 15 per cent if there was an international agreement in Copenhagen. And so it is in the draft legislation.
Finally, let's also reiterate that the science of climate change is more alarming every day. Garnaut's 25 per cent target, when scaled up to a global effort on carbon reduction, roughly equates to a carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere of around 450 parts per million (ppm). Of course, this is way too high. The last five years of climate research has found that the world is far more sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations than anyone first realised — with the terrifying implication that we may already have passed the tipping point to a radically hotter, drier, more unstable future. In this context, Labor's target of 5 per cent is tragically inadequate: rather like sighting the iceberg from the bridge of the Titanic and ordering the ship to slow down by 5 per cent.
Then and now, Kevin Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong have made great show of positioning the Government in what they call the "reforming centre" of the climate change debate. Rudd loves to repeat the line that Labor will be "attacked from the left" by the Greens and "attacked from the right" by the Coalition on emissions trading, in an attempt to paint Labor as the sensible chaps trying to seek a middle ground.
You'd think Labor was leading the charge of the Light Brigade — a cannon to the right of them, a cannon to the left of them. Unfortunately the result of Labor's charge towards an emissions trading scheme may be all too similar: hit with criticism from both sides, Rudd and Wong may in the end be forced to retreat with heavy casualties, leaving the Government's response to climate change in tatters on the Senate floor.
This has already been demonstrated by the response of the Greens and the Coalition to the draft legislation, which was to set up a joint select committee in the Senate to examine and review the draft bills. And not even the chief lobbyists from the energy and mining sector, such as Heather Ridout and Mitchell Hooke, are happy — they've lined up to kick the Government for not handing out more free permits and not delaying the scheme's start until 2012.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting rather impatient with the level of influence that key industry spokespeople like Ridout and Hooke seem to be able to exert on the Rudd Government. Can you or I get a face-to-face meeting with Wong or Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson to argue that we shouldn't have to pay for the pollution of big corporations? No, I didn't think so. But if you're Don Voelte of Woodside Petroleum, Ferguson will hop in a plane and come to you, no doubt to discuss how the Government will adjust the CPRS to make sure your multi-billion dollar LNG projects will magically qualify as "emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries".
At her press conference yesterday, Wong said of the Government's CPRS scheme: "Some people want it to be a Ferrari, but if you can't have a Ferrari, would you really have no vehicle at all?". This has already led some to point out that the CPRS as it stands is more like a lemon (perhaps it's a Leyland P-76) than a Ferrari. Others observe that perhaps a zero-emissions bicycle might be a more appropriate metaphor.
Of course, this is just another variation of the "something is better than nothing" argument — which at this stage is pretty much the only argument the current legislation has going for it. As Greens Senator Christine Milne has argued, the problem with this argument is that it assumes that the "something" will do any good — a point very much up for debate with the current legislation.
The big polluters are right when they say that the current scheme will have big costs for little environmental return. Indeed, you can even turn the "Australia only emits a small amount of global carbon so we don't really matter" argument on its head. What if Australia's emissions reduction target is so low that it doesn't cut any ice in the Copenhagen negotiations? When it comes to obtaining global action on carbon reduction, locking Australia in to a meaninglessly low carbon cap will make it very difficult for us to convince other countries to their bit.
Despite this, many in the commentariat still cling to that belief that Labor's scheme is a masterstroke of triangulation. Crikey's Possum Comitatus, for instance, thinks that Labor's 5 per cent target is carefully calibrated to have the maximum chance of passing the Senate — which may well be true. That still doesn't make it good public policy.
As I have argued previously, it's not necessarily good politics either. If Labor had chosen a target with scientific credibility, it would automatically have ensured Greens support, which means Labor would have needed only two extra votes in the Senate to pass the legislation. The stage would have been set for some intense negotiations with Senators Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding, but I believe Labor could have got its legislation through in much the same manner as it passed the stimulus package. It seems that the Prime Minister and his strategists were aiming to wedge the Coalition on the issue, and in the process score a few easy points off those "extreme" Greens.
But the legislative battlefield hasn't shaped up like that. The current target is manifestly inadequate for the Greens and I imagine they will only support the CPRS with significant amendments. The Coalition won't vote for it at all — and indeed probably never would have. The result will most likely be that the CPRS goes down — a major defeat for Labor and one that will leave Australia's response to climate change back at square one.
Of course, much could change once the horse-trading in the Senate begins. But it does appear as though sentiment is hardening against the current system. That's not surprising. The CPRS as currently designed is a dog.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Ben
As a correspondent should you be less emotional on a subject so that people can read and make their own decisions. I believe that if you are going to report something it should be emotionally unbiased. But that is just my belief.
On the topic of Don Voelte. Yes you wouldn’t have the sway he does, it is impractical. The largest Australian L&G company, creating revenues in the Billions, and lining the governments/the peoples pockets at the same time. Of course he is going to have more say, more pull than you or I would. And on the topic of Woodside. Why wouldn’t he be fighting to get a better deal from the government. Does it make sense that Coal gets a free ride, that is the insane thing, absolutely crazy, and that the L&G companies in Australia get hammered because the government feels they can more afford it. It is all about money and less about carbon. Where is the money in the world these days to invest in infrastructure, to continue developing new gas fields? No one will lend money to the Woodsides in the world now, yet the government wants to take take take. As I am not a National correspondent, Just a Commenter, allowed to comment freely, as emotional as I want on this topic, unfortunately I think you have bigger responsibilities.
tony kevin
A harsh criticism from Ajdebat, though his point that gas is far less polluting than coal is a fair one.I think Ben Eltham’s piece, though strong, is a sober and useful analysis of the present political reality. There is a real groundswell against the present CPRS bill, a resistance from all sides to false solutions, and I’m not sure it will get through the Senate. John Connor, CEO of the Climate Institute, climateinstitute.org.au , has an opinion piece today in the Canberra Times, ‘PM sells out the national interest’ that is well worth reading.
Dear Ben,
Unlike Ajdebat, I’m glad there is a little fire in the belly behind this story. You do have big responsibilites writing on a topic like this. Peace.
Ajdebat
Without emotion, let’s examine your points.
* CEO’s of large corporations that employ lots of people and pay taxes will "of course" have more sway than you or I.
I find this a rather depressing and quite anti-democratic statement, even if it is true. The essence of a democracy is that the interests of the electorate are balanced against those of the usual powerful vested interest groups such as the military, large corporations, and people with lots of money. Don Voelte, as an American, doesn’t even have a vote in Australia, yet he is able to sway public policy with far more effectiveness than any voter in a marginal seat.
The end consequence of believing that large corporations should have a direct say in democratic government is the system often called "corporatism" by social scientists. Pperhaps we’re not too far away from that situation in Australia today.
* Why wouldn’t Don Voelte be fighting to get a better deal from government?
Well, as a CEO he has a responsibility to share-holders to defend the interests of the corporation he manages. This is in fact enshrined in Australian corporate law. So I’m certainly not surprised that CEO’s of large energy corporations engage in lobbying.
But I might also add that the interests of Woodside are not those of the Australian public in general. Indeed, on any scientific analysis, the interests of a large fossil-fuel producer are manifestly in opposition to those of the broader Australian public. Sure, LNG is less carbon-intensive than coal. But Woodside is still one of Australia’s largest polluters. The actions of this corporation are directly leading to long-term irreversible damage to the entire world’s climate. Currently, it doesn’t pay anything like the true cost of its pollution. That’s not emotion - that’s a fact.
It’s also important to note that the reason that Woodside puts forward for why it should be given free pollution permits is that they are costs that "competitor countries show no signs of imposing any time soon." This is untrue - the European Union already imposes a cost of carbon pollution, as does New Zealand.
* No-one will lend to Woodside and there is not enough money to develop new gas fields.
This is untrue. Woodside is well capitalised. Don Voelte stated as much on Inside Business on February 22nd, when he told Alan Kohler that it was not Woodside’s "intention to do a capital raise this year."
Woodside is spending $7 billion this year on developing its gas fields off the Western Australian coast and it can meet its current spending targets by cutting costs and borrowing in international debt markets.
douglas jones
On the scientific predictions if nothing is done we all, business as well, suffer.
Suffer to a degree making possible undercutting of say coal exports irrelevant. Indeed it seems likely we will have neither sufficient food or water to sustain the population, or enough fuel to run our transport or energy enough to desalinate our water, perhaps not enough people to provide the consumers necessary for our current economic paradigm..
Surely if the warnings are so dire moving to a war economy in which business and people are told what to do or cannot be done.
This would mean of course that the perpetrators, even if most are in America, of our latest economic bust would be sidelined as would the special pleaders of the polluters.
We would be enabled to draft our unemployed into jobs directed toward reducing pollution and even hope that the businesses so commenced might start paying tax. We might even legislate for all construction business or homes to be made to the energy supplier standard now possible, that is produce no pollution and reduce the need for coal stations.
This would of course remove the causes of the false bleating about unemployment and overhang of debt so favoured by the opposition. Leaving of course the remaining nostalgia for neo liberalism but that seems shared by the Government despite the economic mess resulting.
We would no longer be near the top in terms of pollution producers.
Sure the rest of the world may not immediately follow our lead seemingly disadvantaging us, or more bluntly having some free loading. But soon the rest of the world must come aboard or we all perish or suffer. Australia might then be in a better position to prosper than the slower actors.
Finally lobbies are usually not making a case for the country but pleading special parochial interest, and as such should be stopped. Guy Pearse has of course revealed much in High and Dry on who and how for the coal industry, politicians included.. As importantly efforts to ensure that those elected by the democracy do not wilt from the common interest because of threat bribe or blackmail on re election chances. Howard raised the money that can be donated to political parties a first step might be to demand all such are public and none accrued to individuals campaign.
Ben,
I agree with your comments regarding your criticism of the Rudd governments ETS. Not only is the 2020 target too low, The trading system envisaged is far to complex and expensive.
The preferred cheaper and simpler approach is taxing carbon at source. This eliminates a new trading market which will enrich the traders and increase the cost of carbon based fuels uneccesarily. It will reduce speculation (which can have dire results as can be seen in the current economic meltdown). It stops estimation of carbon released which is notoriously inacurate. It treats everybody who uses fossil based fuels equally. Small savers of energy will not subsidise big users. It will be transparent (which no government wants). The governement will be in control and will be able to change the emmission targets based on scientific information and not rely on a market system that may be manipulated. It would treat everyone eqitably. It would also reduce the thickness of the legislation.
Dealing with exceptions. Currently there are import duties to protect Australian industry. In the case of imports which do not have a similar tax on energy in their manufacture, the goverment imposes a import duty to corresponding to the lack of energy tax in the country of origin. For exports such as aluminium, the goverment subsidises the exports according to the carbon tax policies of the competing contries. Local products however should reflect the carbon tax as everyone needs to contribute to the carbon tax based on their use of a carbon intensive product.
Harro Drexler
Malander
Totally agree with Harro. It’s a pity that the carbon trading market ever got started, as it was always going to be too nebulous(no pun intended) and unworkable.
A tax,once in place, gives us a win-win-win, a disincentive to the carbon producers,a big boost to the renewable energy sector and an end to the ridiculous so-called carbon offsets. We should see trees planted and old-growth retained for altogether different reasons than their ability to store carbon. Keep it simple.
Mal Anderson
Wasn’t ‘climate change’ called ‘global warming’ until that idea was totally discredited by hard (unbiased i.e. not profit motivated) scientific evidence that showed the Earth was actually cooling?
Face facts, Earth’s climate has been getting hotter, then colder, then hotter for millions - actually, billions - of years. And there’s nothing we can do about it. It’s the Sun, you see…darn that Sun, fading my curtains.. should be a law against it, maybe Ms Wong can organise that.
Human input both in terms of pollution and proposed remedies are insignificant – for the former - & useless for the latter. What-ever we do will make NO appreciable difference. If the Sun is in a period of flux, that’s it, end of story.
Carbon trading and associated nonsense is just another scam – like fractional reserve banking, superannuation, and the political two-party system - designed to specifically to separate the mugs from their common sense and/or hard earned cash.
With respect, I feel that Ms Wong, Prof Garnaut and the rest should get real jobs. But more chance of the Sun not coming up tomorrow.
"Wasn’t ‘climate change’ called ‘global warming’ until that idea was totally discredited by hard (unbiased i.e. not profit motivated) scientific evidence that showed the Earth was actually cooling?"
No. The two terms are still interchangeable, and factual. ‘Global warming’ is a climate issue, of averages for the *globe* (not England, or NSW, or Antarctica). *Climate Change* as a description is used more now because of the general ignorance that routinely conflates global warming with local temperature fluctuations (some of which are up, some of which are down).
And btw, what profit motivations are there is seriously scaling back *all* industry currently contributing to global warming? No profit motivations at all, only common sense from a basis of desirable longevity. That’s why it isn’t seriously happening.
"Human input both in terms of pollution and proposed remedies are insignificant – for the former - & useless for the latter."
This kind of head-in-the-sand thinking belies either an incredible lack of understanding of humans profound impact on earth, or an unwillingness to accept that, well documented scientifically and anecdotally.
As Monbiot has said,
"We are too important to be denied any of the delights we crave, but too insignificant to exert any impact on planetary processes. We fill the whole frame of the story when it suits us and shrink to a dot when that scale is more convenient. We are capable of occupying both niches simultaneously."
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/21/the-self-justifying-myth/
cheers, Derek
Another good article Ben. Yes it may be a P76 but we should accept that an ETS is the best way to reduce carbon worldwide. You stray into the free permits issue. There have been several reports that show benefits either way, full auctioning (in European Union ETS now) and totally free permits (in UK Phase One ETS).
Free permits do give windfall profit to polluters, but only if they sell the permits. If they sell the permits they will reduce their level of pollution and possibly using the cash to move out of the industry.
It appears that the main argument for full auctioning is the public perception that these polluters are getting an undeserved windfall profit. The reports show that comparing countries that auctioned permits to countries that did not, there was no difference in electricity prices.
The Australian Government has opted for a partial auction and has brought upon itself this unseemly scramble by polluters to get the windfall.
Ben, we should concentrate on the main issue here and that is the setting of a responsible level of reduction. I think you would agree 5% is pathetic and even 15% is too low. I would be happy for all polluters to get free permits for (say) the first 3 years as long as the reduction level is 30% by 2020. Perhaps we could have a supercharged P76?
David Booth
Bywong NSW
Ben Eltham
Yes.. the idea that we live in a democracy is an interesting and naive one. Probably best left for another heated discussion.
yes it is me again. Time to spice it up again….
You said.
"
But I might also add that the interests of Woodside are not those of the Australian public in general. Indeed, on any scientific analysis, the interests of a large fossil-fuel producer are manifestly in opposition to those of the broader Australian public. Sure, LNG is less carbon-intensive than coal. But Woodside is still one of Australia’s largest polluters. The actions of this corporation are directly leading to long-term irreversible damage to the entire world’s climate. Currently, it doesn’t pay anything like the true cost of its pollution. That’s not emotion - that’s a fact. "
We ship the majority of our coal over seas to places like Japan. Lots of Money happening here and lots of producers… I think that if you were to consider them as a conglomerate, you would find the damage their product does to the environment is much higher. Coal produces between 50% and 70 % more carbon emissions than does Gas does producing electricity. Let’s try to remember that moving to cleaner fuels is a good thing. I am also aware that most people get really upset when oil and gas companies make money but people, like most of your readers still drive cars take long hot showers, when do they take responsibility???When do people say we want Solar, we want renewable energy and when do we say to this democracy, to this government that we want them to be take a course which directly impacts us. If the government wasn’t so addicted to tax dollars from fossil fuels then maybe they would consider doing what many Arab nations are doing now and that is to build solar farms that will look after whole cities . Why did the government kill the Solar subsidy to family incomes over 100k? Is it because they wanted to invigorate growth in the industry? Or save some money. Maybe, they should take the carbon dollars and put it into solar farms?Maybe this is on their agenda but it is too little.
"It’s also important to note that the reason that Woodside puts forward for why it should be given free pollution permits is that they are costs that "competitor countries show no signs of imposing any time soon."
"This is untrue - the European Union already imposes a cost of carbon pollution, as does New Zealand."
Let’s also dismiss this statement. Woodside doesn’t really compete in the European market as it really competes in the Asian market with a lot of players around the world. By even mentioning New Zealand, well that is laughable, The Maui Fields are nearly depleted I believe and not too many other finds in and around the country to talk about. Do you think they actually compete… They will shortly become consumers and importers of the product."
* No-one will lend to Woodside and there is not enough money to develop new gas fields.
"This is untrue. Woodside is well capitalised. Don Voelte stated as much on Inside Business on February 22nd, when he told Alan Kohler that it was not Woodside’s "intention to do a capital raise this year." "
Read between the lines Ben…. They aren’t going to tell the market they can’t raise money. What do you think that would do to the stock price?? Yes they are well capitalised but not enough to cover what they had planned this year and to consider planning into the next and the next for new finds is hard to do if you can’t budget for it into the future. They are telling the market everything is OK>>. Don’t worry. Cutting costs means not spending the money they had intended to spend.
I find that most people have a love hate relationship with this topic and rightly so.
"Wasn’t ‘climate change’ called ‘global warming’ until that idea was totally discredited by hard (unbiased i.e. not profit motivated) scientific evidence that showed the Earth was actually cooling?"
Ziggy, I can see you are one of those heads-in-sand people. Also, one of those frogs put into a pot of cold water, and the pot then put onto a roaring fire. By the time you wake up that you are dying, being cooked alive, you are too far gone to take any action.
Also. ‘Global Warming’ was changed to ‘Climate Change’ by a private Spin Merchant employed by Big Oil some years ago, after a massive, very well resourced (many millions of dollars) propaganda drive, as Big Oil and Big Energy felt threatened by the words Global Warming, but felt less threatened by Climate Change. Public Reaction Testing confirmed to this Spin Merchant and his employers that this was indeed fact.
This bloke (the Spin Meister) has been on SBS TV twice in the past 18 months, admitting that this is what was done and why, and now he regrets what he did (for money) because by his actions, he and they, his employers, have slowed down the process of doing something about Global Warming by many years, possibly far too many. We may already have passed the point of no return, while out leaders fiddle, play footsies with Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Energy, Big Business, just as Rudd and Wong have done/are doing.
How Wong can we be?!
Also, I really do not know why this mob, Rudd and Co, spent our money on all these enquiries, because when they give results, the Government totally ignores them all, and do it all wrong. Wong! Wong on the Garnaut Enquiry,
Macklin on the NT Intervention. And how many others? Dazza.
ajdebat,
Sorry to interject in your thread with Ben. But you raise an interesting point about responsibility for emissions…
How about the ‘people’ (and I’ll presume you mean those of us who are have no choice but to consume coal-fired electricity and petrol in order to work and thus live) take responsibility for the emissions of coal fired power plants and their petrol guzzling vehicles on the very same day that ALL decisions about investment in energy and transportation technologies are opened up to a referendum. I think that’s pretty fair. If I feel that I have a direct say in whether or not to subsidize the auto industry then I’ll also feel a sense of responsibility for everything that it produces (emissions included).
What do you reckon?
ajdebat,
One vote per citizen on every investment decision committed to energy and transporation policy. That seems pretty democratic to me.
Of course, proponents of the ETS (Mr. Eltham included) don’t see it this way. They believe in capitalist-democracy or what is more eloquently referred to as market-democracy (by subtly removing any reference to existing class differences in society).
For believers of the market mantra the fundamental democratic formula reads a little differently: one vote per dollar on every investment decision committed to energy and transportation policy.
The naive or possibly disingenuous nature of the position held by proponents of market democracy becomes obvious when they begin to criticize the influence of well capitalized ‘vested’ interests in the shaping of public policy. An influence their own position in fact advocates.
Bob.
"One vote per citizen on every investment decision committed to energy and transporation policy. That seems pretty democratic to me."
It does seem fair ( at a macro level ) , and a world in which I would love to live in, hoping of course the the populace knows how to make an intelligent decision and not an emotional one. Unfortunately for you and me the world isn’t what it seems. Maybe this is a jaded view, but it happens all around us. Policy is Policy until someone changes it or bends it . The referendum idea is a great idea. I am not saying that we shouldn’t have a say in these things, I am saying we don’t presently have a real say. Otherwise you would have stepped up to vote on these things last year when Rudd got in, and change would have been applied.
Every decision on climate change is about money at the moment, it is a tragedy. The reality is that we use big business, and if we are to continue to allow investment into this country there is a reason why they are here, and why we want them here and rules with which we would like them too play. Unfortunately these are global companies, and they will just move offshore if we don’t play by their rules unless it is a balanced agreement. There are some hard lessons for man to learn in the next few years, maybe as a nation we bite the bullet and just say no to fossil fuels. I do not believe that Australia, the size it is, has the power or inclination, to make real change in the world when they are dominated by the new consumers of China and India. I believe that Mans immediate requirements for food will far outstrip Man’s need to watch the carbon footprint of any particular country. When any country runs out of food, they will do ANYTHING to fix this.
All I can say is thank God!
Every time I am just about to give in and allow the cult of The Global Warming to continue the bull without protest damn it if the ALP doesn’t give me a little hope to keep going.
Other events like the fact that the "worlds largest protest against global warming" in DC had to be cancelled because it was too cold!. And you won’t see the likes of the ABC reporting it but the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre has acknowledged that due to a satellite sensor malfunction, it had been underestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice by ~530,000 square km.
These and other little tidbits continue to provide little rays of hope that the stupidity of the likes of Eltham will disappear soon.
"Other events like the fact that the "worlds largest protest against global warming" in DC had to be cancelled because it was too cold!"
Global Climate change, or global warming does not equal local warming *everywhere*. It does equate to extreme temperature fluctuations in *more* places, where the overal average results in a higher yearly temperature.
It is very simple: say there are 5 people each with a bag of lollies.
Person 1: 5 lollies
Person 2: 5 lollies
Person 3: 4 lollies
Person 4: 3 lolly
Person 5: 3 lolly
The average number of lollies is 4 each (5+5+4+3+3)/5
You *could* try pointing to persons 4 and 5 to prove that the number of lollies is lower than that, and you have the evidence, but what you’d be doing is ignoring some fairly basic mathematics.
As for climate, if I were to go out on the hottest summer day and say ‘see? global warming is here!’ it would be as ridiculous a statement to make as it would to say at the height of winter ‘What global warming?’
Average temperatures, year round, across the globe (basically) are the means of calculating global temperatures. To this, and from this, various variables (like solar flares, planetary wobble etc) are factored in to achieve the proportion likely to be anthropogenic. The concept is simple, even if the science isn’t. The fact that so many people miss it suggests a gross inadequacy in our schooling/education.
cheers, Derek
What sanctimonious drivel dereklane! It just so happens differential equations are one of my areas of expertise and it’s likely I understand more about linearisations, parmaterisations, initial and boundary conditions than just about anybody who reads this rubbish! In case you don’t get it the GCM models are based on differential equations!
As to "average" temperatures you simply don’t have a clue! I keep in constant touch with both the Hadley and NASA datasets (surface and satellite) although they won’t tell us which "secret" formula they use for fudging the heat island effect this week taking world average temperatures from fixed ground stations mostly located in backyards of cities and drawing conclusions about world temperatures is the least of the problems with simplistic views of climate like yours!
As to "average" world temps I am sorry to inform you 2008 was the coldest year for over a decade and showed the second biggest drop in "average" temps since measurements began and also was the tenth straight fall in "average" global temps!
"…..Wasn’t ‘climate change’ called ‘global warming’ until that idea was totally discredited by hard (unbiased i.e. not profit motivated) scientific evidence that showed the Earth was actually cooling?…"
No. The two terms are still interchangeable, and factual. ‘Global warming’ is a climate issue, of averages for the *globe* (not England, or NSW, or Antarctica). *Climate Change* as a description is used more now because of the general ignorance that routinely conflates global warming with local temperature fluctuations (some of which are up, some of which are down)….."
––––-
Derek, you only have to read newspaper/net reports of this subject just a year or so ago and it was ALL ‘Global Warming’; almost no mention of climate change. You lot are just having a bob each way, as the wind shifts, so to speak (and trying to blame it on ‘general ignorance’ – what a nerve!)
And just last night, our very own Prince Charlie was on the tv news calling it ‘Global Warming’! At the time he was wearing a beanie & woolly gloves and was heard to remark, off camera, that it was ‘bloody cold for March – don’t know what’s wrong with the weather’. He gave the World 100 months before we fry or freeze – he wasn’t sure which. But we forgive him for not knowing his ice from his elbow because he will be Our King, one day..
––––––––––—
"……And btw, what profit motivations are there is seriously scaling back *all* industry currently contributing to global warming? No profit motivations at all, only common sense from a basis of desirable longevity. That’s why it isn’t seriously happening….."
––––––––––—
I’ve no problem with ‘scaling back’, even though it won’t help one jot but it may - make that ‘will’ - make you feel good. And that’s OK, so long as it doesn’t cost me.
But the reality is that ‘scaling back’ & the carbon trading/emissions con is going to cost industry and thus the consumer, most dearly - not just financially but in terms of new, useless laws, regulations & controls. It’s just another power/financial transfer from the private to govt domain, with, of course, favours bestowed en route to the chosen few. That’s what it’s all about. Money, Power, Control & Corruption.
I repeat, it’s a huge scam and will achieve little to nothing at enormous cost to the public. But then, that’s the plan.
The profit motive was that many scientists who went along with the ‘global warming it’s all our fault,’ school of vested interests were financially dependant on, or compromised in one way or another by the burgeoning economic/political ‘Global Warming’ band-wagon. But many have/are coming round, showing that decency & principle are not entirely lost to the academic/scientific world.
–––––––––––—
"….Human input both in terms of pollution and proposed remedies are insignificant – for the former - & useless for the latter."
This kind of head-in-the-sand thinking belies either an incredible lack of understanding of humans profound impact on earth, or an unwillingness to accept that, well documented scientifically and anecdotally….."
–––––––––––––—
If that’s your view, Derek, I’m happy to have my head where-ever. The fact is the Sun determines our climate and every natural aspect of life on Earth. Do you refute that?
Our puny efforts at changing things are like trying to pee into the eye of a Queensland cyclone. We can go back to our caves, stop all pollution and the end result will be just the same, as dictated by the Sun over which we have zero control.
–––––––––––-
"….As Monbiot has said,
"We are too important to be denied any of the delights we crave, but too insignificant to exert any impact on planetary processes. We fill the whole frame of the story when it suits us and shrink to a dot when that scale is more convenient. We are capable of occupying both niches simultaneously….."
––––––––––––-
As a learned person, Derek, with a foot comfortably in both niches, you’ll be well aware of Derriere, who was always a little behind Monbiot – though some say he got in front eventually - and who said,
“ Silly, gullible people are everywhere and their intelligence doth save them not from their own folly. Indeed, so enamoured are they of their own intelligence that they see themselves as the Sun when they are in reality just a fluttering, spluttering candle of Ego, of no special significance and soon to go out.
He added,
“Often, of course, as well as being beguiled with their own intelligence & ego, ‘tis also their own vested interests, whether political or financial, that driveth them on, Lemming- like, to make the silliest errors for which, unfortunately, all will usually pay."
Wow, Derriere, what a guy!
See www.derrierebehindmonbiot@greategosforsale.com
Cheers!
Ziggy
* I read my tea-leaves daily & see 20th March and week beginning 4th July as potential ‘teach them a lesson’ times – might be nature, might be man’s bad nature. But have your tin-foil hat ready.
–––—
–––-
icedvolvo 13/03/09 8:08PM
‘………Other events like the fact that the "worlds largest protest against global warming" in DC had to be cancelled because it was too cold!. …’
Just too funny! Thank goodness for ‘climate change!
‘…..These and other little tidbits continue to provide little rays of hope that the stupidity of the likes of Eltham will disappear soon…’.
No chance!
icedvolvo, it would seem that you are another of those ‘frogs’ immersed in rapidly warming water. When, if at all, are you going to wake up? What is it that they say about statistics…?? Reckon I will take the world of those who do not have a financial axe to grind, and who are not paid by Big Oil, Big Coal or some such (such as the Bush Administration, which insisted that all US scientific data (NASA included) indicating Global Warming was to be hidden) to push out propaganda for their own greedy and short term purposes. Dazza
Icedvolvo,
What a clever person you are - to be sure.
I have been having a little fun trying to place the absent full stops in your missive of 6.52am.
While, as a result of reading the ‘right’ books, I am a firm believer in global warming contributed to significantly by greenhouse gas pollution, my concern for a radical change in Government collusion with big business [you know - the stuff that requires, even in times of water conservation, you must flush] relates to the sheer unstainability of growth economies based on increased population and continuing increased consumption.
The ETS as opposed to GGTax with cap is a way for Government to avoid the undeniable stupidity of the current economic structure which even now is only just continuing to exist as a result of the massive, continuing extermination of human beings in capitalist-provoked wars [genocide and murder] and the transfer of our funds to Big Business
The pissing in the wind arguments around the existence of global-warming or climate change are about as relevant as a discussion about the existence of God.
If we approach economic, social and fiscal policy on the basis of our global capacity to provide for the global population in a sustainable ecology, the answer to GGpollution becomes immediately obvious and Ben has my full support except he could have been a wee bit more angry about those collusive puppets in Government. Christopher
"As to "average" world temps I am sorry to inform you 2008 was the coldest year for over a decade and showed the second biggest drop in "average" temps since measurements began and also was the tenth straight fall in "average" global temps!"
You need to pay more attention to polar amplification, and stop getting your information on CC/GW from scientists funded by BP/ et al.
"And just last night, our very own Prince Charlie was on the tv news calling it ‘Global Warming’!"
Our very own? I’ll leave that one, for now…, but for the record, what is your point? I said the two terms were interchangeable still, and both factual. You respond by telling me that Prince Charles calls it ‘global warming’.
"At the time he was wearing a beanie & woolly gloves and was heard to remark, off camera, that it was ‘bloody cold for March"
Well, where I am (I don’t know where he was) it is cold, still, in March (spring). But then, given the slow-down of the thermal currents (via global warming), that has been predicted as likely for a couple of decades, and entirely expected. It’s also been quite cold through the summers for the last couple of years, with above average rainfall (climate change, locally, global warming, globally…). Global warming ensures that weather patterns change. It will be several decades before the band spreading out from the equator becomes largely uninhabitable, but you can bet that, even then, in the northern and southern hemisphere extremes, there will still be people wearing beanies and gloves when it’s cold (which happens when it’s winter).
"But the reality is that ‘scaling back’ & the carbon trading/emissions con is going to cost industry and thus the consumer, most dearly - not just financially but in terms of new, useless laws, regulations & controls. It’s just another power/financial transfer from the private to govt domain, with, of course, favours bestowed en route to the chosen few. That’s what it’s all about. Money, Power, Control & Corruption."
You, in Australia, have whole other reasons to need to scale back. With the dying Murray Darling basin, if you have no water, and no food, I would suggest that’s going to hurt a lot more than a few dollars lost out of your back pocket.
"The fact is the Sun determines our climate and every natural aspect of life on Earth. Do you refute that?"
Actually, its not the only element. Many scientists tend to think that both the natural internal heat of the planet, plus the various greenhouse gases (like methane, water vapour, and CO2) have a remarkable effect on the climate. In fact, with the sun, and no atmosphere, our climate would be vastly different, and uninhabitable. If you don’t agree, try living on the moon (OK, it has an atmosphere, but very, very thin).
"….As Monbiot has said,
"We are too important to be denied any of the delights we crave, but too insignificant to exert any impact on planetary processes. We fill the whole frame of the story when it suits us and shrink to a dot when that scale is more convenient. We are capable of occupying both niches simultaneously….."
——————————————————-
your response:
""Our puny efforts at changing things are like trying to pee into the eye of a Queensland cyclone. We can go back to our caves, stop all pollution and the end result will be just the same, as dictated by the Sun over which we have zero control."
…
cheers, Derek
"If we approach economic, social and fiscal policy on the basis of our global capacity to provide for the global population in a sustainable ecology, the answer to GGpollution becomes immediately obvious"
Thanks Phermon, well said.
cheers, Derek
Good article. I think the latest QE by Guy Pearce is definitely worth a read. See .
Excellent article by Ben Eltham. He identifies the key problem: the irresponsible, election-focussed Labor Government is listening to the fossil fuel and big business lobbyists to the exclusion of expert climate scientists.
The end result of this is that while top UK climate scientists from the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research (University of Manchester) and published by the prestigious Royal Society have found that a 6-8% annual REDUCTION in GHG pollution is needed to avoid a catastophic 450 ppm CO2-e, under the the Rudd Labor Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Australia’s Domestic and Exported GHG pollution will INCREASE by 2% annually (see" Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere": http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5… ).
It is quite clear that the CPRS utterly ignores mainstream, top scientific advice by refusing to directly tackle climate change.
Evidently informed by big business and fossil fuel lobbyists, the CPRS uses a savagely sabotaged market mechanism to address a problem that has been described as a “market failure” outcome by one of the world’s top economists, Sir Nicholas Stern.
The CPRS ignores 2/3 of GHG sources (notably agriculture, land use and fossil fuel exports) .
The CPRS sells GHG pollution permits in a highly flawed “fixed “ Auction process and then hands most of the money back to big polluters and consumers.
No money from "pollution permits" is devoted to the primary task of replacing fossil fuel burning with renewable and geothermal power (the best versions of which, subject to temporary recession effects, are roughly cost competitive with fossil fuel-based power and 4 times cheaper than the “true cost” of coal burning –based power (see “CROSS-OVER POINT: Best Renewable and Geothermal Power NOW for SAME COST as Fossil fuel-based Power”: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/cross-over-po… ).
Further, the CPRS makes GHG pollution tax deductible; permits corporate bypass of the system through purchase of deforestation credits overseas; opts for a 5% reduction of the 2000 level by 2020 versus the 6-8% annual GHG pollution reduction actually needed to avert catastrophe; and effectively sabotages “voluntary abatement” because any GHG savings by decent individuals or companies simply creates “space” under the GHG “cap” to be filled by big GHG polluters.
The CPRS is an Orwellian document in which the reality of Labor (and indeed Lib-Lab) continued support world-leading per capita carbon pollution is disguised as the opposite, namely "carbon pollution reduction".
I talk to fellow scientists - and agricultural scientists, biological scientists and climate scientists in particular - and the dominant sense is of great pessimism, that we are approaching a point of no return and that current politics (apart from the Greens) is unable or unwilling to address the Climate Emergency.
Australians have to get serious about the Climate Emergency and the acute threat not just to their children and grandchildren but to THEMSELVES (the recent Victorian heatwave that killed over 200 people and the subsequent Black Saturday firestorm that killed 210 people are but foretastes of what is to come) (see: " Global warming and Victorian bushfire tragedy": http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warmin… ).
The pro-Coal Liberal-National Coalition Opposition and the pro-Coal Labor Government (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) threaten Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere - with a looming climate Genocide (that top climate scientist Professor Lovelock FRS says will kill all but 1 billion most;y European humans), it is simply no longer morally acceptable to support the climate criminal Lib-Labs.
The Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.