Prev
Next

Can the West really be ‘taxed’ on climate?

Paul Connor

by Paul Connor

07 Dec 05:30am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: Climate Change, Cprs, Ets, Politics, Tony Abbott

123 comments

Australia, congratulations. We now boast a brand new opposition leader from the far-Right, who proudly declared, say, eight or nine times in a single interview on Tuesday that he would not support climate change legislation, terming it a ‘big new tax’ on the Australian people.

Surely a couple of centuries of this comes at a price.

So here we have the new political tactic of our Right- simple, snappy, and to the point- “that other lot want to TAX you!”

This tactic is nothing new, of course. Ben Chifley once observed that the Australian public ‘votes from the hip-pocket reflex’. The Right is simply banking that this is still the case.  Shrewd.

Never mind that such a reflex, if the Western world cannot overcome it, will almost certainly destroy our planet. Never mind that. A ‘big new tax’? That’’s bad. No need for that. No sir.

And so, here, my friends, is the ultimate tragedy of the commons, excitedly limbering itself up for what looms as its greatest triumph. The Right wants power. Fossil fuel companies want profits. Voters don’t want taxes. And meanwhile, (according to the scientists, at least) climate disaster looms. So cue the violins. This will be a tragedy to impress even the ancient Greeks.

At the heart of this potential tragedy, however, is not fiction, but a simple truth. And this truth is one that the West are going to have to confront very soon if the project of civilization begun by its Grecian forefathers is going to stand a chance of continuation.

This truth is, folks, that we are obscenely spoiled.

Sorry West.

Really.

We have too much, we consume too much, and we want too much. Even the relatively poor among us.

An unemployed friend of mine, for example, calculated his wealth on the global rich list (http://www.globalrichlist.com/), and ranked amongst the top 10% richest people on this planet.

Or me. I am a student, with a low-paying part time job. Yet nonetheless, I can (normally) eat any kind of food I please. I can access any artwork, any movie, any literature, or any music I please. I can get any kind of health care I need, and access a world-class education with ease. And even with my comparatively low social status within the West, I could travel, if I wished, to any nation on Earth tomorrow.

Now, I am not suggesting that we all take a vow of poverty and renounce all our possessions. For one thing, I know that this will never happen. And for another, many trappings of modern life, especially those enabling information sharing, have vast potential for helping us to bring about the positive changes we desperately need- so it would be foolish to abandon them now. What I am trying to illustrate, rather, is the enormous responsibility that each of us has as a result of the wealth and power that we in the West have been born into.

Because truly, in the context of human history, the standard of living that we currently enjoy is astounding. Our lives would have been unimaginable to every single generation that has come before us, and are incomprehensible to the vast majority of humans alive today. Yet somehow, we treat this life as if it is our birth-right. Somehow, we don’t, by and large, consider ourselves rich. And we don’t, by and large, feel any special debt towards the rest of the world as a result of enjoying this level of wealth.

But indebted we are. Each and every one of us.

Because here is the rub. Our wealth, which somehow most of us so easily take for granted, has come to us directly from an economic system built from the ground up with fossil fuels. This is a fact. And no aspect of our lives is exempt. Everything each of us have, everything we own, and everything we ‘earn’ is inextricably linked to these fuels. Our parents’ houses. Our cars. Every holiday we have ever taken. Our clothes. The Internet on which this blog is posted. And the very computer you are using to read it.

All of this, without exception, would not be ours if it wasn’t for our society’s past and present use and abuse of fossil fuels.

So all of this, without exception, is stolen goods.

Stolen goods, because of what this economic system has taken away from our planet and its people. Taken from the millions of people around the world losing their lives, homes or livelihoods to climate change every single year. Taken, from the thousands of other species currently going extinct as a result of our environmental destruction. And taken from the hands of our very own children, who look likely never to experience the same world, with its diversity and bountiful resources that we have enjoyed.

So yes, we do have a debt. Each and every one of us. And that Westerners would baulk at any cost associated with mitigating and repairing the destruction wrought by the economic system that has given us such privileges is simply obscene.

So no, West. Climate change policies will never be a ‘tax’ upon us. In fact, they are a reparation- insufficient, and long over due.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

123 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Jennah says:

      10:57am | 21/11/11

      I just hope whoever writes these keeps wtriing more!

      Reply

    • videovlc says:

      11:51pm | 17/08/11

      nous vîmes groupe electrogene solaire chauffe eau solaire prix chauffe eau solaire via prix panneau solaire prix chauffe eau gaz.  j’eus affiché regulateur solaire le solaire telecharger vlc energies  au-dedans chauffe eau horizontal chauffe eau solaire prix.  nous avions dénommé mini chauffe eau ferme solaire chauffe eau solaire sauvagement vers solaire piscine climatiseur solaire.  vous regardez chauffe eau caravane devis photovoltaique chauffe eau solaire sauf chauffe eau thermodynamique solaire centrale solaire photovoltaique. http://www.videovlc.net

      Reply

    • Chandra Vikash says:

      10:33pm | 10/12/09

      Bob/ Nathan, are you sure, you responded to my mail? smile I never said present day India is any better than Australia. What I did suggest Like Paul and like you, I was born on a whole earth. Why would you shrink it to “your australia” and “my india”?

      1. Incidentally, if you extend the same logic to “my car” and “my house” and “my freedom” right up to individual level, you get the pollution of Indian cities and paradoxically, even the over-population and other ills that you point out.  Isn’t it logical that no one pollutes their own house, and no one over-populates for themselves, it is only when the noose comes around to hang on their own necks, is when the problem starts? Since, some of these problems transcend “national boundaries”, logically, that’s why we have state and national governments, and that’s where we need an Earth government now. That’s where Paul suggests moral responsibility and voluntary action, but I understand is “too taxing” for present times.

      2. What i did draw attention to is how certain civilizations fluorished for much longer (and which historians describe as “golden periods” in history) than the fossil-fueled civilization - well-exemplefied by Tiger Woods’ pornographic pleasure and is largely genocidal and pre-maturely self-destructive. One of these civilizations worth exploring in the Land of Buddha, a region called as Magadha - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadha . This is presently occupied by the state of India and the state of Bihar - which are all western caricatures , in a deeper search - http://cpasindia.org/reports/02-Economic-Strangulation-Bihar.pdf . You may not see the undercurrents of its heritage on a superficial internet search, that is still live and thriving, you may have to learn it first hand, like I did, or someone who has been there.

      Reply

    • Nathan H says:

      02:31pm | 10/12/09

      Chandra Vikash, logic would dictate that you’re either mis-informed or disingenuous if you think Bishar is all beer ‘n’ skittles.

      “In a caste-ridden society fogged by illiteracy, superstition, dogmas, progress and development is elusive. As its cure, education specially female one has to be given priority.” “If people’s mental horizon is developed and endowed with a scientific temper, many of the ills besetting Bihar like over population, poor health, illiteracy and above all poverty are bound to be cured.”
      http://www.bihartimes.com/poverty/S_N_Sinha.html
      http://www.whatisindia.com/stories/2006/10/wis_ds_20061027_high_infant_mortality_in_bihar___unicef_survey.html

      Show me a society driven by science, and I’ll show you prosperity. Show me a land ruled by superstition, and I’ll show you suffering. Man’s salvation comes from science, logic & reason; not bourgeoise sentimentality & hippie group-think. Galileo is proof that there never was such a thing as ‘scientific concensus’, nor should there ever be. Kevin doesn’t represent my views on climate change and has no right signing away my money in Copenhagen. Decision of this magnitude MUST go to a referendum.

      Reply

    • Bob says:

      06:47am | 10/12/09

      Aw, how noble you Indians are, Chandra. I refer you to Davido at 05:45pm | 07/12/09 - ‘the stats from third world countries are very misleading. Again, take India. They claim a per capita co2 of 1.7 tonnes. Yet they have 1.2 billion people so the absolute level of pollution is way higher than countries like Australia. And guess what? Absolute figures are the only ones that count, there is only one planet. Another misleading factor is that the figures fail to measure most of the pollution. For example, in India, some 700 million fires are lit TWICE a day for cooking. They use coal, wood and rubbish as fuel. That is just for cooking! In winter an estimated 500 million fires are lit to keep people warm. In summer some 300 million fires are lit each evening to smoke out bugs etc. ” and ’ A headline of yesterdays Deccan Herald Bangalore ‘The West can’t say if the West can’t pay’I live in India and I can tell you they are trying to extort as much money out of the West as possible.’  Clean up your own country before you tell us what to do.

      Reply

    • Nick says:

      11:15am | 09/12/09

      It seems Paul that the one thing you don’t ever say to a spoiled brat is that he/she is a spoiled brat. I agree wholeheartedly with your summation - our comfortable lifestyles in the West have been paid for on credit, in terms of the cost to the environment. That debt is coming due, and the vehemence of some of the responses to your piece show that for some, having this pointed out is more than they can bear. What I find really interesting is that, when questioned, people will admit that consumerism doesn’t lead to increased happiness, and this is verified by a large body of research.Yet when it is suggested then that we try to find a different path to happiness, and maybe consider reduceing our ability to buy more useless junk, it is met with the kind of dismally abusive responses, typified by some of those above.

      Reply

    • Chandra Vikash says:

      02:53am | 09/12/09

      Paul you are both wonderfully articulate and soulful. I can share more evidence from my part of the world, from the land of the Buddha that incredibly smarter and progressive civilizations lived without fossil fuels and dangerous carbon emissions for much longer than the hardly 50 years of this fossil-fueled western civilization. It’s true that my fellow Indians with vested interests, have betrayed this rich heritage and poisoned the minds of lots of aspiring youth, for their meat.
      Where these treasures are still preserved, are in the so called backward regions of an underdeveloped India - in the state of Bihar - (and scattered in many other parts of India) and their per capita emissions are not more than half a ton. True, that because of the systemic exploitation of resources, their habitats have been encroached causing large-scale deprivation and suffering, with the recent madness to beat “GDP Growth” numbers. So, the West’s redemption would not go in vain, if it stops this encroachment and pays up, as many of your readers seem to fear. It will make the world a better place for all. I wrote an article on these thoughts here - http://journals.copperstrings.com/UserConsole/ViewJournal.aspx?Title=The_Derailment_of_Western_Civilization_-_Does_it_need_a_bail-out?&ArticleID=1304 .

      Reply

    • Patrick says:

      09:50pm | 08/12/09

      Well said Paul. Pity all these paid trolls have attacked as usual. I can’t be bothered reading through the endless ranting from climate change deniers, so I’ll counter the couple of flawed points I saw in the first few posts.
      (a) Climategate does not in any way diminish the science of climate change. Scientists were getting fed up with unscientific denialists trying to peddle their rubbish, so they countered instead of letting themselves be rolled over. The basic science of climate change is the same - ever since it was discovered then proven by a Scotsman named Tyndall 150 years ago, we’ve known that greenhouse gases trap radiation and warm the atmosphere.
      (b) someone mentioned nuclear. Nuclear is non-renewable, expensive, will very quickly deplete remaining high-grade uranium reserves and still imposes a burden on future generations. We can go 100% renewable with wind plus commercially available solar thermal with storage (solar baseload)

      I liked the moral philosphy about the hospital. You’re a great thinker Paul

      Reply

    • Paul Connor says:

      06:27pm | 08/12/09

      Hi all.

      First off- a couple of misunderstandings- I like the ETS even less than Tony Abbott. It would be ineffective, costly, and completely scientifically inadequate. But this piece wasn’t about Labour Vs Liberal- it was about Chifley’s ‘hip-pocket reflex’, and the urgent need for us in the West to overcome it, lest we see the tragedy of the commons play itself out over climate change.

      And I actually didn’t suggest throwing away PCs, if you actually read the article smile

      Nathan H, your point is pretty interesting. However, I never said that the Industrialized world had not produced advances. What I was saying is that alongside its beneficiaries, it has produced (and will produce many more) victims- and that this gives those who benefit so much from the system, i.e. us, a moral responsibility to care for said victims.

      Let’s do some moral philosophy here -as useless to society as it may be wink. Say you have built a private hospital that has saved thousands of lives, and has also made you extremely wealthy. However, in its building, you were negligent on safety codes, and so eventually the hospital collapses, killing hundreds. Does the fact that the hospital saved lives exonerate you from any responsibility for compensating the victims and their families?

      No, that would be callous.

      Likewise, the industrialized world has saved lives, certainly. But that does not exonerate it from a responsibility to compensate its victims.

      And thanks, full as, the hunger strike is going well. Day 32 today. Pumpkin soup? Psshht! Surely you could have tempted me with something a little more appetising! smile

      Thanks to all for reading and commenting,

      Yours for climate justice,

      Paul

      Reply

    • Nathan H says:

      02:44pm | 08/12/09

      Paul is the auto-immune disease of western civilisation. He is but an immune cell, operating under false assumptions; trying to destroy that which has kept him safe, well and nourished all these years. It’s such a shame his mind has been poisoned by the marxists.

      Here are some links that will show falling child mortality, falling death rates from severe weather and falling death rates from water born diseases; all of which were made possibly by burning coal.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/world/10child.html
      http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf
      http://www.euro.who.int/watsan/Issues/20050218_1

      Tally the lives saved and be silent. If not, please nominate who’s lives are ‘stolen goods’. There are billions alive today, directly as a result of our evil, electricity loving, medicine developing, strip mining, diesel buring, coal burning ways. Names and addresses will be fine.

      Reply

    • fedup says:

      09:59am | 08/12/09

      Global warming?  Don’t let it worry you, nuclear winter will cancel it out!

      Reply

    • full as says:

      02:42am | 08/12/09

      How’s the hunger strike going Paul?

      I just finished a bowl of pumpkin soup and a toasted ham, cheese and tomato sandwich, with a slice of carrot cake for deseart (with that thick white icing and almonds on top).

      I couldn’t fit another thing in.

      Reply

    • RT says:

      05:01pm | 07/12/09

      Are you being disingenuous or thick? It took medical science years to convince governments of the damage smoking does, against a chorus of tobacco industry backed ‘sceptics’ and their lobbying. The scientific consensus won, but the penny didn’t drop for the governments without a big campaign from the medical profession. Stop making it up as you go, Joel, and learn your history properly.

      Reply

    • davido says:

      04:45pm | 07/12/09

      This is very poor logic.

      What counts is NOT the per capita production of co2 but rather the absolute level of pollution.

      Accordingly, China and India have an appalling track record and Australia has a very low level of pollution. You might also note that India and China also massively under-report their pollution. As i have noted about India:

      -  They claim a per capita co2 of 1.7 tonnes.
      -  Yet they have 1.2 billion people so the absolute level of pollution is way higher than countries like Australia.
      -  in India, some 700 million fires are lit TWICE a day for cooking. They use coal, wood and rubbish as fuel. That is just for cooking! In winter an estimated 500 million fires are lit to keep people warm. In summer some 300 million fires are lit each evening in order to disperse bugs at night. These fires are NOT included in their output of pollution.
      -  while ‘paper’ standards exist—compliance is almost non-existent. So on paper, India and China have very low polluting cars. In reality you need a face mask to live in china and you almost choke to death on the streets of India.

      Try living in India or China (as i have and do) and you will appreciate the BS you and others accept so naively.

      Reply

    • jonathon says:

      01:08pm | 08/12/09

      I am sorry but who gives a flying toss what China or India want?

      We buy their products, we dictate the terms. Simple. If they cant clean up their act then we will buy from someone who can.

    • davido says:

      11:55am | 08/12/09

      I didnt make that suggestion expressly or impliedly. Try reading my comment before making a remark about it.

      The reality is this: the third world is screwing over this planet. Forget the hyperbole about ‘the bad rich west’. The truth is countries like India will try every means to extort money out of the west. Gullible but well meaning campaigners need to look at the absolute level of pollution.

      Do not give India or China any money to stop polluting. Stop buying their products and they will soon change their polluting ways. The government needs to put a POLLUTION TAX on IMPORTED goods coming from each country.

    • Balanced says:

      08:48am | 08/12/09

      It strikes me as surprisingly naive for someone who has lived in China and India to suggest that either country would accept a national target rather than a per capita target. A national target would allow the average Australian to be guaranteed a substantial higher emissions “allowance” than the average Chinese or Indian. Is that going to work?

    • Joel B1 says:

      04:21pm | 07/12/09

      Claims and counter-claims. Yet we all know the truth.

      By way of example, I’m cooking dinner as I type this (obviously I washed my hands before typing this). On the free range chicken packaging it says “Free from Growth Hormones”. I’m left wondering how the bugger got out of the shell if it doesn’t have any growth hormones.
      Green doesn’t mean smart.

      Reply

    • Joel B1 says:

      05:43pm | 07/12/09

      From that really clear and not at all BS report.

      “The way short-term and long-term variations interact can reduce or worsen the impacts we experience, making it harder to pinpoint all the causes of local temperature changes or specific weather events.”

      What? Sorry, I don’t speak or read Ruddese.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      03:04pm | 07/12/09

      @DocBud says:01:42pm | 07/12/09
      Hi DocBud, Is that URL the correct one?

      Reply

    • Balanced says:

      03:00pm | 07/12/09

      Mate, first you have to accept there is a likely problem, then what to do about it. Australians, I think you’ll find, are the highest emitters per capita on the planet, at about 20 tonnes per annum. Europeans are about 8 tonnes. If we and the US aren’t in the global debate, as per previous policy, why would anyone else do anything. And given an ETS is inevitable, we face export sanctions for not playing our part. It’s great that all this is being debated, but I can promise you that a global ETS is as sure a thing as the economic rise of China this century, and both sides of politics in this country know it.

      Reply

    • davido says:

      01:58am | 08/12/09

      Another idiotic comment. The per capita figures for pollution is a relative metric that makes no sense. The only metric that stands is an absolute level of pollution by country.

      Just how does Australia fare on that front? Yep, i thought so…

    • Eric says:

      04:44pm | 07/12/09

      Editorials—LOL!

      We have all seen the bias from journalists here at The Punch. Editorials are worthless.

    • pc says:

      02:29pm | 07/12/09

      Editorials from around the world advocating action on climate change.


      Asia: 16 papers from 13 countries and regions

      Economic Observer, China Chinese
      Southern Metropolitan, China Chinese
      CommonWealth Magazine, Taiwan English
      Joongang Ilbo, South Korea Korean
      Tuoitre, Vietnam Vietnamese
      Brunei Times, Brunei English
      Jakarta Globe, Indonesia English
      Cambodia Daily, Cambodia English
      The Hindu, India English
      The Daily Star, Bangladesh English
      The News, Pakistan English
      Daily Times, Pakistan English
      Gulf News, Dubai English
      An Nahar, Lebanon Arabic
      Gulf Times, Qatar English
      Maariv, Israel Hebrew

      Europe – 20 papers from 17 countries

      Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany German
      Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland Polish
      Der Standard, Austria German
      Delo, Slovenia Slovene
      Vecer, Slovenia Slovene
      Dagbladet Information, Denmark Danish
      Politiken, Denmark Danish
      Dagbladet, Norway Norwegian
      The Guardian, UK English
      Le Monde, France French
      Libération, France French
      La Reppublica, Italy Italian
      El Pais, Spain Spanish
      De Volkskrant, Netherlands Dutch
      Kathimerini, Greece Greek
      Publico, Portugal Portuguese
      Hurriyet, Turkey Turkish
      Novaya Gazeta, Russia Russian
      Irish Times, Ireland English
      Le Temps, Switzerland French

      Africa - 11 papers from eight countries

      The Star, Kenya English
      Daily Monitor, Uganda English
      The New Vision, Uganda English
      Zimbabwe Independent, Zimbabwe English
      The New Times, Rwanda English
      The Citizen, Tanzania English
      Al Shorouk, Egypt Arabic
      Botswana Guardian, Botswana English
      Mail & Guardian, South Africa English
      Business Day, South Africa English
      Cape Argus, South Africa English
      North and Central America - six papers from five countries

      Toronto Star, Canada English
      Miami Herald, USA English
      El Nuevo Herald, USA Spanish
      Jamaica Observer, Jamaica English
      La Brujula Semanal, Nicaragua Spanish
      El Universal, Mexico Spanish

      South America – three papers from two countries

      Zero Hora, Brazil Portuguese
      Diario Catarinense, Brazil Portuguese
      Diaro Clarin, Argentina Spanish

      You can read more at THE GUARDIAN

      Reply

    • David C says:

      08:36pm | 07/12/09

      If it doesnt include the UK Sun it doesnt count

    • Joel B1 says:

      05:27pm | 07/12/09

      and just to follow up…

      So newspaper editorials are now the new science? What are you thinking?

      Newspaper exist to make money, just like circuses and freak shows. They really aint in the truth business, just the “sell more papers” business.
      And gosh! how might they do that? By saying everything is lovely or by saying “we’re all going to die of AGW”? Get a grip

    • Joel B1 says:

      05:19pm | 07/12/09

      PC pleese spare us the idiocy!

      Try thinking for yourself. This is just embarrassing.

    • pc says:

      02:28pm | 07/12/09

      Eric for once youre on to something. In this case pc is stolen goods, as much as I like Paul Connor, there is only one pc. (Paul Connor/pc get it)

      While it is unlikely the Copenhagen Conference will produce a legally binding agreement the negotiations at the Bella center will probably get a political agreement, between the 192 nations, to finalise action sometime in 2010.  The four issues that will dominate dicussions are 1. Developed nations such as ours and the U.S must commit to significant reuctions in greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Developing countries like India and China will have to reduce the rate at which their emissions increase over the next decades. 3 Developing countries will have to provide clean energy technologies and funding to developing nations as they address the effects of climate change. 4. Negotiators will have to agree on a way of monitoring and enforcing an international climate change agreement.

      The developing world do not want our money. They want the means to take effective action against climate change. We need more science, more industry, more technology and we need to share it.

      Though many of us cant make it to Copenhagen that doesnt mean we have to leave it up to the politicians. Groups such as Climate Justic Action, Friends of the Earth, Camp for Climate Action, 350.0rg and Greenpeace will be there. Google have an online poll that you can use to let them know you are watching.

      Reply

    • davido says:

      04:55pm | 07/12/09

      ‘The developing world do not want our money.’

      This is the most naive statement I have ever heard in my life.

      A headline of yesterdays Deccan Herald Bangalore ‘The west cant say if the west cant pay’

      I live in India and I can tell you they are trying to extort as much money out of the West as possible. Just how gullible can you be?

    • DocBud says:

      04:02pm | 07/12/09

      “The developing world do not want our money.” I’ve got a strained side so please don’t make me laugh so much.

      “Groups such as Climate Justic Action, Friends of the Earth, Camp for Climate Action, 350.0rg and Greenpeace.” Oh great, a bunch of fake charities that take taxpayer money to go and lobby governments to act against the taxpayer’s interests.

    • Randal says:

      02:27pm | 07/12/09

      Dave, simply by purchasing a carbon credit you have proven my below theories (in this blog) on the introduction of a trading scheme to rid the world of all social ills is possible.

      Now I drank around 10 pots of beer on Saturday and that’s way over the safe limit.

      Hey does anyone know where I can buy a alcohol credit off someone who does not drink… I mean I want to cut back on the grog in the community but really don’t want to take the responsibility, surely there is some wowser out there who can sell me a credit for 10 pots so I can be alcohol neutral.

      Come on it works for Dave, he uses carbon based power to go wherever he likes and just forks out the odd $20 and BANG! he’s carbon neutral.

      Come on someone help me out!!

      Why should this tosser get all the neutrality!

      Reply

    • davido says:

      02:10pm | 07/12/09

      ‘It means restructuring the global economy to force a price on carbon pollution and other externalities.’

      Yet at the same time, by implication,  you argue that the third world should be given a free ride.

      What in absolute terms is the level of pollution by a third world country such as India versus Australia? Oh my…  guess what! If you do the sums it turns out India pollutes more than Australia!

      Reply

    • Randal says:

      02:01pm | 07/12/09

      “N” you too are a political genius and I did not see the true scope of this idea we could cure all social ills, absolutley brilliant.

      “Joel B1”,  whilst I am concerned with your eyesight under a PTS we can always have you buy vison credits under a “VTS” so no problem there!!

      “Joe Stephens” don’t worry, this is the best part, all the old taxes stay so we only WIN…WIN…WIN and never have to give anything back.

      Genius I tell you… Pure Genius!

      All governments will be onto this soon!

      Reply

    • davido says:

      02:01pm | 07/12/09

      I disagree and I might point out some things.

      1. countries like India openly say the west must pay them to stop polluting. They are also insisting on free technology transfer. As if it is not enough that countries like India steal technology, they want to be given it for free.

      2. I love the notion that they are poor and we are rich thus it is our fault. Do you know that 25% of the wealth in India is owned by just 100 people (Forbes Nov India)? India, for example, is a very wealthy country. The distribution of wealth is highly skewed. But that is due to a culture of corruption, nothing that the west has done.

      3. the stats from third world countries are very misleading. Again, take India. They claim a per capita co2 of 1.7 tonnes. Yet they have 1.2 billion people so the absolute level of pollution is way higher than countries like Australia. And guess what? Absolute figures are the only ones that count, there is only one planet. Another misleading factor is that the figures fail to measure most of the pollution. For example, in India, some 700 million fires are lit TWICE a day for cooking. They use coal, wood and rubbish as fuel. That is just for cooking! In winter an estimated 500 million fires are lit to keep people warm. In summer some 300 million fires are lit each evening to smoke out bugs etc.

      Let me ask you one thing. If you stand 1km away from parliament house in Australia can you see it? Because I can tell you in Delhi you can barely make out parliament house from 500 metres away.

      Reply

    • DocBud says:

      03:00pm | 07/12/09

      Not a post-grad, he is studying Philosophy and Psychology at the University of Melbourne, so if he survives his fast and graduates he won’t be a useful, functioning member of society. While philosophy is fascinating as a hobby, we don’t need any more “great” thinkers like Peter Singer and Clive Hamilton. Psychology is for wannabe psychiatrists without the necessary intelligence to qualify as a doctor.

    • BULMKT says:

      01:56pm | 07/12/09

      I can’t believe the PUNCH actually gives you any blog time. WTF would you know

      Reply

    • Peter Hartley says:

      01:16pm | 07/12/09

      Self-indulgent tosser - full stop. “Student” at 29??? How about getting a real job and weaning yourself off the public tit?

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      02:18pm | 07/12/09

      Don’t know the writer but I’m guessing this fellow is likely a post-graduate student - that he is planning to be an expert in a certain field. And if he is working for an NGO - to use your delightful language he is sucking on the private-sector tit.

      I know many post-grads his age, remember since the Howard government ripped the shreds out of the old postgraduate scholarship system it has resulting in longer completion times for Masters and PhDs. As a result of the lack of scholarships there are lot of students studying part-time, a Masters goes from taking 2 years to 4 years part-time, a PhD from 4 years to 8 years part-time. I’d also add that most of these students work in the private-sector while waiting for a more challenging job that will come from working in the public-sector (private-sector jobs like private tutoring, administration, hospitality, marketing assistants et al.) I know one guy who finished his PhD in just under 5 years without any form of government support, we asked him how he did it, he replied - “I jumped from job to job, taking sickie after sickie after sickie, then I moved onto the next sucker, oops I mean employer.” In this example while the government didn’t pay a cent for this guy, a long list of small businesses were indirectly financing his education (and you’ve got to admire the entrepreneurial spirit of such people)

      Mind you I don’t know what is shameful about being a 29 year old student, life-long learning is needed for the best people in the field, only the academically challenged should leave school at 15.

    • COF says:

      12:59pm | 07/12/09

      A slightly self interested standpoint here (as a business manager): I have nothing wrong with the ETS, which is a positive incentive based government revenue scheme like alcohol or cigarette tax, as long as they get rid of Payroll Tax to offset it, which is a government revenue scheme that punishes businesses for employing people.

      Both political parties would agree to it - you could ensure that ETS makes its way to the states as well. Business wins, the environment wins.

      Reply

    • Joel B1 says:

      12:55pm | 07/12/09

      Sorry RT, I’ll say it again “associated costs of disease caused by smoking started eating into their budgets”

      Is that clear and coherent enough? Honestly, if you can’t be bothered reading my response why bother asking?

      My analysis of your example of “smoking” shows clearly that science doesn’t drive the agenda, governments do.

      Reply

    • Joel B1 says:

      05:00pm | 07/12/09

      What!? You’re not a “disinterested” person! You make your living from trading in Carbon Credits or working in the “industry”.

      Why should anyone believe you?

      (I don’t have anything to gain by my stance here unlike you)

      Shame, shame, shame.

    • Randal says:

      12:53pm | 07/12/09

      Actually RT I have an outstanding plan for tackling smoking, it’s called a NTS (Nicotine Trading Scheme).

      What you do is this, Force smokers too quit through forcing them to buy permits from someone who does not smoke, so if I want a smoker who smokes 10 cigs a day to be nicotine neutral, then he has to pay for a permit for 10 cigs off someone who does not smoke and bang they are neutral.

      Genius eh… We will have this horrible smoking problem licked in no time… I mean once the plan is in place we will be the first nation in the world that is effectively ‘nicotine nuetral’ and just think of what we can achieve with all that extra cash we get in.

      Lets lead the world in tackling the dangers of smoking, and best of all, if anyone questions the sense of it we will scream… “Denier… you do not believe that cigarettes cause cancer…”

      Sheer briliance I say and the great thing is that smokers are addicted so as there is no way for them to get their hit they will pay and pay and pay… GENIUS!!

      Hell the only better way to make money would be to work out a way to tax everyone for every time they turned on a light…

      Sorry… just getting carried away… I mean no one would fall that… Would they????

      Reply

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      05:40am | 08/12/09

      Just brilliant!!!! I now understand the ETS…

    • RT says:

      05:03pm | 07/12/09

      Dunno, Randal it’s your fantasy. Parallels with climate change and ETS: nil.

    • N says:

      01:52pm | 07/12/09

      Sounds about right to me. Might need Tony to drum up some more support for the Catholic church to increase our Nun numbers so that Australia can remain porn neutral in the eyes of the world :D

    • Joe Stephens says:

      01:47pm | 07/12/09

      Rebranding the Federal excise duty on cigarettes that has been around for over a hundred years, would be a great idea.

    • Joel B1 says:

      01:23pm | 07/12/09

      Nice work N!

      I for one will willingly embrace a Porn Trading Scheme (PTS). As I understand it, I pay a PTS for porn and Nuns get to claim rebates on it?

    • N says:

      01:04pm | 07/12/09

      Randal; indeed brilliant, you could be a politician :D (Don’t take that as an insult!) You could have all types of “evil” things removed under such a policy; smoking, drinking, fatty foods, porn. Of course we’re making the world a better place and “thinking of the children”.

    • DocBud says:

      12:51pm | 07/12/09

      Dave,

      Do you buy your carbon credits through your own company? Or does your company buy them for you?

      Reply

    • Dave Sag says:

      02:51am | 08/12/09

      Well technically I am on leave to come here so this is a personal trip, funded personally and so yes I pay for my own carbon credits and yes of course I’ll buy them from Carbon Planet.  I get a staff discount for one thing grin

    • RT says:

      12:45pm | 07/12/09

      Poor attempt at glib dismissal, Joel. Is there or is there not a consensus on the dangers of smoking? You clearly have no coherent response to my challenge. Here’s a tip: when someone asks you a question that undermines you whole point and you can’t answer it, don’t try.  Oh wait, you didn’t.

      Reply

    • Cameron Price-Austin says:

      12:44pm | 07/12/09

      I agree. While there’s been a lengthy debate about whether climate change is occurring, there has been very little debate about the best way to reduce our impact.

      I’m still trying to make up my mind, but I strongly resent Rudd’s implication that those who disagree with his ETS are climate change deniers.

      Reply

    • D'oh says:

      12:26pm | 07/12/09

      Nice diversionary tactic there RT.  You almost pulled it off too.

      You are right, evolution and relativity are both theories, just like AGW, sorry ACC is a theory.  Only thing is, AGW, sorry ACC has been given a sound kick in the head by the same people who have been supporting the theory.

      Reply

    • Joel B1 says:

      12:14pm | 07/12/09

      RT, thanks for your enquiry.
      “consensus built among medical scientists until governments felt they had to act to bring down smoking rates”

      See, that’s your mistake. Governments cynically encouraged smoking in WW2 to reduce stress in the population and service personnel. After that, the associated costs of disease caused by smoking started eating into their budgets. So now it’s all “Don’t Smoke, you won’t die quickly and inexpensively but will hang around costing us money”.

      Basically, go back to uni, do a sociology degree and it’ll learn ya how this all works. (watch out for those feminism units though, the buggers segregated us blokes doing it from the gyrls, which is a shame ‘cause that’s the only reason I did it…)

      Reply

    • RT says:

      11:51am | 07/12/09

      So, Joel, what’s your take on the science behind the link between smoking and cancer? Not absolutely proven, that link, but a consensus built among medical scientists until governments felt they had to act to bring down smoking rates. Did those governments think scientific consensus was ‘a joke’?

      For that matter, Einsteins theory of relativity and Darwin’s theory on the origin of species are both just that: theories, accepted by a majority of scientists based upon available evidence and accepted as the most likely explanations for the phenomena until something better comes along.

      Reply

    • Cameron Price-Austin says:

      12:25pm | 07/12/09

      I don’t know where to start with this post.

      You’ve simply decided Abbott is a climate change denier. No proof. You quickly dismiss his proposals take direct action in reducing emissions as ‘anodyne words’.

      Asserting that a ‘few seconds of math’ will support your argument is not a valid point—what math? Enlighten us. Direct us to the thesis you have no doubt authored regarding this complex scientific and economic issue.

      Then, just in case your post wasn’t ridiculous enough, you don the tin foil hat and insist the coal industry has some sort of shadow political influence.

    • Joel B1 says:

      11:43am | 07/12/09

      What!? You’re not a “disinterested” person! You make your living from trading in Carbon Credits or working in the “industry”.

      Why should anyone believe you?

      (I don’t have anything to gain by my stance here unlike you)

      Shame, shame, shame.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      11:42am | 07/12/09

      Here’s a solution that everyone should agree with. If you believe in man-made climate change, you get taxed into lowering your “carbon footprint”, and if you don’t, you’re not taxed. Forget about the far Right wanting power, what about the nutso Lefties wanting to tax every one of us into deliberately lowering our standard of living over something that would make Scientology look like a sane religion?

      And you with your “stolen goods” and “losing their lives to climate change” makes you just as crazy as the best of them. Name someone who has died because of the climate changing. Just one.

      Reply

    • RFS Q says:

      11:24am | 07/12/09

      Can someone explain this to me please? I’ve been in the NSW RFS for over 15 years, now if I light a back burn who has to pay for that? I know it sounds like a tongue in cheek question, but seriously; you have 100’s of thousands of hectares on fire, pushing more nasty carbon into the atmosphere, isn’t this what the ETS is trying to curb?
      The greens have already put stops on back burns or “fuel reduction burns” prior to summer, and you wonder why we are now faced with fire tragedies like those in Victoria and Canberra. I think an ETS is only going to exacerbate this issue further.

      Reply

    • Randal says:

      11:19am | 07/12/09

      And to think that some people out there suggest that the environmental movement has been taken over by communists and socialists, I mean come on, when you read’s Paul’s balanced piece how can you even think that… hang on… take from those with and give to those without… by force if you have to… Wait I have read this before, in the Communist Manifesto and Mao’s Little Red Book… Paul where you reading your two favourite pieces of literature before you wrote this… plagiarism is a crime you know!

      Reply

    • ~Thermosceptic~ says:

      11:04am | 07/12/09

      Seems that Wudd is saving his arrival in Copenhagen to co- inside with Obama. His new best friend. They are going to ride in on their big white stallions, yee haa!!! at the end of the thermo-crap-fest and make the final deals.
      Are they fully aware that the temp of Mars has increased over the last few decades, probably caused by a cow farting somewhere.? Very serious.?
      What a year, the global financial melt down and now this. These decisions and actions never touch these sort of people, the ones who live in their rarefied atmospheres, only us, again!!
      My darling parents would turn over in their graves!

      Reply

    • steve says:

      10:57am | 07/12/09

      Well the count in the Senate for the ETS was the Govt needed 7 senators to cross the floor to get it over the line. they had 2 liberals cross, all they needed was for the Greens to vote for it and it would have passed and we would have the ETS.
      I do not hear any barking at the Greens for voting it down?
      It is all the fault of the Libs
      Oh I forgot Labour need the Communist party Preferences at election time and they do not want to upset them.
      Well sorry but I still wait for anyone to tell me that dinky little Australia cutting it’s economic throat is going to turn down the thermostat on the planet

      Reply

    • RT says:

      11:54am | 07/12/09

      You’re right. The Greens might suffer in the next election because of their stance. I don’t think it’s playing well with the voters. On your other point, would you support the cutting of admissions in Australia if there is concerted world wide action to do so, or is your objection against Australia going early?

    • Joel B1 says:

      11:21am | 07/12/09

      Greens, Greens!

      Don’t talk to me about Greens… Here in idyllic Hobart we have some Greens on the Council. They do a great job. Recently I was sent a card (printed on recycled paper, but not using soy-ink (a bit sloppy there!))  detailing their achievements.

      It was entitled “How the Greens are Leading the Way”. It listed seven key “results”.
      The first six start with;
      “Improved”
      “Encouraged”
      “Implemented”
      “Established”
      “Enhanced” and
      “Supported”

      and the last was “Introduced free range eggs for Council events”.

      Actually, I think that that was probably their best achievement. But really, it’s chicken-feed isn’t it?

    • Joel B1 says:

      10:56am | 07/12/09

      Come on you AGW believers, how about calling people who might have a different opinion “dinosaurs”. Because then I can ask you if you mean the scientific consensus “cold-blooded” reptiles or the “ooops-we-may-have-got-it-wrong” “warm-blooded” ones.

      Scientific consensus is a joke. It doesn’t exist except in the minds of some self-serving bureaucrats who really don’t get it. And the “I want to believe” lot.

      Science is based on scepticism, not a show of hands.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      10:49am | 07/12/09

      150 years of pollution, smog, filth, dirty waterways, billions farting in mid-air ; I’d like to ask why WOULDN’T man-made global warming be an issue ?

      Reply

    • N says:

      10:34am | 07/12/09

      Kevin Rudds (and Malcolm Turnbulls) ETS is nothing short of alchemy. You take a worthless substance like carbon and make it a commodity (like gold) and everyone agrees to it? That’s David Copperfield stuff.

      If you want to curb climate change you need a unilateral agreement from all nations, not a p*ss in the ocean approach that we are currently seeing. Lets get serious on nuclear options, lift the Snowy Hydro output above its current and pitiful 12% and start leveraging our massive gas deposits in the Cooper and Carnarvon basins in lieu of burning coal.

      Just because I don’t believe in the Rudd governments ETS, doesn’t automatically make me a climate change sceptic / denialist or whatever name is being thrown around this week. Lets work on a viable solution for both the environment and the economy, not just one or the other.

      Paul, I would suggest you do something a little more constructive in the political sphere than starve yourself. Your hardly Ghandi, just another hungry university student….

      Reply

    • D'oh says:

      10:10am | 07/12/09

      Well, after reading all that, I barely know where to start.  You would not happen to be the president of your student Union would you Paul?

      Ignoring the first part of the diatribe, I mean propaganda, I mean opinion column, the elephant in the room remains the leaked emails from UEA.  This is yet another article all about global warming, I mean climate change that seems all to happy to proclaim the impending doom sprouted from the errors of our ways by a biased author that cannot bring himself to acknowledge the existence of these emails.  It has come to the point that any rational reader expects journalists/columnists/political staffers to at least acknowledge the leaked emails or lose all reporting credibility.

      As for the rest of the article, you are right and wrong.  Right in that there is nothing wrong with improving the efficiency of our lifestyle and wrong that somehow by increasing our cost of living we can somehow save the planet.  And all this when the very foundation of the policy has been called into question!

      Paul Connor – EPIC FAIL

      Reply

    • AJ says:

      09:58am | 07/12/09

      Dear climate sceptics, please read the following piece of rather handy explanation of the myths perpetuated by the denialist establishment:

      http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~BParris/BPClimateChangeQ&As;.html

      Brace yourself, it has some big words in it, you may not be able to understand them.

      But until you can rebut the arguments put forward by people who actually know things, your opinion is entirely irrelevant to me.

      Reply

    • DocBud says:

      12:42pm | 07/12/09

      Couple of quick points:

      Figure 2 is claimed to be from UNEP (2009) p26, can you find it?:

      http://www.unep.org/pdf/A_Global_Green_New_Deal_Policy_Brief.pdf

      Reference 49 is given as Stott et al, can you find that?

      There is a heavy reliance on climategate and hockey stick scientists.

      One thing strikes me as a little odd:

      Section 8: “No-one claims that rising greenhouse gas levels are the only factor that has ever led to higher temperatures. Changes in solar intensity, variations in ocean currents and a number of other factors can influence temperatures.”

      Section 14: If the logarithmic relation between CO2 concentration increases and temperature increases is accepted, and it is accepted that the 35% increase in CO2 concentrations from 280 to 379 ppm up to 2005 led to the approximately 0.76°C warming we have already experienced since pre-industrial times, then it is easily shown that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would likely lead to at least about 1.74ºC of warming.

      Doesn’t the use of 0.76°C in Section 14 seem to be suggesting that “rising greenhouse gas levels are the only factor that has ever led to higher temperatures”, other wise the figure would have to be reduced to take account of those other factors.

    • Cameron Price-Austin says:

      12:32pm | 07/12/09

      AJ, it’s a good link and for the record, I’m not a denialist.

      But isn’t a bit juvenile to imply skeptics are illiterate? Can’t you just make your point in a civil manner?

      It’s been my impression that almost everyone engaged in this debate wants what’s best for this country…we simply disagree about the methods (and in some cases, the science).

    • Balanced says:

      09:36am | 07/12/09

      I got a Bachelors degree in Chemistry, including Nuclear and Radiation Chemistry, in 1980. At the time, Sydney belched coal smoke from residential fireplaces and we dumped toxic waste into rivers and Sydney Harbour. I learned to scuba dive before it was a popular sport. The Harbour water was too polluted to see anything and North Head was a dumping outlet for untreated sewerage. As a conservative kid from a farming background I used to ponder, in the Chemistry Labs overlooking Randwick Racecourse, if all this waste being dumped into oceans and the air would one day lead to a chemical reaction, like the ones I observed in a test tube where one last drop instantly turns two liquids into a solid. I thought, what if we eventually destabilise the atmosphere so much that it just disappears, as it seems the Martian atmosphere may have once existed and disappeared. At that time, plans for a Nuclear Power Station at Jervis Bay had earlier been scrapped by the Whitlam Government and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were in the future. Like the writer, I have no doubt that the human race is living beyond its means environmentally; as the dominant species on the planet, that is our nature. We are going to have to deal with it for risk mitigation because, for all the new technology and knowledge we have, scientists are still learning about the atmosphere and measurement is improving, not perfect. I predict it will take another century for us to learn how to have a serious impact on managing our planet, but I worry that if we don’t get on with it, we may replace a serious problem with a catastrophe. Of course, there is a very small possibility of Earth one day being hit again by a giant asteroid in which it will be either a case of it all having been a waste of effort, or a case of a learning exercise for the real thing. It’s a good article Paul, and you’ll be ridiculed by some and figuratively burnt at the stake by others. It’s the nature of the beast.

      Reply

    • Joe Stephens says:

      09:26am | 07/12/09

      Seriously, we are hardly 1% of total Carbon Emission in the world!! Why is this even a topic up for discussion!!

      Tony Abbott is right.. I use his theory when I leave rubbish at the beach and chuck cigarette buds out of my car window.. and im even less than 1% of the population so what does it matter!!

      Reply

    • RT says:

      05:06pm | 07/12/09

      Our crime rate is probably only 1% of the world’s. Why do we worry about it? Heart disease in Australia is a tiny proportion of the world total. Let’s give up on it. Etc etc etc.

    • Dave says:

      08:58am | 07/12/09

      Mate, if you are a hunger striker, it’s likely Bob Brown appears right wing to you. Strive to get a little balance in life.

      Reply

    • susanai says:

      08:46am | 07/12/09

      I’ll second that.

      Reply

    • Toddzilla says:

      08:44am | 07/12/09

      Opinions from kids like Paul should be taken as what they are, unintelligent and unwise ramblings from a not fully developed brain. In 10 years time he will look back on what he is now and be embarrassed. And if he isn’t, it will be proof of his lack of intelligence.

      Reply

    • Matt 2.0 says:

      04:19pm | 07/12/09

      @Matt

      I’m sick and tired of this disingenuous term ‘climate change’.

      If your referring to man-made climate change, say man-made climate change. Don’t infer that because a person may be sceptical about man-made climate change that they are climate change deniers.

      Nobody can be a climate change denier because the climate always changes. It’s like saying that water comes from storm clouds but calling a person who believes Dihydrogen Monoxide comes from storm clouds a storm-water denier.

      Your confusing people with your argument, I would hope unknowingly.

      The fact remains, Co2 isn’t a pollutant. It’s that simple! If it’s not a pollutant then why are we wanting to cut it’s emissions? It’ll make no difference whatsoever.

      That’s not a do-nothing attitude, that’s a logical conclusion. Co2 doesn’t drive temperature. It lags at least 800 years behind. Temperature drives Co2. So what now?

    • Fazal says:

      09:57am | 07/12/09

      Well said! Trusc Connor to come up with yet more garbage. Reminds me of the utterings of my siblings then and their university-kids now.  Amazing how it all changes when they have to deal in the real world.

    • Dave Sag says:

      08:43am | 07/12/09

      Well mate I gave my real name, which is more than you can say.  I’d say I’m quite qualified to talk on this issue having worked in the carbon industry for almost 10 years.  Shock horror I actually know what i am talking about.  I’ll save you the trouble of Googling me if you like as The Punch already has my bio on file.

      http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/dave-sag/

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      04:11pm | 07/12/09

      Oh wait ... so that $20 “carbon credit” you paid just went into the same industry that you promote and profit from?

      What a sacrifice!

    • watty says:

      03:13pm | 07/12/09

      A ‘Gordon Gecko’ of the carbon industry. Hoping to boost the Global Warming junk bonds sales in Copenhagen?

      No wonder you are sweating your cobblers off that the “science” may just be tainted.

    • Sherlock says:

      08:24am | 07/12/09

      Gee Dave don’t you think you should actually identify yourself and declare your vested interest before you make a comment or is that to much to ask?

      How about you write to us again next week when all that comes out of Copenhagen is nothing but a bunch of motherhood statements.

      Before you take this person seriously google his name and make up your own mind if you should listen to him.

      Reply

    • DocBud says:

      12:47pm | 07/12/09

      As Dave Sag is over there drumming up business for his company, his airfare will be a business expense and thus tax deductable.

    • ~Thermosceptic~ says:

      10:33am | 07/12/09

      Ever had the feeling that some of these Copenhagen loonies are part of The New World Order, after all it is a quick way to get a lot of money to finance whatever their next plan is, like world dominance due to money and power. They have ignored the false scientific data so very conveniently.
      If you read blogs in O/S newspapers, many people are applauding the Australian’s for taking a stance on this unwanted tax after the rotten year with the worlds financial meltdown. Very bad timing to be wanting another huge tax out of the overtaxed. 
      We all want to help the health of our beautiful world, but not with cash and greed. It starts with population control. Birth control!
      There a 5million square miles of ice in Antarctica and @ 40c, it will take thousands of years for it to melt.  It’s called Mother Nature…..
      Noticed also that journalists are always Thermomaniacs, they seldom write the truth, they are sheep and follow Wong and Wudd.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      08:42am | 07/12/09

      Talk about a vested interest in an ETS. Your opinions Dave Stag, founder and executive director of Carbon Planet, the carbon emissions reduction company are no longer valid. You have too much money invested in this.
      Thanks for bringing that to our attention Sherlock.

    • Chris says:

      08:23am | 07/12/09

      I wouldnt have any problem paying a carbon tax if the money went to offsetting carbon and not paying back the billions Kevvy has borrowed.
      Unless monies collected goes into increased environmental expediture its just a good ole high spending, high taxing labor government doing what it does best.

      Reply

    • Dave Sag says:

      08:22am | 07/12/09

      Eric asks the sensible question, how did I get to Copenhagen.  Obviously I flew here; in a plane.  A quick check of the flight emissions calculator (see http://tr.im/co2flight ) shows that my share of the flight London Heathrow to Copenhagen (I was already in London) was about 400Kg.  That 400Kg cost me less than $20 to offset via the purchase of a single carbon credit. Buy buying and retiring a carbon credit I can be assured that a tonne of CO2 equivalent has been prevented from entering the atmosphere on my behalf.  See how simple it is?

      The average Australian causes the emission of around 28 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year.  I buy 28 carbon credits per year to offset that too.  On top of that I don’t own a car (approx 5 tonnes per year) and buy GreenPower (another kind of offset product) for my home.  Being green doesn’t mean living in a cave, rejecting modern society and eating raw beans.  It means restructuring the global economy to force a price on carbon pollution and other externalities.

      Reply

    • Bruce says:

      11:23pm | 07/12/09

      I do not mind paying an extra tax of $1,100 a year. JUST GIVE ME A PAY RISE OF $2,200 per year. Answer….simple !!

    • David C says:

      10:49am | 07/12/09

      Dave cant you understand why people have a problem with this? If you believe so strongly about the human effect on the climate then why would you fly in the first place?
      And I love this crabon credit “thing”, I am sure there are a lot of folks in sub-Saharan Africa just lining up to pay for their credits. Now this is the real case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

    • D'oh says:

      10:39am | 07/12/09

      Great!  Let’s force all Australians to pay in excess of $1000 a year to satisy your guilt to address an issue that may not be human’s fault!!  Sign me up and give me a subscription to the magazine.
      [face palm, sarcasm just in case you missed it]

      No thanks mate, you go ahead and pay your tithe to your new religion but count me out!

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      08:20am | 07/12/09

      My barely concealed rage as you put is is a consequence of an awakening.  It happened when I worked out that it was the politically correct minority that were a major hinderence to the prosperity of this country. Everybody else in the past has been too scared to speak out for fear of persecution! Do you dispute that the article was one sided and unbalanced load of rubbish! Politics is changing my friend!

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      11:30am | 07/12/09

      Hey Wyane, politics HAS changed.
      We voted out the guy who didn’t believe in climate change and voted the guy who did, in.
      And that takes a majority vote.
      It’s called democracy, although I know you’ll dismiss that as a “wog word dreamt up by the ancestors of those bloody Greeks”.
      So unfortunately, you have to come to terms with the fact that you’re in the minority (politically incorrect or otherwise). There is no “silent” majority here. We were all pretty vocal voting for Kevin 07.

    • Saint says:

      08:04am | 07/12/09

      Paul, at least you are honest enough to declare your agenda. It seems, based on what you have written above, that for you this is an issue of bringing the spoiled consumers of the West into line and that AGW is very hand mechanism to do so.

      Unfortunately, the IPCC ‘science’ has been completely discredited by the Climategate emails and, awkwardly, the actual evidence and REAL events are completely contrary to all the models.

      At the most basic level, the AGW argument fails as carbon levels have continued to increase expontentially in recent years while the planet has, demonstrably, stopped warming. Now, it may begin to warm again, but carbon generated by us naughty consuming Westerners cannot be the cause.

      The very sad thing is that the whole environmental debate and discussion has been hijacked by AGW and its proponents who all have an agenda of some kind, be that to make bazillions of dollars off the back of it or as a mechanism to impose their political beliefs on the rest of us who just want to live our lives without feeling guilty about it every second of the day. This means that real, useful and pragmatic discussion of the effects of the changing climate (which we cannot control) and how to best deal with them cannot be had. And spending billions of dollars on an ETS or similar taxes will make no difference at all to anyone and make many lawyers and the like very very rich. I think you will find those of us who “baulk at any cost associated with mitigating and repairing the destruction wrought by the economic system that has given us such privileges” are not baulking at the cost or the tax, we are baulking at the fact that there is not a shred of credible evidence to suggest human activity is responsible for climate change and even more so at the fact that the ETS and similar mechanisms will do absolutely nothing at all to mitigate or repair, they will simply cost people (many of whom who can actually not afford it) a lot of money and make prosperous nations poorer and less capable of genuinely dealing with a climate that will keep on changing as it has for millenia.

      I was also wondering if you could provide some facts or evidence of “the millions of people around the world losing their lives, homes or livelihoods to climate change every single year”. Or did you just make this up for effect?

      And then there is the standard problem with people who preach in the manner you are. I assume you don’t live up a tree or walk everywhere you go. I assume you used a computer to produce this article and enable it to be posted. I assume the computer is powered by electricity. If you really truly believed in what you have written above, you must really struggle to sleep at night.

      And finally, with respect to fossil fuels. Yes, we are dependent on them. Yes, it would be great not to be. And wouldn’t it be brilliant if all the energy and money currently being wasted on the AGW scam were directed into finding REAL alternatives (that would actually work)?

      Reply

    • Russell says:

      07:46am | 07/12/09

      The reason people like Paul have got so excited about climate change is that allows moral critique of capitalism (“we want too much”) without the burden of having to come up with an alternative model.
      Come on Paul, Karl Marx did the hard yards. It didn’t work out too well, but at least it had enough legs to stick around for 100 years. And form the basis for the miracle that is modern China.

      Ah, but they’re the ones cooking the planet. With our resources, which we can’t dig out of the ground fast enough. And in return Paul gets his iPhone, plasma, bicycle, and nice shiny PC so he can share his insights with us lesser moral people, “who want so much!”

      Reply

    • RT says:

      07:33am | 07/12/09

      The Liberals and their supporters on the blogosphere have collective amnesia. The ETS that they now demonise with hatred and hostility was Liberal Party policy from 2007 under John Howard until last week. Turnbull is hated as a quasi-Labour figure for supporting it. The policy was introduced by John Howard. What don’t you knuckleheads understand about that? Do the conspiracy theorist among you suspect that the policy announcement was made by someone posing as Howard while the real Howard was captured and held in a room somewhere? Labour advertisements for the next election will show Howard supporting the ETS over and over.

      Reply

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      12:12pm | 08/12/09

      RT, you’re (inevitably) ignoring the fact that, for most of us (pollies included), th ereal debate about human-induced climate change only really got into its stride recently, and the surfacing of the CRU emails added to a growing doubt in many peoples minds that the science was dodgy. Hence, positions are changing based on the latest facts (or rumours).

      Anybody who locked-in their position years ago and now refuses to even acknowledge the doubts of others deserves the label ‘climate evangelist’, for that refusal to even consider an alternative view is one of the things that makes debating religion with a ‘believer’ impossible.

    • D'oh says:

      10:26am | 07/12/09

      [face palm]

      The Labor hacks have collective denial over climategate too.  Your argument seems to suffer from chronological deficiency.

    • RT says:

      09:29am | 07/12/09

      Nice try, Joel B1 - not. We are talking about a policy dumped just last week in favour of a ‘huge tax on everything’ fear campaign.  We will remember that for two years it was Liberal policy so how could it be so bad?  The fear campaign shouldn’t work, and won’t.

    • Joel B1 says:

      07:51am | 07/12/09

      Well maybe we should still support a White Australia policy… That was government policy once.

      The Libs aint locked in the past like backwards looking Labor.

    • Joel B1 says:

      07:25am | 07/12/09

      Here’s my idea. Even my AGW fearing wife (PhD) loved it. It’s about the green movement as typified by crystal-healing, chakra and dream-catchers, not any particular political party per se.

      What if the green movement wanted to return us all to a pre-industrial village-based society? By saying AGW is true and it’s destroying the earth they make societies reduce, reuse and generally take a backwards step through ETS schemes. Just like is stated in the article.

      But more interestingly, what if they wanted to destroy modern societies faith in science?

      What better way than supporting and encouraging AGW supporting science?

      AGW is to a large extent either true or not. If in fact AGW is true the greens win. But, if AGW turns out to be false, most people in society will never trust a scientist again (or the UN or national governments etc). In this way the green movement can turn most ordinary people into Luddites.

      Either way the greens win…

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      07:18am | 07/12/09

      Let’s use Mann’s trick to hide the decline.

      Reply

    • Dave Sag says:

      07:17am | 07/12/09

      It’s refreshing to be over here in Copenhagen where Paul’s concerns are taken seriously and where the so-called ‘debate’ over the legitimacy of climate science is utterly done and dusted.  Sure you can whine on about your so-called ‘climategate’ but a few stupid emails hardly invalidates genuine science does it?  Perhaps it does to people who haven’t got the foggiest how science works; but to the people who are about to commit 10bil per year and climbing to solving the climate change problems we all face, the science is sound and we people are in a world of trouble.

      A News Limited journalist (I didn’t catch his name) today asked Yvo de Boer what he thought of the recent leadership spill in Australia and how, as a consequence, Australia had again failed to get climate change legislation in place.  “We value Australia’s input” he said (or something close to that) and the audience laughed.  Yep, to a room of international press observers Australia is a laughing stock right now because we are one of the only nations left on Earth to still be bickering about the veracity of climate scientists and the IPCC.

      We’ll be laughing harder when the world’s ridicule of us turns to trade embargoes on our ‘dirty’ carbon embedded products and services too.

      Reply

    • LeftRightOut says:

      09:40am | 08/12/09

      I notice that you focus on the ClimateGate emails…. try reading the Fortran source code. It proves beyond doubt, that the “science” was actually fraudulent, this is something that is beyond doubt, yet is conveniently ignored, because it is not readily understood.
      When you consider that CRU is one of the four centres for global temp data, and that 2 of the remaining three use CRU data for their own research, it kind of leaves you warmists dead in the water. (The fourth centre is currently also under investigation, and has refused for two years to conceed to FOI requests… sound familiar?)

      This is no laughing matter, that the sycophant media, and misguided people like the author of this “article” are so ready to be fooled.

    • Randal says:

      02:13pm | 07/12/09

      Thats funny Dave, I heard that someone asked the head of the IPCC, sorry can’t remember his name, some do-gooding zealot who does not check his data, whether input from 46% of the scientists who drafted the IPCC submission on climate change was still important now that they are under investigation for diddling the numbers and he said “We value input from all who agree with us” and the rest of the world laughed hysterically.

      So lets see who has the last laugh!

    • D'oh says:

      10:19am | 07/12/09

      So, let me get this straight, a room for of international press hacks, IPCC worshipers and Climategate deniers laughed at the fact that Australia has woken up to the sham that is global warming, I mean climate change??  SHOCK HORROR.  Well, they might start laughing at the Americans (everyone always has anyway) and the Brits too because they are treating the leaked data with the seriousness it deserves.
      Besides, it is the data that is truly damning although emails being emails are getting the most attention.
      As for the financial committment, we may as well flush that money down the toilet for all the good it will do.

    • watty says:

      09:21am | 07/12/09

      And presumably you,Dave and the rest of the early arrival NGO’s all “know how science works”.

      I also laugh at any reference to Rudd and his crushed ego following the crash of his ETS in the Parliament so why shouldn’t others?.

      ps must be pleasing to see the United Nations and Danish Government BANNING Christmas trees for the duration of the Climate Change Conference.Must make the Dness real happy.

      I

    • Carl Palmer says:

      09:07am | 07/12/09

      “.....but a few stupid emails hardly invalidates genuine science does it?” Well well, the head of that research institute has stepped down. Just in case you missed it, there are calls for these people to be prevented from submitting any further input into the IPCC. Stupid e-mails - I’d suggest to you that they “are in a world of trouble”.

      Laughed at by “a room of international press” – were there any Australian journalists present?  Perhaps they were laughing at our Prime Minister - “Friend of the Chair”? 

      As for trade embargoes – I take it that this came from the reliable and very credible “International Journalists”, now I’m really worried. The general punter on the street knows that this won’t happen.

      Dave Sag IF CO2 was / is the cause, then I’ve achieved more by planting a few trees than you have in this post.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      08:07am | 07/12/09

      Your kidding aren’t you Dave! Australia is the only nation left on Earth to still be bickering about the veracity of climate scientists and the IPCC! What planet are you from. Use your internet, don’t abuse it…

    • Eric says:

      07:59am | 07/12/09

      How did you get to Copenhagen, Dave? Fly did you, like all the other True Believers?

      “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.” - Glenn Reynolds

    • Peter says:

      07:16am | 07/12/09

      Don’t you just love the Wayne Hutchins of this world with their barely concealed rage bubbling below the surface? They are the ones who ostensibly advocate an open debate but with every word, including their ad hominem and quite aggressive attacks on those who disagree with them, betray their real refusal to address some totally apparent realities.

      Mind you, the Labor ETS is deeply flawed and polluter friendly - where are the polluting behavioural changes encouraged?. Do we really think we can sustain a growth economy model forever while consuming a finite environment? It is not just CO2 but the myriad other environmental challenges that confront us.

      Luke, you are easily pleased by Abbott’s pretty transparent approach. He is essentially a climate change denier with a few anodyne words to cover his flank. Energy savings etc. alone won’t even begin to mitigate emissions. A few seconds of maths will confirm that.  And the costs?

      And Phil, the civilisation project started way before our “Grecian ancestors” and that includes democracy. Latest research seems to indicate there were democratic forms in the area now known as Iran and Iraq way before Athenian democracy emerged.

      Now we have a form of democracy here in Australia where large powerful interest groups including the determined coal industry hold the rest of us hostage whether we want the grim future for our descendants or not.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      06:59am | 07/12/09

      Actually in demanding we take unilateral action, which is waht the Rudd government and it’s patsy Malcolm Turnbull are doing is tantamount to taking a vow of poverty.  Rudd’s ETS will make us poorer for no environmental gain.

      Reply

    • Luke says:

      06:40am | 07/12/09

      Abbott did not say he doesn’t agree with climate change legislation he repeated over and over as you said and if you cared to listen, he DID NOT SUPPORT KEVIN RUDDS ETS. He does believe in climate change and believes we need to do something about it. He is now trying to get debate on alternative ways of cutting emissions rather than Rudds ETS. This debate should have happened 2 years ago but didn’t thanks to Rudd rail roading the issue and saying it’s my way or the highway.

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      05:39am | 07/12/09

      Paul

      I respect your opinion. Please explain how paying large polluters and the poor compensation and taxing everyone else heavily is actually going to reduce pollution. What will the temperature be on say 20 years time after this system you say we need is introduced be against what would it be if we did not put in such a system?

      I have no problem paying a price if it means a substantial reduction in pollution. Why dont you pedal the nuclear argument? Surely its cleaner and produced much less Carbon which you green folk seem to regard as the current evil.

      Do you believe in clean coal?

      Why does our Green Labor Government happily punch their chests after the victory of selling massive amounts of Brown Coal to India, already one of the world’s big polluters!  Why would they simply not just sell uranium with special conditions and monitoring that it cannot be ever used for weapons!
      Surely the UN which is now so concerned by Climate Change could oversee such a program and reduce the world’s need for Coal.

      Even though the science is varied, I agree we need to give the planet the benefit of the doubt, but a tax is just that a tax, which will make many very rich, and I am not convinced that it will dramatically effect the climate changing as you to proudly declare it will.

      You might enlighten me and millions of my fellow Australians on how this tax, which will drive up prices will actually do anything cept mean the max in the middle pays far more for everything than they currently do.

      Surely actually doing something to reduce Carbon is a better alternative, or do you see yourself with a great future working for Goldman Sachs or Macquarie Bank.

      Reply

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      06:26am | 07/12/09

      Well said Phil, go on Paul, explain it in layman terms and if you don’t may I suggest that you return your pc to the nearest recycling center and stop bothering us with your clearly one sided view. More and more each day need convincing! Krudd and Wrong haven’t explained it yet so this is your chance. Go for it son….

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      05:26am | 07/12/09

      What a truly one sided and unbalanced load of rubbish again! If the smart ones among us take out your notion of carbon as the devil then everything you just wrote is dribble (again). Trying to make people feel guilty for living and striving for better. If we were dead set about reducing our impact on this planet we would wipe out a few billion of us. We need a few more natural disasters on a grand scale or a good old fashioned world war. This has northing to do with the left and right side of politics.  It has been much too easy for the true believers to pigeon hole the informed among us as flat earthers but have you noticed how quickly that is beginning to change. All round the world the average punter has begun to see through this charade and rightly so. How is your hunger strike going Paul!  World population is out of control and it would be a good idea for people like you to do the right thing and reduce our population. Starving yourself sounds like a good way to me. More food for those of us who plan on hanging around for awhile. I’m thinking of starting a new group. One that has no real outcome at the other end but makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Maybe I should just join yours…

      Reply

    • Balanced says:

      03:45pm | 07/12/09

      Sure Wayne, we’ve had a bit of practice in Iraq so let’s just declare war of a few hundred thousand more hapless human beings not as priviledged as ourselves. Oh, I forgot, we don’t actually have to declare war anymore, just drop the bombs on them. Best return in headcount per bomb would be India and China. Don’t worry about the coastal areas and low lying countries, the “natural” disaster for them is sea level rise. We better put some more submarines and frigates into commission so we can blow the swarming boat people out of the water. Thanks for your intellectual contribution Wayne. I assume you’ll be signing your sons and daughters up for the fun.

    • Ingrid says:

      09:44am | 07/12/09

      Wayne, you’re an ignoramus. Hope that outburst helped with your anger management.

      Thanks Paul - great article.

    • Eric says:

      04:35am | 07/12/09

      Climategate. Google it.

      And get rid of your PC. It’s “stolen goods”.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed