Climate committee is no citizens assembly, thank God

Tom says:

09:18pm | 02/10/10

Gee persephone, it will be hard to find all the welfare to keep them voting Labor plus keep your Labor snouts in the trough when all these people come to Australia.

Ripa says:

04:52am | 03/10/10

For the billionth time, CARBON is NOT POLLUTION, for heavens sake, what is wrong with everyone, we are carbon, trees, plants, we use carbon to purify water and air, the list goes on and on and on. This alarmist ignorance must stop. Nothing is beyond doubt, read up on the pacific decadal oscillation, stop being an alarmist shill.

Adam Diver says:

01:46pm | 03/10/10

Removing the issue of the legitimacy of climate change, why is there no debate on how to combat it?

A pre-concluded commitee is undemocratic and pointless. When did the voters decide to tax carbon? Wasn’t this election. The coalitions actions here (labor, ind, greens) is an absolute democratic disgrace, and I look forward to your spin on that Persephone.

Morris says:

01:06pm | 03/10/10

Persephone - We aren’t all children in your class room, would appreciate if you wouldn’t keep commenting and addressing these blogs in your continual condescending manner. You do make some interesting points but I think you would have more credibility if you tone it down a bit.

Jane says:

01:13pm | 03/10/10

It isn’t fair Perse is it, some people don’t agree with you and your climate change scare mongering and predictions. How dare anyone have a different opinion to yours.

Muzz says:

02:12pm | 03/10/10

perhaps percyfone when the NBN reaches your small country town you’ll be able to get lightning-fast warning about catastrophic climatic events which will I’m sure be excellent mitigation for you. Apart from that I’m not sure what we can do in the way of mitigation, because at 1.3% of global CO2 emissions I’m sure our contribution is not what’s causing these changes in weather patterns. Perhaps we should immediately close down all coal fired power stations and stop exporting coal?  While we are at it perhaps we should stop exporting iron ore because that will only tempt some other country to buy coal from someone else to turn the ore into steel. Anyway us people whose viewpoint amuses you would probably find solace in sending the so-called asylum seekers to live next to you in your small country town and no doubt we would hope for another unexpected climatic catastropheto occur there.

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:40pm | 03/10/10

@ persephone- Increase of population = increase in carbon emissions. Increase Australia’s population by baby boom, immigration, refugee intake etc increases carbon emissions by Australia. Only logical solution is zero immigration, carbon taxes and carbon tariffs.

@Ripa- Of course carbon can be pollution, too much of the stuff whether carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide can kill humans, animals and plants. By the way the U.S. EPA has classified carbon emissions as a pollutant

persephone says:

07:30pm | 03/10/10

Ripa

I haven’t said carbon is pollution.

Adam Diver

There has been . And there have been numerous reviews and studies. And they all say the best/cheapest/most effective way to reduce emissions is to put a price on carbon.

I don’t get this: Labor does reviews and enquiries and are accused of wasting time and told to just get on with it. It proposes a course of action recommended by reviews and enquiries world wide and is asked why it isn’t spending more time on debate.

Debate is no longer necessary for governments to act. When an overwhelming number of experts from all scientific disciplines, when the vast majority of the world’s economists and the majority of ordinary punters tell you to act on something, a government should act.

The Coalition also intends to act on climate change, should they ever get into government. The only difference is, their scheme isn’t backed by economists, scientists or the general public and will (by their own figures) cost the taxpayer more for less result.

Oh, and there was a very clear mandate on this in 2007. The ALP also made it clear during the election campaign that their intention was to reintroduce some kind of carbon pricing system eventually.

Morris - apologies, I am a teacher, and I do sometimes get teacherish. Goes with the territory.

Jane - brilliant rebuttal, as always. OK, you’re right and I’m wrong. Does that make any of my arguments go away?

Muzz (and apologies to Morris, but he obviously doesn’t understand this): mitigation is taking action to reduce the amount of climate change, so getting prior warning of disasters won’t help here. (Glad to see you take the problems faced by those in the bush so seriously).

The ‘we don’t contribute that much therefore we shouldn’t do anything’ is a very negative attitude. We all recognise, for example, that our individual efforts to save water in a drought have minimal impact; but unless we all make those individual efforts, we run out of water.

Australia also has a moral responsibility - we export coal, and our dependence on coal fire electricity makes us one of the biggest emitters per head of any country in the world (I think Victoria actually has the biggest per capita emissions internationally).

And cute. You are wishing more disasters on a community which has already been badly hit, just because I live here. What a warped mind you have.

Shaun
yes, and it’s a world wide problem so we need to reduce population on a world wide basis. Just refusing to take people into Australia won’t change that.

And I’m not arguing for an increase in population, or migration - just pointing out that it’s interesting how the same people who stress out over a few thousand boat people refuse to take action on something which will dramatically increase the numbers of refugees internationally.

Recognise that’s not you, just sayin’.

Sophie Trevitt says:

10:11pm | 03/10/10

Persephone,

I don’t disagree with any of those things - the ramifications of climate change can be seen currently, and yes, I agree, even if a temp rise is kept w/i the recommended threshold we will still need to mitigate to deal with the already existing situation of a planet that is warmer than it was, and more prone to extreme weather events. I also agree with your emphasis on the problem of mass displacement of people.

That wasn’t the focus of the piece, but you raise an important point - to make sure cc is presented as something that is happening and has real consequences that cannot be avoided, but can be mitigated if the right infrastructure and strategies are employed.

Thanks.

acotrel says:

05:06am | 04/10/10

The reason we had severe bushfires in VIctoria a minute ago was a 45 degree day.  Are we ever going to act to make our existence on this planet sustainable?

acotrel says:

05:10am | 04/10/10

‘Anyway us people whose viewpoint amuses you would probably find solace in sending the so-called asylum seekers to live next to you in your small country town and no doubt we would hope for another unexpected climatic catastropheto occur there’

So you’re wishing a bushfire on Shepparton?

Gregg says:

07:58am | 04/10/10

@ persephone,
Well stay amused with your fantasy thoughts for perhaps it is you that panic about the thoughts of other people on asylum seekers, thinking that there are suitable alternatives to save lives being lost in the hands of people snugglers both at sea and languishing with smugglers promises and that whilst this promoted, there are also true refugees and other visa applicants being affected.
Even the processing times for skilled people visa applications is being lengthened, so I imagine you will be amused about that too you complete dick.
And aside from your exaggerations with
” In the past two decades, in my small country town, we have experienced: 3 major bushfires (each one by itself woudl have previoiusly rated as the biggest since settlement), 3 major floods (two of these rated as ‘one in a hundred year’ events); mini tornados, devastating frosts and the severest drought since settlement. “

Bushfires, floods and droughts and even poor chilly morning you are all natural events.

But if you want to do something, get off your backside and start planting some trees and support organisations that promote it just like the coalition policy is but is that too much like hardwork and commitment to a cause for you?

persephone says:

10:19am | 04/10/10

Sophie - thanks. It was meant to be an addition to your piece, not a criticism of it!

Gregg -

Yes, the East Timor solution looks good. I don’t want people dying to get here, either.

Just pointing out that vast dislocations of populations is also an inevitable result of failure to act on climate change.

And what’s happened locally is not exaggerated in any way.

If you’d read my post, you would have seen that I stressed that, although these were all natural events, their extreme nature and the timing of them is unprecedented - that is, the events are more severe and more frequent than previously recorded.

That natural disasters become more prevalent and more extreme is exactly what climate change scientists have been predicting. That these events are not ‘natural’ in their ferocity or frequency has been borne out by insurance industry statistics.

And yes, I’m actively involved in combatting climate change. My house is passive solar in design (no air conditioners or indeed electric heating needed), I drive cars fuelled by LPG, I grow my own vegies and fruit (thus cutting down on food miles), I plant trees and other native plants every year, I was personally responsible for the local council joining a number of climate change action programs, resulting in their cutting down on their emissions, I have introduced climate change scientists with important things to say to politicians who needed to hear them, I have been responsible for climate change policies adopted by the state government and have worked with various agencies in researching climate change impacts locally.

Never accuse me of not putting my money where my mouth is. You’ll lose every time.

David C says:

11:19am | 04/10/10

if you double the CO2 in the atmosphere you will get 1.2 deg c of warming, we have had about 0.7 ish already so 0.5 to go. things havent been too bad so far so I am struggling to see how we end up with major catastrophes. You can go on all you want about feedbacks but that is not evidence just projections that are accompanied with large uncertanties (as acknowldeged by UK Royal Society last week)
If you want to claim cenrtainty with all this all you are doing is playing politics through the science.

Muzz says:

12:31pm | 04/10/10

So nice of you to reply to me percyfone. I’m flattered; and you being a school teacher, wow, you must certainly know about everything.  I sort of fort that mitigation meant to reduce the effects of (something) and so in your case I fort the earlier warning that the NBN would provide to your country town would certainly mitigate the effects, at least to your person, of another climate change induced calamity in your country town. Perhaps not. You’d be too busy trying to save the asylum seekers who you invited to live next door to you.  As for my warped mind. Untwist it and what do you get? A narrow mind perhaps? I’ll stick with twisted and hope to keep you amused.

Nequam says:

12:34pm | 04/10/10

persephone, unfortunately unless you prove it you’re just another keyboard warrior and Internet hero.  Give links to the State policy etc that were adopted under your advisory.

anyway, regarding the thunderstorm argument and fresh water argument, during the global cooling fiasco of the 70’s was there recorded instances of there being less severe thunderstorms? Also was there more precipitation?  I would be interested if someone could point me in the right direction.

persephone says:

02:05pm | 04/10/10

Muzz

you obviously want to feel oppressed - please don’t let me stop you.

You’re still confusing mitigation with adaption. Mitigation is stopping climate change from happening, adaption is learning to live with the changes.

An NBN will help with the latter - the present forms of technology, as Black Saturday showed, tend to collapse in emergencies (mobile, wireless and satellite signals are all affected by smoke).

It will help with mitigation, because it should reduce the need for car travel but not greatly.

And yes, I do try and help people. I think human beings are great, don’t you?

Nequam

oh that is a good one - I have actually asked Monash University whether or not there has been an increase in storms causing multiple lightning strikes in the last few decades.

The reason I asked was that I had been told in the early ‘90s that we would no longer have bad fires up here. The reasoning was that, as soon as possible after thunderstorm activity, spotter planes identified lightning strikes and strike teams put them out.

Two of our calamitous fires, however, were caused by hundreds of lightning strikes, meaning that it was simply not humanly possible to put them all out before a fire had well and truly got going.

So my question to MU was exactly that - given that in all the time between 1939 and 2001, fire teams had been able to cope with the number of lightning strikes after each storm, and in 2001 and 2003 they couldn’t, had the number of storms with multiple lightning strikes increased?

Very proud to say my question has been the basis for a research project, but I don’t think it’s finalised yet.

ripa says:

02:57am | 05/10/10

Pers,

An overwhhelming number of scientists disagree that carbon is going to be the cause of the end of the world. Gores movie is disproven, thehockey stick has been disproven, this kind of “science” is worthless!, how on earth, as a teacher, can you defend this nonsense?
Debate is always necessary, you pers have not done your reaserch you have not kept yourself informed of new real reviewable data and information,
you as a teacher, as a TEACHER! should keep yourself up to date.
What new data do you know of that proves man made global warming will end man kind?
Where is the proof that any price on carbon will change climate?
we are paying so much more for our energy now, tell us what changes have
the energy companies made to clean up their act?
Pers enough of this carbon rubbish, industry needs to be forced to meet certain targets and a tax on carbon is not the way to go.

persephone says:

07:42am | 05/10/10

Ripa—you are correct, because no one who knows anything is saying climate change will be the end of the world. It’s not a Doomsday cult, you know.

What they are saying (at a rate of 999/1) is that climate change will cause immense social, environmental and economic disruption.

Nor have I said - anywhere - that it will be the end of mankind. I think we’re tougher than that, but certainly, if we don’t act, life will become very uncomfortable for a lot of us.

So no, I don’t have data or research on either of those, because no scientist is saying that the world will end or people will die out.

If you don’t believe in climate change, why do you accept that industry needs to meet any targets at all?

As for your other assertions:

One of the principles which underlie our whole market system, which underlies our economy, is that price sends signals - that is, how much something costs determines the market available to it.

One of the tenets of the ‘market’ is that if you raise costs, people will either stop buying the product, look for cheaper alternatives or reduce their use.

Any of those three actions, as a response to rising electricity prices, will mean a cut in carbon emissions.

And people are changing their actions as a result of rising electricity prices - installing solar, changing cars to LPG or buying more economical models, using public transport more (massive increases of use in Melbourne, for example), buying green energy, buying more efficient appliances (which are now rated for energy efficiency, because people want to know), and so on.

And the electricity producers are changing too. Most of the big investments in solar, wind and hydro over the last few years are by the big electricity producers and are a result of their recognition that, if they don’t start changing their practices now, they’ll be in trouble later.

An executive of one electrical producing company said to me (as I’ve said, I’ve been involved in research locally) that he proposed a method of reducing carbon emissions to the board 15 years ago. It was relatively cheap, but the question he was immediately asked was, “And what will be the return for doing this?”

The answer at the time was none.

Several years on, the same proposal was accepted without question, because the company recognised the need to change their ways.

David C says:

07:42am | 05/10/10

Shane from melbourne you are right too much CO2 can be harmful to humans, that level as identified by submariners is 8000 parts per million, current levels are about 380 ppm, dont worry ill let you know when we get close

Gonzo says:

11:01pm | 07/10/10

Persephone: I have yet to meet an ‘enlightened one’ much like yourself that can explain to me how a price on carbon will act to reduce or stop climate change on a PLANETERY scale!

Do you really believe that governments are pushing for a price on carbon, carbon tax, emissions tax, etc, etc, ad nauseum because they want to slow down or stop the planet from doing what it wants to do. You fool. It’s about the MONEY! It always was about the money.

PS: I don’t care who you think you are but I gave up being spoken down to by mother a long time ago. Get some manners.

Gonzo says:

11:11pm | 07/10/10

Collect all these so called scientists and climate change proponents and take their snouts out of the feed trough so that they have to get real jobs. How many of them; when their income isn’t dependent on pushing the climate change barrow; will then support the climate change proposition. I say very,very few.

LC says:

12:43pm | 15/03/11

“The reason we had severe bushfires in VIctoria a minute ago was a 45 degree day.”

And here I was thinking it happened 2 years ago and was caused by a combination of drought, a heatwave, negligence surrounding power-lines, reckless disobeying of fire bans and arson.

Silly me!

Northern Steve says:

06:07pm | 02/10/10

Mike, there is plenty of evidence that CO2 causes global warming.  There is plenty of evidence that we are emitting enough CO2 into the atmosphere to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by a significant amount.  Both of those points are scientific fact, beyond debate.  The only debate is then how much the climate will change, and what the consequences could be.  It is possible that the consequences will be minimal.  It is more likely to stronger.

Tom says:

09:22pm | 02/10/10

@ Northern Steve, there is plenty of evidence to contradict the GW industry’s spiv and money grubbing attempts.Contrary to your assertion, it is NOT “beyond debate”.

Bigos says:

11:46am | 03/10/10

@Northern Steve. Actually there is no real evidence that CO2 causes global warming. That’s the reason why AGW, CC or whatever else it’s called these days remains a theory, a hypothesis. No one can prove beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 causes warming and that a reduction in CO2 concentrations will stop/reverse it. Before anyone commits to any action, we should look at the evidence for and against. The work of the IPCC should be made available to public. That means, all the raw data, methods used and conclusions reached. This information then could scrutinized by different scientific bodies and a real consensus could be reached.

Muzz says:

01:47pm | 03/10/10

@Northern Steve, try some simple maths instead of heated rhetoric. Our contribution to worldwide CO2 emissions is about 1.3%.  In other words, if CO2 is the bogey that you claim it to be then the problem is not being caused by us.  In fact we could increase our CO2 emissions fivefold and the effect would still be negligible. How about accepting the reality, an inconvenient truth no doubt,  that we will be dependent on coal-fired power stations for at least the next 20 years. They are a great source of cheap electricity and give us a competitive edge.  The important problem about them is that they emit real nasties quite separate from the CO2 they also emit.  The rational approach is for govt. to provide certainty to business by declaring there will be no price on carbon for the next 20 years and legislating for the immediate minimisation of the real nasties. I would further suggest that in about 20 years time we would be able to build and operate nuclear power stations economically and safely.

Gregg says:

07:31pm | 03/10/10

Northern Steve, just because you have believed all what the IPCC and that loser ex US VP have sprouted, resprouting it will not make it any more true than what they claim.

Some IPCC and other climate change dingbats will even try and tell you on one hand that you cannot take so called isolated instances such as a couple of severe northern hemisphere winters or a cooler spring here into account but just how wide spread is the ice coring from which longer term records are claimed?

In fifty years, people will be looking back at history and saying WTF?, how did people ever get that ipcc organised and how weak were governments that sucked it all in.

Northern Steve says:

09:07pm | 03/10/10

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  This means that it allows the broad spectrum of visible light (from the sun) to pass through and reach the earth’s surface.  At the earth’s surface, the light is absorbed, and then re-radiated as infrared radiation (refer: Black Body Radiation).  CO2 reflects infrared radiation, and because it is in the atmosphere, any infrared being emitted from the ground is then re-reflected to the ground, and ends up bouncing around or being absorbed by the air or earth.  This heats up the planet.
As a result, the higher the concentration of CO2, the more heat is re-reflected back towards the earth.  The lower the concentration of CO2, the more is transmitted from the ground out in to space.
You will not find a source that disputes that.  This is a scientific fact.

You want to see the effecs of CO2 in the atmosphere?  Venus has an atmosphere of about 97% CO2.  The surface temp of Venus (460oC) is higher than that of Mercury, despite receiving only 25% of the sunlight as Mercury.

Muzz, you need to stay on task.  The fact that our contribution is 1.3% has nothing to do with whether CO2 causes warming or not.  But as you mention it, yes, 1.3% may not be high, but then we make up 0.3% of the world’s population.  We are the largest per capita polluters in the world.

Northern Steve says:

09:19pm | 03/10/10

And returning to the original post, man has not really been around for climates significantly warmer than we are seeing at the moment.  There has been at least one time of significant cold though (an ice age).  About 10,000 years ago, started with a slight rise in temperatures due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere.  As the planet warmed, the ice sheet over Eastern Canada melted and a significant amount of cold, fresh water dumped into the Atlantic, upsetting the ocean currents that flow past Africa, bringing warm water to Europe.  End result, in less than 10 years, Europe froze - it was covered with a layer of ice 1km thick.  You think asylum seekers are a problem now.  Try having 350mill Europeans looking for somewhere else to live!

The rise on CO2 at that point in history was obviously not caused by humans, however we are capable of producing a similar level of CO2 already with industrialisation.  And the ice sheet over Greenland is already starting to melt.  Can you see the parallels there?  We don’t know what will happen, but we know what MIGHT happen if we are not careful.

bobw says:

03:50am | 04/10/10

@Mike:  Your rigorous, exhaustive and conclusive analysis of the science is very reassuring.  When will you be announcing the cure for cancer?

@Tom:  If you’re genuinely concerned that financial considerations have distorted public debate, I trust you have made yourself aware of the efforts of some interest groups threatened by the transition to a lower-carbon economy to obfuscate the science?  They’re well-documented.

@Bigos:  Have you actually seen the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report?  It’s full of data, and incorporates reference to scores of published studies and academic papers.  There’s no shortage of documentation, and “the evidence for and against” is readily accessible.  What exactly are you asking for?

Charles says:

07:56am | 04/10/10

Northern Steve; the IPCC’s own figures say that of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, the anthropgenic portion is only slightly more than 3%.  This means that everything in your hypothesis is totally incorrect.

It is not often that someone gets so many things wrong in just one short paragraph.  It could be some sort of record.

Of course I don’t count Persephone in that, as she is not of this world.

Muzz says:

10:32am | 04/10/10

@Northern Steve. Did I suggest that CO2 in the atmosphere was not causing global warming? I don’t recall saying that.  The point I was trying to make was it’s not being caused by us.  Our contribution is too small to have any effect. The other point I was trying to make is that no matter how moralistic you or anyone else get with that per capita stat, electricity is going to continue to be generated by coal-fired power stations for at least the next 20 years.  Our CO2 emissions from them are just not going to decrease (nor do they need to).

Bigos says:

12:41pm | 04/10/10

Hi bobw. Yes I’m very curious about this subject so I have read the reports. I’m assuming you have also, so you’d already know that while studies are published in the reports, the raw data for those studies is not. That’s what I was referring to. Basically I believe the only way to have a real debate on this subject is to have ALL the data available to everyone so that it can be scrutenized by everyone.

Northern Steve says:

11:46pm | 04/10/10

@Charles - reference please.  I have tried to find that info in some sort of report, but couldn’t.  If you do, please link it.

Having said that, the climate is not linear.  A 3% increase in the CO2 will produce some (perhaps small) warming effect.  Any warming in the earth will also warm the ocean, which will reduce its ability to absorb CO2, which will be released into the air - sort of a positive feedback system.  The extra CO2 from the ocean, while not of human origin, still causes more heating to occur.  More heating, warmer oceans, more CO2 and the cycle can take off - it’s called the runaway greenhouse effect and is likely responsible for the high temperatures on Venus.

Funnily enough, CO2 molecules don’t have labels stating if they are human or natural in origin.  There is still significantly more CO2 than in previous times, and the atmospheric temperature is trending upwards when you look at significantly long periods of time.

Northern Steve says:

11:56pm | 04/10/10

@Muzz
Yes we only produce 1.3% of the world’s CO2.  Can I put that in another way?  Of the 200 odd countries, there are only 13 that produce more CO2 than us.  That’s not per capita, that’s total We produce marginally more than Indonesia (which has a population of 250 million).

If we were to produce 5 times the CO2 (a level you seem to think is acceptable), we would be third in the world, and ahead of Russia, Japan, India and Germany.  Something to aspire to no doubt!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions

Muzz says:

09:00am | 05/10/10

@Northern Steve. Thank you for that link and you are quite right.  Assuming all other countries’ outputs stay the same we would would rise to #3. Sounds horrible but in reality our hypothetical five fold increase would only increase total world emmisions by 5.5% and our increase would be 6.9%.  I claim that anything under 10% is not significant.  I fail to see how there can be any change to the situation unless the US and to a lesser extent China, reduces its emissions dramatically.

Northern Steve says:

10:38pm | 05/10/10

@Muzz,
So with 0.3% of the population, you think that we can produce anything up to 10% and it’s okay?  To do so, you are effectively telling other countries that they cannot industrialise, reducing their standard of living, health, wealth etc.  A little greedy, yes?
And China has already set a reduction target of 20% by 2020, the USA is on the way to an ETS, and Europe is about to start taxing imports from polluting countries like us.  We are already behind the world, and it will start costing us dollars and jobs in the very near future.

N8 says:

12:15pm | 04/10/10

PaulB it is because the solution fits neatly in the economic and social philosophies of those putting them forward. Who knew that you could fix global warming/climate change by taxing the crap out of business?! Wow, what a convenient discovery for those that want to do this anyway.

I ask the question why the hell does Labor, a party that was born of the whole union movement, who historically has only really cared about workplace relations issues and wealth redistribution, why do they care about climate change? Before KR no one in the Labor party had ever uttered the phrase climate change and yet now they are all true believers? Why is it that only the really socialist groups are the ones pushing for this? What is more likely that Labor are pushing the same old wealth redistribution cart that they always have or they have suddenly all converted

The real telling sign in this is that if anyone was really interested in a solution to this we would be looking at mining our uranium supplies and selling them to countries that use masses of coal. Because on a global scale, Australia’s emissions are of little matter in the scheme of things, but if we sold uranium to say India, then we can make a massive difference on a world scale and make money at the same time. But this is where those that really believe in climate change and those that have hijacked it for other agendas part ways, because this helps on the issue of carbon without redistributing wealth.

persephone says:

12:35pm | 04/10/10

N8

The people who recommend ‘taxing the hell out of business’ to tackle climate change are world economists and institutions such as the IMF.

This is because it is the most economically effective way of encouraging industry to reduce their emissions.

And no, climate change isn’t a new discovery for Labor. Action on climate change was in their 2004 policy platform.

As for ‘only socialist groups pushing for this’ - Maggie Thatcher was one of the first global leaders to push for action on the issue.

N8 says:

02:27pm | 04/10/10

Wow Persephone, a whole 6 years for Labor. It’s practically a founding issue.

As for the IMF the life blood of any international institution is prominence and by extension influence and power. You really expect me to believe that they are some shining light of economic independence and free thought? They are glorified bureaucrats and they have an angle like everyone else in this debate. Like all independent bodies the IMF only survives if people care what they have to say. Big companies don’t have the market cornered on greed; government departments, peak bodies and international organisations are all more than capable of self interest.

I mean really what is more likely, that this whole thing is being driven by great and upstanding moral crusaders that want to save the world from mankind? Or that it is just human beings being greedy and power hungry as they always have been, but they have just dressed it up a bit?

persephone says:

08:03am | 05/10/10

N8

...or that there is a recognisable threat to our economy and our way of living and action needs to be taken?

N8 says:

10:29am | 05/10/10

That’s right Persephone and of course it is only by merit that a currency regulator backs a massive regulatory shift as the best way to combat CC rather than a shift to the only other base load power generation available, nuclear power.

I mean what exactly do you expect a carbon price to do? There are currently two forms of power generation capable of producing base load power; one is coal, the other is nuclear. We have a ban on nuclear power and yet put a price on the carbon produced from coal. This leaves you three ways of reducing the tax you pay on carbon;

1 - Don’t produce power (Do I really need to say why this isn’t a solution?).

2 - Become more efficient - which is fundamentally limited as even if you reduce your emissions from coal by 50% (which is a huge ask) you are still producing a whole heap of carbon emissions.

3 - Invent new power sources – I mean come on, who bets the farm on something we don’t know if we will be able to do? Surely as an environmentalist, don’t you at least want some assurance that we will actually be able to achieve what we set out to do?

Why is no one being a bit pragmatic about this and look to work within our limitations? I mean if we only have two current forms of real substantial power generation, then why not admit that while uranium has its problems it is the cleanest we have. Australia takes its bans off nuclear power and its limits off uranium mining, and we move to the best option currently available.

There are issues with this I know, but I can’t see anything insurmountable other than the problem that this doesn’t lead to wealth redistribution or increased regulation, which are the chief goals of the groups that can actually implement any changes.

persephone says:

12:41pm | 05/10/10

N8
the IMF is saying nothing about the type of energy sources countries should use, because that’s not their brief. They are giving advice about the economic levers countries should pull.

Whether nuclear comes along as a solution - and I haven’t said a word against it, although I understand the timelines are too short for the task at hand -  will be a market driven decision taken by energy companies as a reaction to economic circumstances.

To make it simple: if nuclear is the best way to go, we will go there, because that’s where the energy companies will direct their investments.

That that doesn’t seem to be something they’re agitating for or recommending, whilst investing heavily in wind, solar, geothermal etc, suggests strongly that it isn’t the solution we need.

You limit the field a little by reducing the number of solutions available to us. I think the future will be a little more of a mixed bag than you suggest.

Regardless, in the end, how the problem is solved will largely be decided by the energy producers themselves, responding to the demands of the market.

I agree baseload is a problem. However, I haven’t heard any ‘real’ scientists say we need to get rid of coal altogether, just use it more effectively and reduce our usage.

And you can’t expect the changes you want to see happen without increased regulation, so I’m sorry, that’s a given - even in TonyAbbottland.

TimB says:

01:34pm | 05/10/10

“You limit the field a little by reducing the number of solutions available to us.”

That’s exactly what the government is doing though Persephone. The Greens are dead against Nuclear. Won’t even consider it. The position of both the Labor and the Liberal party seems to be “It’s unpopular with the electorate, so best not to touch it”-  an unfortunate lingering result of Chernobyl induced anti-nuclear hysteria.

As long as the government rules out nuclear as an option, the energy companies can’t invest in it. You can’t have a proper market based solution unless you have a proper open market.

persephone says:

07:18am | 06/10/10

Tim B

if the market wants nuclear as a solution, they’d be lobbying for it - there’d be speeches, TV ads, lobbying of politicians, media releases, etc etc from the energy companies and miners.

That’s part of how a free market works. When there is demand for something, the people who want to fill that demand don’t just sit there quietly saying, “Well, it’s the best suggestion, but we’d have to have the laws changed, so we can’t do it.”

Instead, they do everything they can to have the law changed.

I’m not against nuclear power as a solution, but the best advice I have is that, by the time it was up and running here on a scale to make a difference, it would not only be too late but there would already be other technologies doing the same job.

Getting a community - let alone twenty to thirty - agreeing to allow a nuclear plant to be built in their backyard would be an interesting exercise to start with.

Look at where one would need to be built - near large population centres, on the ocean (unlike the US and Europe, we don’t have large lakes to provide a reliable water supply, crucial to the operation of these plants).

And then look at the outcry that accompanies any development which occurs in areas meeting those criteria.

Northern Steve says:

06:13pm | 02/10/10

How do you make them cheaper?  Government subsidies?  That’s just money from us, the taxpayer, being churned through Canberra, inefficiently.
At this point of time, the cost to us of using fossil fuels does not include the cost of removing CO2 from the environment, or keeping it to natural levels.  There is, in effect, a subsidy on fossil fuels because we are not paying the full cost of the carbon cycle.  It is unfortunate that the only way to reduce the production of CO2 is by putting a price on it (a tax or through an ETS), or by legislating for less use.  And if legislation is used, then we will be forced to buy more expensive alternative energy.
I want to see climate change action, but we cannot expect it to happen without a change in lifestyle or extra cost.

Billy Smith says:

09:26pm | 02/10/10

Northern Steve, I bet you stand to get get a government grant or promotion out of the new tax. Sorry sport, we don’t believe a thing you Labor “mates” say.

Northern Steve says:

09:12pm | 03/10/10

No Billy, I stand to get nothing out of it.
I’m just questioning David’s comments about making alternatives cheaper.  An ETS would do that, a carbon tax wouldn’t.  Rudd should have had the guts to crash through with an ETS last time. Gillard will fluff it like Rudd did once she sees the polls.

Do you actually have a comment about the content of my post, or are you just having a go at me because you got nothing better to contribute?
I think that’s the first time I’ve been accused of being a Labor supporter.

Bill Gorgans goat says:

09:46am | 04/10/10

Billy Smith
This is not a political debate.
I think you will have really pissed off Northern Steve by accusing him of having labor mates.

David C says:

11:40am | 04/10/10

why couldnt you just have a small tax say that works out at 1-3 cents a litre of petrol, less than the weekly price swings. Use the receipts to invest in alternates (they are not renewables) Thus you dont hurt those that can least afford it and you move towards an alternative energy environment.
There seems to be an assumption out there that it has to be done yesterday and has to be wildly expensive, I dont agree. That seems more of a political move as it seems to me to be more aimed at materialism and capitalism. (one of the same i know)
There is huge consensus out there in the populous for alternative energy . You lose that when you start carrying on about catastrophic climate change, something the 10:10 group has just achieved in a big way.

persephone says:

12:29pm | 04/10/10

David C
if those are your requirements, you want an ETS.

It is structured so it doesn’t hurt those who can’t afford it,, with most of the money raised through taxing emitters going back to ordinary taxpayers.

Most people would have benefitted financially - even after factoring in all the price rises - under an ETS. In fact, most would have been better off to the tune of $200 or so a year.

Yes, it should have been done yesterday - as I said in my first post, we’ve already brought into some degree of climate change, because of a failure to act earlier, and that’s why scientists talk of limiting it to 2%, because we can’t stop that happening - and no, it doesn’t have to be wildly expensive.

An ETS works out at the least expensive option for all concerned, which is why all the reputable economists recommend it.

Just an example: because an ETS is off the table, the government is having to look at the ‘next best’ ways of tackling climate change. These all involve a direct cost to the taxpayer, without compensation. These ‘next best’ solutions, in every case, cost hundreds of dollars of taxpayer money for every tonne of emissions reduced.

Under an ETS, it would cost $10 per tonne.

So by not adopting an ETS, we are having to spend at least 10 times as much money for the same results.

Don’t fool yourself it would be any different under the Liberals - their plan commits more taxpayer dollars for less return.

Shane From Melbourne says:

02:33pm | 04/10/10

@persephone- the whole objective is to change individual behaviour towards reducing carbon emissions as well as corporate decision making. There is no incentive for the individual to reduce carbon emissions under a ETS scheme since they cannot be hurt or indeed benefit from it. This was the major flaw in Rudd’s ETS in that it was so watered down with exemptions, exceptions and special considerations that it would have been worse than useless, it would have rewarded them. A Carbon Tax is a more efficient mechanism since it directly influences behaviour, less prone to rorting or evasion, factors in market certainty compared to a volatile ETS market and can set benchmarks.

David C says:

02:53pm | 04/10/10

no i want revenue to go to alternates thats my whole point. schemes to reduce emmissions have not worked to date so get over it. make the alternates cheaper thats the answer .. think the ozone issue

persephone says:

10:36pm | 04/10/10

Shane

yes, there is an incentive to change.

The exemptions complained about were those offered to big business, not the compensation for ordinary householders - the Greens even support that.

You may be receiving more money than you pay out, but it won’t necessarily look that way. You’ll get a bigger tax return, or a better family benefit, but you’ll still get bigger bills.

Human nature says that you’ll want to reduce those bills.

After all, if I gave you $100 to spend on petrol for the next couple of weeks, I’m sure you’d still look around for the cheapest you could get, so that you could keep part of that $100 for other things.

David C

The problem is that renewables simply can’t do the job at present, it isn’t just a matter of cost. We don’t have sources of electricity which can run big factories 24/7 reliably (even the hydro we have is usually used as a top up). We need time to develop the alternates and we need incentives to do so.

You talk as if we’ve been working on this for decades, instead of a few years.

There isn’t a quick and easy fix which will cost comparitively little. If there was, there wouldn’t be a problem.

Nicole says:

09:34pm | 02/10/10

But, but, Jade, putting a tax on everything is the answer to, well, everything. Labor is just sooooo right, because taxing carbon is most certainly going to stop climate change. Now be a good little lamb and get with the program.

Jade says:

01:07pm | 03/10/10

Oh silly me! Of course tax’s fix everything! How could I forget! :/

Ask a stupid question says:

06:48pm | 03/10/10

Tax’s what fix everything, silly Jade ?

persephone says:

07:38pm | 03/10/10

Jade & Nicole

Abbott’s plan has taxpayers paying out more money for less result. So far he hasn’t explained (oh surprise!) how he is going to fund this.

It appears to be another example of Liberal party Magic Pudding economics - they can spend more without cutting anything and without raising taxes.

Almost everything in the Liberal party’s Direct Action plan will happen anyway under a carbon pricing system, at a cheaper cost to the taxpayer.

bobw says:

04:06am | 04/10/10

“It is old”?!  Well, that settles it then.

Nicole says:

11:09am | 04/10/10

Peoples, as I have stated, tax will fix everything. Do you think Labor can rush a tax on rain and floods? It’s been pouring rain here for three days, roughly 250mm, more is on the way and we’re about to flood again. That should fix it.

bobw says:

01:01pm | 04/10/10

@Nicole:  Repeating yourself and introducing what can only be described as a bizarre attempt at analogy does not make your scattergun sarcasm any more persuasive.  Do you understand how carbon pricing is intended to operate on the economy?  Do you have any specific point to make as to its likely efficacy?

Nicole says:

02:09pm | 04/10/10

My point is bobw, is that taxing carbon is not going to stop climate change. It’s just another tax grab by Labor. Obviously you believe that it will, so can you explain to me just how it’s going to change a thing?

bobw says:

04:01am | 05/10/10

@Nicole:  That’s not really an argument, though, is it?  It’s just an assertion, and essentially an assertion of conspiracy, no less (“The real purpose of X is Y”).  It’s hardly unreasonable to suggest that some kind of substantiation may be called for. 

As for my opinion, you’re wrong to assume that I believe an Australian carbon pricing mechanism will of itself “stop climate change”.  On the contrary, no one could seriously believe that; it’s just straw man stuff, and the contemporary Australian situation is self-evidently part of a larger picture.  To be honest, I’m not sure whether you’re railing against a carbon tax as such or the concept of carbon pricing more generally, but either way, the basic idea is that a well-implemented pricing mechanism will realign market forces so as to privilege less carbon-intensive activities and shift patterns of investment and consumption in relevant sectors.  This kind of thinking is hardly economically unorthodox.  I’m curious as to whether you have a specific reason for regarding it as necessarily untenable.

Muzz says:

02:31pm | 03/10/10

I totally agree Wayne. Pre-election, Julia’s committee was to be called a “citizens assembly” to see if a consensus could be reached on the need for a price on carbon. It now seems the Greens have persuaded her that there already is a consensus and all that is needed is a committee to determine what form the price should take. Looks like this committee has gone from a democracy to an old style Communist concept of democracy, where only one party (viewpoint) was allowed, the Communist party, with the “democratic” freedom to vote for the Communist candidate of your choice.

persephone says:

07:42pm | 03/10/10

The findings of the committee will be put into legislation and go to Parliament, where the democratically elected MPs can reject it if they choose.

I don’t see how that isn’t democracy.

For the entire history of the Westminster system, groups have got together to draft legislation to go to Parliament. For example, a group of Coalition MPs met regularly a few years ago to put pressure on the government to reduce taxes. I don’t recall anyone claiming this was undemocratic, despite the fact they hadn’t taken their ideas to an election and no members of any other party were invited to participate.

Tom says:

09:28pm | 02/10/10

Anyone would thing you are a legitimate government nosthow the way you crow.

PaulB says:

09:17am | 03/10/10

You think Marius Kloppers is suddenly a climate change true believer?  I think he’s an opportunistic CEO looking to position his company for the political future he believes is coming, not the climate future.

nosthow says:

11:23am | 03/10/10

@Tom - sworn in by the Govenor General of Australia Tommy old pea - cant get more legitimate than that ! Enjoy.

Ask a stupid question says:

12:48pm | 03/10/10

What do you thing (sic) a “legitimate” Government is, Tom ?

Muzz says:

02:21pm | 03/10/10

I think you’ve got something there nosthow.  Instead of saying “Climate change is crap.” Tones as you so “kindly” call him needs to declare “A price on carbon and an ETS is crap.”

nosthow says:

05:50pm | 03/10/10

@Muzz - newsflash buddy - he already has - Tones thinks everything is crap except him becoming PM and thats never going to happen!  hahaaaaaaaaa

Tom says:

08:14pm | 03/10/10

@Ask a stupid question. Legitimate is a clear majority and a mandate Anyone for the swear jar?

Both of you probably squealed like stuck pigs when George W was sworn in. Go on tell me you didn’t, nosthow.

By the way its not climate change that is crap. Based on evidence, it is an unknown. Based on bombast, its a shoe in. And, as usual, all you Labor drones can think about is taxing someone.

Muzz says:

10:14am | 04/10/10

@nosthow. Thanks for the update “buddy”.  I didn’t know that Abbott had said everything is crap, but I’m glad to hear that he has stated the obvious that “a price on carbon and an ETS is crap.

Ask a stupid question says:

04:52pm | 04/10/10

Are you the last person in Australia who still doesn’t understand the Westminster system of Government, Tom ?

Can anyone be bothered explaining it for him, yet again, because I can’t.

persephone says:

10:24am | 04/10/10

You’re right, Patrick. Because it would be a very short list compared to the number of scientists, from all disciplines, who agree that climate change is a real problem which must be tackled now (if not yesterday).

acotrel says:

05:28am | 04/10/10

[acotrel - this and other comments of yours have been cut for unnecessary and silly use of capitals. See http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/why-were-banning-reader-comments-in-silly-capitals/ cheers - mods]

fairsfair says:

09:44am | 04/10/10

This is the new religion. I guess we best get used to it.

Have you noticed that inner city trendies who think debating “the real issues” and tree huggers are generally athiests or non practicing? “They” have to instill fear into the majority somehow.

Jesus is not coming again - Climate Change will get us first - quick, give us all your money. The only difference is, they aren’t handing round the plate - they are just going to take it.

Old Bloke says:

02:59pm | 04/10/10

Fairsfair, I have noticed that it is city based people who express the greatest fear of so called climate change! 
Yet they are the least exposed to it, sort of supports my initial comment.

persephone says:

10:39pm | 04/10/10

Old Bloke
I’ve interviewed lots of farmers on the issue - they know the climate is changing, but they’re really not interested in the cause, just whether the change is permanent and what they need to if it is.
Out here in the regions - especially coming out of one of the most devastating droughts in Australian history - the impacts of climate change are very real.
I know farmers who have ripped out permanent crops and will not replant them, because they recognise that the local climate will no longer support them.

elhombre says:

08:24pm | 02/10/10

Good God you semi literate labour trolls are tedious. It is obvious that there is a vast array of issues and competencies that are “beyond you”, beginning with basic spelling. Get the ALP to lend you a dictionary, fool.

Sven Gali says:

10:22pm | 02/10/10

Speaking of tedious semi literate trolls and fools, elhombre, it’s spelt Labor.

Nickinoz says:

10:36am | 03/10/10

Ironic.  It is only spelled “Labor” because earlier Labour voters couldn’t spell Labour and kept misspelling it as “labor”.  So, the decision was made to go with what the Labour voters wanted rather than what was correct.

Sound familiar?

Sven Gali says:

11:53am | 03/10/10

Yes, Nickinoz. A Coalition supporter with no idea is very familiar.

Do your homework.

http://www.alp.org.au/australian-labor/labor-history/

elhombre says:

02:07pm | 03/10/10

Hey Sven, do you seriously think that dropping a vowel hides the fact that 70% of your front bench are ex-union officials? I’ve got to stop baiting you fools with this one, it’s just too easy and you fall for it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Muzz says:

02:36pm | 03/10/10

Hooray for the new religion of climate change for giving rise to such priceless comments.  All the rest no doubt we’ll have to put on Mastercard if we have the misfortune to have a price on carbon foisted on us.

Sven Gali says:

06:54pm | 03/10/10

Oh, so you meant to be a tedious semi literate troll, elhombre ? Yeah, right.

elhombre says:

01:06pm | 04/10/10

Is that all you’ve got “Sven” ? You’re not really very bright are you?? What is it about labo(u)r voters and low IQ? At least James Hunter has admitted defeat and shut up. When are you going to let go of these delusions of mediocrity and do the same “Sven” ?

bobw says:

05:34am | 03/10/10

Superb argument there, BobM, mesmerising stuff.  Your vast intellect is on show for all to see.  Well done.

BobM says:

12:41pm | 03/10/10

Bobw - so that’s the best reply you could come up with? Wow, what an intellectual giant you are - not.

Gillard before the election “there will be no carbon tax under a Gillard Labor government.”  After the election, well, all Australia can see that Bob Brown is really the PM and Julia is just spinning as fast as she can to keep her job. Yes Bob, No Bob, Three Bags Full Bob - anything you say Bob. A car bob tax? Yes Bob….....and on it goes. Why she bothers to call herself the PM is beyond me. But then, why anyone even votes for these Labor clowns…...??

elhombre says:

02:15pm | 03/10/10

That’s far too harsh BobM, Sophie is young and therefore gets a free pass to hold whatever soft headed, soft hearted and partially informed position she likes on whatever issue she likes. She is obviously intelligent and will mature. I have no argument with anyone under the age of 25 voting labour or greens. It would be hard not to with the way they are bombarded with leftard propoganda through their entire education. Anyone over the age of 25, however, should be shot for treason !

bobw says:

02:31am | 04/10/10

I suggest you re-read your original comment, BobM.  It consisted of:  (a) a generalised assertion that the policies of the Gillard government are “stupid”; and (b) a baseless and unexplained personal attack on Sophie Trevitt.  In the circumstances, there was nothing substantive to “reply” to.

persephone says:

07:00pm | 02/10/10

The country wasn’t divided last time -an overwhelming majority wanted some kind of price on carbon and were willing to pay for it.

I also don’t see how this is in conflict with the new paradigm - the Liberals are free to participate if they want.

The bottom line is that there is a clear majority of MPs in Parliament who are in favour of setting a carbon price. They’re sitting down together to work out what they can put together as legislation which they can all agree on.

The Liberals (who, for all their dogwhistling, are not brave enough or stupid enough - take your pick - to deny that climate change is happening) can either play a part or not. It’s their choice.

The committee will come up with legislation which will have no trouble passing both Houses (as it will wait for the new Senate to come in before it presents it).

It will happen whether the Liberals are involved or not.

So the Liberals have two choices: be involved, and have some say in what the final legislation looks like, ensuring that the concerns of their constituents are taken into account; or stay out of the process and be totally irrelevant.

Sven Gali says:

10:30pm | 02/10/10

If the Greens had supported it, Steve, we’d already have an ETS. Let’s see what they do this time. The Coalition can remain irrelevant.

Thor says:

07:57am | 03/10/10

In answer to Northern [Labor Delegate] Steve:
1) “[Rudd] got a thumping majority, significantly based on the promise of an ETS”
Just as well you put in the word –significant –though it still doesn’t cut it. His majority was more to do with his anti-work choices and Howard’s staleness.
As Labor well knows, as they used the same anti-work choices scare tactic this election –while all the time maintaining that it was Abbott who was resorting to scare tactics—LOL.

2) “This topic is too important to become a political football.  Maybe it’s time for Gillard to stop preaching and start practising the new paradigm if she wants a lasting legacy. “

Come now,  what you really mean to say is : “such things should not be left up to the plebs , let ‘em eat cake, we’ll tell ‘em how you vote.All they need do is pay the new carbon tax and shut up.

Northern Steve says:

09:27pm | 03/10/10

Wow!  I’ve been accused of being a Labor mate twice in one day!
The point persephone is that Labor has been more interested in playing politics than achieving some sort of carbon price.  If they had actually talked to the Greens last time instead of being busy playing wedge politics, we would have had an ETS.  Bob Brown is on record as saying he could not get in to see Rudd for about 8 months during the ETS debate in the last parliament.  The new paradigm runs two ways persephone - Gillard needs to ensure that if she wants the coalition on board (I mean really wants, not just wants to look like she wants them on board) she needs to make their inclusion politically acceptable.  A committee with a more open outcome would have made it impossible for Abbott not to send Turnbull along, which would have been a much greater platform for real success, not just political grandstanding.  As it is now, she will have to rely on the Greens and whatever crackpot additions they add to the scheme.  Probably banning goldfish as pets or something.

@Thor, yes there were other elements too, but the ETS was one of the major policy pushes by Rudd in the 07 election.  You could not have voted for them being unaware they intended to create it.  And they got a resounding majority from ‘the plebs’ as you put it.

Northern Steve says:

09:30pm | 03/10/10

And pers, ‘firmly divided’ as the country was firmly divided by the time Rudd came to introduce the ETS legislation to parliament.  The people were not divided at the time of the election.  He somehow lost the support of the people for an ETS in the space of 2 years.

persephone says:

10:45am | 04/10/10

NS

I can’t see the point of the government skirting around the issue anymore. They’ve tried going down the ‘let’s make it easy for the Coalition to be involved’ route, only to have the legislation agreed on by both parties rejected.

Why would you invite them to the table again after that? Especially as they will have the numbers without them.

And NS, your statements aren’t borne out by any polling I’m aware of. There was majority support for action of climate change in 2007; there was still majority support for action when the Liberals rejected their own legislation in 2009. And there still is now.

A Neilson poll at the end of November 2009 found that 66% of Australians wanted an ETS introduced, including 52% of Liberal voters.

This is why, of course, the Liberals had to very quickly back away from their ‘climate change is crap’ line and come up with their own alternative.

So the only ‘people’ Rudd lost support of with this issue was the Coalition, who knifed their own leader rather than pass the legislation.

Which raises a more general question: are the anti climate change posters here voting for some other party other than the Liberals? Or do they think the Liberals are lying to them, and that that’s OK?

Northern Steve says:

10:41pm | 05/10/10

Don’t forget pers that Rudd also lost the support of the Greens in the last parliament.  They could have passed the ETS for him, but didn’t.  He was too busy playing politics to pay attention to real policy.
I don’t know about your stats, you got a link?  I’m pretty sure they ditched the ETS because public opinion swung away and they were scared it would lose them the election.  No reason not to push on then if they had support.  I’m going to call you on that statement.

persephone says:

07:30am | 06/10/10

Rudd didn’t lose the Greens support on an CPRS - he never had it.

They consistently refused to negotiate, basically saying that they’d talk to the government as long as it agreed with them.

As for stats - look at

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/100204 Climate Change + CPRS.pdf

- for evidence of the change over time. Yes, support has dropped, but it’s still 57%, majority support in anyone’s language.

What happened was that, once the Senate had made it clear that they weren’t going to pass even the watered down legislation agreed to by the Coalition (and remember, Rudd gave them another chance to demonstrate that this was the case), it was clear that no CPRS would get through under the present Senate.

So, from February this year onwards, the government’s position has been to continue to work towards a CPRS but, whilst waiting for that to happen (which requires, at the very least, the new Senate next July to be up and running) to take alternative action.

The CPRS is still Labor’s policy.

Northern Steve says:

10:36pm | 06/10/10

Cheers for the link pers, but it doesn’t work.
I still think Rudd shouldn’t have blinked.  Should have gone to double dissolution.  Or should have worked with Bob Brown.  Brown is on record as saying he couldn’t get in to see Rudd during the 8 month period around the CRPS debate.
I don’t think you could justify saying that Labor’s policy is still for the CRPS.  I would believe that some individuals still want the CRPS, I have no doubt about that.  Publicly though they certianly didn’t go to an election stating they would introduce a CRPS.  They’re all over the shop at the moment, which is unfortunate.

Tom says:

09:35pm | 02/10/10

Its all right. James. Labor stooges still manage to blog too often for my liking. Problem is none of your Labor slogan chanting drongos work for a living. And BTW, life is so full of disappointments when you are part of an amoral “whatever it takes” conga line.

THor says:

08:23am | 03/10/10

Yeh right,  James, those Libs are real party poopers .
They should just butt out and leave the governing to you lot! You Laborites are the born leaders –you’ve been running successful enterprises for years—like NSW Inc and QLD Sink ( Whops!) I mean Inc.
And you’ve got a much tried and test formula: start off with a “committee” , stack it to the brim with compliant little yes-persons. Go through the perfunctory rituals, then after a long (publicly funded) tea and bikkies you reach a unanimous decision—Whoopee!

Angry God says:

09:49am | 03/10/10

Funny, I find the number of arrogant semiliterate laboring trolls that repeatedly post, the most annoying problem. They never actually discuss the core of the issue, just make nasty comments about the Coalition and smirk like sneers at their supporters which highlights their own bias and ignorace of facts rather than create, construct and discuss the issue at hand. That they prefer to only hear from their own chorus is typical of the close minded neo-socialist mindset that you exhibit with startling clarity.

LibStooge says:

01:22pm | 03/10/10

Seems to be more and more Liberal stooges as Labor keep proving what a lost cause they are. 3 Cheers for the Liberal stooges and converts! Hip Hip Horray!

elhombre says:

02:32pm | 03/10/10

Hmm, I suspect James has gotten all flustered and is attempting a rebuttal to my slightly short tempered post criticising his basic literacy. I must confess that I have a habit of spelling the registered name of the political arm of the ACTU as “labour” because it is an easy “come in spinner” tactic on these sorts of forums. It works EVERY SINGLE TIME. This is laziness on my part but in my defense there is little point trying to reason the issues with a large proportion of your tribal labour voter because they are simply not amenable to reason. Any labour voter that is amenable to reason no longer votes labo(u)r ! So that is my excuse Jimmy poos, you’re dumb and I like making fun of you.

elhombre says:

01:58pm | 04/10/10

Oh, and the ‘el hobo’ attempt at personal abuse is so cute. I have time to needle these labo(u)r retards because I am on holiday and have flown back to my Brisbane home for two short weeks leaving my Dubai villa to the gardener and housemaid. Where do you work James?? Centrelink doesn’t count, fool.

bobw says:

03:55am | 04/10/10

@Chicken Little:  How does the fact that climate can change independent of human influence prove that human influence is incapable of changing the climate?

Northern Steve says:

09:36pm | 03/10/10

Mik, it raises the temperature because an atom absorbing a photon of visible light will then emit a photon of infrared light.  Infrared light is heat.  So each time light is absorbed and re-emitted, the planet warms up.
Luckily, a lot of that re-emitted light escapes back out into space.  Except for when it hits a rare CO2 molecule, which reflects it back to earth (a property of CO2 is that it reflects infrared radiation).  The more CO2, the more heat is reflected back to earth.  Hence, as CO2 concentrations increase, the more heat stays in the earth’s atmosphere - the Greenhouse effect.

Paul says:

08:27am | 04/10/10

^ This.

Reg the painter says:

02:11pm | 03/10/10

Amazing how the loonie left still look for some fringe cause to serve. The Unions are now irrelevant, the stabdard of living in Australia is among the worlds best and yet the wet left still look for great causes to support. And guess what? They stumbled on climate change because it can bash those dreaded big corporations and levy another great big tax on everything. It is after all the only legacy Labor has; tax and whining. Forget job creation, financial stability and Nation building; that’s always been the responsibility of business and conservatives.
The FACTS are that carbon levels have been several times higher than the forecast levels projected by the climate change loonies and high carbon levels occurred AFTER periods of high earth temperatures. Not only is there NOT consensus on the effect of high carbon levels, nobody likes to talk about “we’ve been here before” with high crabon levels.
Don’t be fooled by the Greenie loonies (and their stooge Gillard). Tax and communism is all they value.

nosthow says:

05:47pm | 03/10/10

@Reg the painter - gday old fella - looks like you been stiffin some of those paint fumes huh buddy ?

Gregg says:

07:20pm | 03/10/10

So lostnow, we have a redhead able to mouth obscenities with the best of them and drag the new paradigm into the parliament sewer system with sledging the opposition leader and that’s your idea of a smooth competent and tough performer is it, and of course dancing to the tune of nine green bottles on the wall.

Did you see Tony react to the sledging on wrecker?
Would you be happy to hear him refer back to to her as not just having prime ministerial talent for misleading the public in an election campaign, also setting up dictatorial committees but also sleding to drag what should be a high standard of communication down into the gutter!

Feel free to whinge about what her Green leadership will for your future lifestyle quality.

persephone says:

10:48am | 04/10/10

Gregg
simple question: do you think Abbott intends to act on climate change, as he said he would during the election campaign, or do you think he’s lying about it - just as he lied to the independents on parliamentary reform?

BobM says:

09:27am | 04/10/10

Ha ha ha ha ha - you’re a toolhead! Or an airhead - maybe we can put a tax on the vacuum in your head? Oh, there’s nothing there…....

Northern Steve says:

09:53pm | 03/10/10

Yep, looked up “Hockey Stick Illusion” and found this:
“More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century”

So to sum up, there were some statistical anomalies in the original report that created the hockey stick graph, and knowing that, a bunch of investigations that followed and avoided those errors came up with the same conclusion - the earth is currently warming as CO2 levels rise.

Azolla Event - removal of CO2 from the atmosphere makes the earth cool down.  Got it.  So I guess adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes it warm up?  Thought so.

Should I keep going?

David C says:

09:10am | 04/10/10

and “Royal Society UK new uncertainties” and “10:10 no pressure video”

persephone says:

02:12pm | 04/10/10

“Medieval Warming Period”

comes up with quotes like this

‘the temperature data give no support for the global Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.’

The MWP was a largely local phenomena, confined to parts of Europe.

In the same way, people got all excited at how cold some parts of Europe were in their last winter, and ignored the fact that other parts had their hottest winter ever.

zoe says:

03:45pm | 04/10/10

I think I love you

persephone says:

10:52am | 04/10/10

No, and you’ll be waiting for one for the next three years, by which time an emissions scheme will have been agreed on and business will have started to plan for it.

You won’t be able to unravel it once that happens.

The Badger says:

12:04pm | 04/10/10

Nothing wrong with the home insulation project.

Something wrong with doge installers not adhering to OH&S regulations.
Time to move on - get with the MG’s, they have.

TimB says:

02:06pm | 04/10/10

Everything wrong with the insulation project Badger.

Yes, it was the dodgy installers who flouted the OH&S laws but it was the governments badly managed plan that allowed the dodgy installers to get a look-in in the first place. The government still bears ultimate responsibility.

BookerT says:

03:39pm | 04/10/10

Very funny persephone. Remember Kevin O’Lemon, you thought he would still be PM today, what a laugh thinking Gillard will still be PM in 6 months let alone 3 years. Once NSW state Labor falls the end is near for Fed minority ALP government.

persephone says:

10:45pm | 04/10/10

Tim B

no, actually most of the cases brought to court so far have involved long established insulation businesses, not fly by nighters.

And Badger is right - the insulation scheme was a great success. It lowered the number of deaths per installation in the industry, improved safety standards, reduced the number of house fires and means that a million homes now have cheaper electricity bills.

BookerT, by what possible stretch of the imagination can you see the fall of NSW labor leading to a change in the Federal government?

I’d really be interested in you explaining that one.

The Badger says:

12:35pm | 04/10/10

What should we do in the 10 years it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running Shane?
Nothing?

TimB says:

01:44pm | 04/10/10

Only thing we can do Badger. Go on with coal.

What else do you think we could possibly do? Renewable won’t cut it, and certainly not in the next 10 years. A carbon tax/levy.whatever is worthless symbolism at best.

Nuclear is the best solution we have now until better technology (such as fusion) comes along in a generation or 2. To argue against it on the basis of “it will take 10 years” is silly. I thought you wanted policies and plans for the future? Well nuclear energy is one of those policies.

Guaranteeing our future energy needs, creation of jobs in a new energy industry, the chance to become world leaders in nuclear science, the ability to make use of our vast Uranium resources, the ability to cut down on all that pesky Cabon that throws the Greens into such a tizzy…it’s a no brainer. Really it is.

Shane From Melbourne says:

02:15pm | 04/10/10

10 years to build and run a nuclear power plant? Not even Australian workmen are that slow (assuming that we had the technical capability). Japanese could build it for us and have it running in about two to three years, tops.

David C says:

03:01pm | 04/10/10

that there is agreement about climate change is true, but there is a large amount of disagreement out there about future climate change which is indeed the big issue

Northern Steve says:

11:32pm | 04/10/10

Shane, try closer to 20-30 years from design to commissioning for a nuclear power plant.  This is a hugely technical feat for which Australia lacks significant engineering practice and experience.  And it’s not as simple as bringing in a few Japanese engineers to run it and expect it to happen quickly.  We don’t have the associated industries, regulatory framework or waste management facilities, to name a few, required to successfully build and run a fully functioning nuclear power plant (Lucas Heights is quite a small affair, and not enough of a start)

TimB says:

07:22am | 05/10/10

20-30 years Steve? I call bullshit.

1938- Nuclear Fission was discovered when the atom was split.

1954- The first grid-connected nuclear reactor goes online in the USSR.

16 Years. To go from the achievement of fission, to grid power generation. And you think it will take us 20-30 years to get a reactor up and running despite most of the design & physics work having already been done.

You live in a dream world Steve.

The Badger says:

09:28am | 05/10/10

Northern Steve
10 years according to The Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=iea-energy-climate-change

The Badger says:

09:47am | 05/10/10

Tim
you missed the point. We should be doing something besides building nuclear plants in the next ten years.
Nuclear plants will not meet the needs of all Australians, just like the fibre backbone isn’t going to go by every house.

Northern Steve says:

10:48pm | 05/10/10

Thanks for the link, Badger.
The quote though is ‘at least’ 10 years, and that is in a country with a mature nuclear industry.  We don’t have one.  There are all sorts of supporting industries that need to be developed alongside, skill development, training and so on.  10 years is too short.  I’m willing to admit that 30 years might be a bit long.  Let’s call it 15-20 for the first one?
TimB - the first nuclear reactors were primitive things compared to modern reactors, and relied on very different nuclear reactions and nuclear fuels.  Also much less safe than modern reactors.  Quick, cheap, safe - choose ONE.

For the record, I’m for nuclear power in Australia, you just need to be realistic that it can’t be built ‘overnight’

The Badger says:

12:13pm | 06/10/10

I agree Steve it would take 20 plus years to get one up and running on the grid.

persephone says:

10:51pm | 04/10/10

Mick
and the reason the Y2K bug didn’t cause major problems (it did cause problems) was because the world recognised it was a threat and acted on it.

It’s an example of how co operative global behaviour can avert catastrophes, so it’s a perfect analogy for climate change.

Carbon dioxide is toxic, btw - try googling it. Better still, try breathing it.

David C says:

08:02am | 05/10/10

pers it is toxic but at levels way above what we can even dream of., like 8000ppm . if we burnt all the known fossil fuel reserves out there we would struggle to get to 560ppm

persephone says:

09:27am | 05/10/10

Mick quite clearly said that carbon dioxide was not toxic. This is quite clearly wrong. That’s what we’re correcting here.

At what levels it causes problems regarding warming is quite a different matter and has nothing to do with whether it’s toxic or not.

It could be totally harmless to humans - a non toxin - and still cause global warming.

This is, of course, where the strawman argument about its toxicity falls down.

TimB says:

01:27pm | 04/10/10

You know how people without any actual arguments have a habit of playing the man and not the ball?

Badger’s taken that one step further and is playing a man who isn’t even present in this article.

Kudos Badger, your irrational hatred will take you far.

fairsfair says:

02:21pm | 04/10/10

Though interesting to say the least, that still doesn’t answer the question we are all currently asking ourselves…

How did you get to be so full of bullsh*t?