In the mid-eighteenth century, coal engines did not only power factories and illuminate streets; they fired up entire nations. Burning coal allowed for material production to explode.

Our collective sunburn from the weekend could power a third-world country…

It facilitated the development of the quintessential assembly line necessary to produce building materials like iron to build infrastructure and allowed for the mass production boom. Burning coal allowed goods to be transported across countries and saw diaspora from pastoralist lifestyles to the thick smog of the city for employment.

In 1863 Sydneysiders saw electricity in action for the first time with the illumination of a battery powered lamp on Observatory Hill in celebration of the marriage of the Prince of Wales.

Electricity proliferated gradually and by 1904 Sydney was the down-under version of the City of Light when gas was replaced with coal-powered electricity and Sydney’s streets were finally switched on. Today, we cannot imagine it otherwise.

The problem, is that ‘imagining it otherwise’ is precisely what we have to do if we are going to avoid the cataclysmic impacts of a rapidly warming world.

This week here in Doha, Qatar youth from around the world wrote an open letter to UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres demanding that the big industry interests holding back the negotiation process be removed. 

They argue that the very raison d’etre of the oil, coal and gas heavy weights is contrary to the purpose of the climate negotiations – to reduce carbon emissions in order to limit global warming to a 1.5C – 2C increase. They have a point.

It is somewhat akin to big tobacco sitting on the board of the Lung Foundation and determining safe levels of smoke inhalation.

Australia, like many other countries, has an uncomfortable history with corporate interests influencing political decision-making. The most obvious example of big corporations and Government getting a little too cozy is the asbestos debacle which culminated in the James Hardie compensation cases in the 1990s.

The Northern Territory Government and successive Queensland governments have been accused at the very least of turning a blind eye to severe and, in many cases, terminal consequences of asbestos exposure.  At worst, the government has faced recent allegations that it has been complicit in its silence.

Even our free press has felt the hot breath of corporate power on the back of its neck when Gina Rinehart grasped at seats on the Fairfax board. 

When corporate heavy weights are filling their coffers through the exploitation of the very thing, which in the case of climate change, is compromising the fabric of our future; and when they have an uncanny knack of keeping governments on side through meaty political donations and multi-million dollar advertising campaigns; it is understandable that the youth in Doha want them as far away from the negotiating table as possible.

Perhaps it is also time for Australia to eliminate the cronyism from Canberra and sever the unsavory relationships that keep us dependent on coal.

We have grown up in a young country founded on coal but it is time to envision a different future.

The Climate Commission last week released the report ‘Generating a Renewable Australia’ which found that the renewable capacity within Australia is currently underutilized.

Not only is renewable energy becoming more and more affordable, but with the rate of growth in wind power exceeding any other major power source, Australia is well placed to capitalize on the strong foundations that have already been laid.

As the sunniest and one of the windiest countries in the world; using these abundant and self-replenishing sources of energy seems more logical than digging up a finite, rapidly depleting and environmentally harmful substance from the earth.

Evidently a switch from coal to renewables is not quite as simple as replacing an incandescent light bulb with a florescent one. But it is not the impossible task the coal industry would like us to think it is. And, if you believe every major science academy in the world, it is an absolutely necessary one.

Our current renewable energy industry provides us with a good indication of what could be possible if we supersized the industry. We are currently on track to meet our 2020 renewable energy targets with the number of wind farms in Australia growing to 767.

The cost of solar panels has dropped by 75 per cent. Considering the fact that only 0.3 per cent of Australia’s land surface would need to be devoted to solar generation to supply all of Australia’s domestic needs; the solar industry is ripe with untapped potential.

For the first time ever the world is investing more money in renewable energy than in oil, gas or coal and it is time for Australia to jump on the bandwagon that it could well be leading.

In light of Australia’s ample natural renewable resources there are only really two possible reasons why Australia could be so reluctant to take strong, decisive action on climate change.

The first is that we are irrationally attached to the romanticized image of the Australian chimney sweep. Unlikely, since the image of the gold miner or the first explorer are far more attractive and we hardly have a population of Australians attached to the idea of finding gold in the backyards or discovering new pockets of weathered Australian terrain.

The second, is that the Government is not simply thinking about the longevity of the planet, or the health and economic stability of future generations or even the refugee crisis climate change is likely to precipitate within our region. Instead, they are acting in the interests of the coal industry who bring in short-term export profits whilst compromising the sustainability of our entire planet.

It’s a tough one.

My guess, is that if the renewable energy big wigs (who happen to be scientists, economists and the like) could press down just as heavily on the shoulders of our parliamentarians, Australia might be quite a different place.

The carbon price legislated at the end of last year was a commendable first step; and Australia’s decision to sign up for the second Kyoto commitment period here in Doha, Qatar is positive.

However, weak carbon emission targets are not enough to do our fair share in dealing with the immanent climate crisis. It’s time for our government to display courage and integrity, and decide to prioritise long-term national and global security over fattening the wallets of the domestic coal lobby.

Comments on this post close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented

202 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • FlyOnTheWall says:

      04:51am | 05/12/12

      You lost me at; “Rapidly warming world”. Which world is that? Certainly not this one. Hello, even your beloved Met Office says that warming has gone nowhere in 16 years, which is about the same am amount of time that mild warming caused this scare mongering… when will you people admit you have no idea what you’re talking about - it’s pretty clear to most people already.
      When your entire premise as based on lies and exaggeration, is it any wonder people don’t listen to you lot?
      To be blunt, you’re all full of crap!

    • Nick says:

      06:38am | 05/12/12

      The end of the world due to warming is being preached at a school near you as we speak…It will take at least 50 years of non warming before the indoctrinated realize they were conned..

    • George says:

      06:56am | 05/12/12

      In 2011, Perth experienced 50 days over 35 degrees Celsius, the peak of a three-year spike of hot weather which has seen more days over 35C than any other time in the past 30 years

      * One of Australia’s three driest capitals, Perth has experienced a reduction in average annual rainfall between 1952 and 2011

      * Since 1993, Perth, along with Darwin, has experienced the highest rates of sea level rises among major coastal cities, measuring nine to 10 millimetres per year. The global average is three millimetres

    • Mick says:

      07:26am | 05/12/12

      George..with the rest of the world not experiencing warming for the past 16 years,  perhaps the people of Perth should increase the amount of carbon tax they pay to help offset the imbalance over there?

    • Damian says:

      07:26am | 05/12/12

      FlyOnTheWall- you ignorance of publicly available information on how Australia and the rest of world is changing climate wise is clear to see for all. Here is one site that provides information contrary to what you state- http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/

    • L. says:

      07:28am | 05/12/12

      “George says:06:56am | 05/12/12

      In 2011, Perth experienced 50 days over ...”

      You have a reference for that George?

    • Gordon says:

      07:33am | 05/12/12

      I thought dinosoars were extinct but up pops FlyOnTheWall to prove me wrong.

    • FINK says:

      07:53am | 05/12/12

      @George ,
      George, you need to get with the times. It is no longer called “Global Warming” because there is no warming! It is now called “Climate Change” because unlike “Global Warming” it cannot be proved.

    • FlyOnTheWall says:

      07:57am | 05/12/12

      Geez I was crabby this morning when I wrote that… doesn’t change the “full of crap” status of the author, though.
      Wow Gordon, hard hitting response, really put me in my place there, mate!
      If anyone is going to take the word of yet another arts/law student, who happens to be NSW Director for Youth Climate Coalition - they really need to grow up a little.

      Tipping Sophie will pop up as a Greens candidate for a senate spot in a few years… who’d going to give me odds on that?

    • George says:

      08:52am | 05/12/12

      @Fink…I didn’t mention either just the posted the facts as reported on PerthNow

      I have the view it can called whatever.  At the end of the day, believe in it or not, both political parties have a Carbon Policy.  its a matter of deciding which one you want reaching into your wallet. Because if anyone believes that Abbott’s policy will cost taxpayers nothing or less than the current CT they should head to the nearest mental asylum

    • andye says:

      09:16am | 05/12/12

      @FlyOnTheWall: “ello, even your beloved Met Office says that warming has gone nowhere in 16 years”

      No. David Rose said that. The Met Office was forced to come out and say the opposite after yet another money-grubbing denier misrepresented their data to get lots of attention and hits. Even months after this was shown to be total bull****, I guarantee someone will mention it every single time Climate Change comes up in an article.

      Here is the official Met-office statement: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

      These things would be a doddle to check for a real skeptic. Sadly, all we have is fools and confirmation bias.

    • ronny jonny says:

      09:24am | 05/12/12

      @George
      The point you are missing is that Abbots plan can be deferred of cancelled at no cost to the economy, Julias tax on everything will be a difficult beast to kill and no doubt we’ll suffer some damage removing it. But sometimes you have to take a bit of the hosts flesh when removing a cancerous tumour.
      I suspect Mr Abbots strategy is to make noises about his concern for climate change action so as to get some votes from those who believe in it, not that most of the believers would ever vote for him anyway, and then due to mismanagement of the economy by the Labour government we’ll not be in a postion to implement green policies and will in fact have to cut all the b.s. schemes that are running already. So sorry, we can’t afford it just yet, it will be an aspirational target though. Good plan.

    • daniel says:

      09:38am | 05/12/12

      Before people start jumping on George for saying the “facts” came from PerthNow, the data from which the observations are made are from the Bureau of Meteorology.

    • andye says:

      09:51am | 05/12/12

      @ronny jonny: “I suspect Mr Abbots strategy is to make noises about his concern for climate change action so as to get some votes from those who believe in it”

      So Tony is lying about his carbon policy to get votes? Where have I heard that before…

    • FlyOnTheWall says:

      09:56am | 05/12/12

      @andye: The met office blog merely points to projections, and tries again to “hide the decline”.
      What people do not admit, is that AGW is a theory that remains to be proven, or disproved. I’m not suggesting the argument is without merit, but I am suggesting (or stating as fact) that those who buy the theory without question, exaggerate to a massive degree. They do their cause no good.

    • iansand says:

      10:16am | 05/12/12

      OK, FlyOnTheWall.  What do you know that the overwhelming majority of climatologists (who accept anthropogenic climate change as reality) have missed?  What do you know that they don’t?

    • Stephen T says:

      10:45am | 05/12/12

      @George: Perhaps Tectonic shift, while everyone focuses on our world climate I hear precious little with respect to the series of earthquakes and upheavals the world and our region has experienced.  I would be interested if anyone has definite knowledge concerning the effects of regular seismic activity on the measurement being discussed.

    • ronny jonny says:

      10:49am | 05/12/12

      @andye
      Yes but in this case the end would justlfy the means.

    • andye says:

      10:54am | 05/12/12

      @FlyOnTheWall - “Hide the decline”? What has this got to do with the decline in high altitude northern hemisphere tree rings since the 60s?

      After all, that is what the famous “hide the decline” quote is about. I bet you did not know that. Most people who use that quote haven’t the foggiest idea what it was actually about.

      What is amusing with the Met office thing is that David Rose was using the standard trick of only charting from 1997, which was one of the hottest years ever recorded. This no longer works. Even from 1997 there is a slight increase.

      Just to be clear: THERE IS NO LONGER A DECLINE, EVEN WHEN CHERRY PICKING THE YEAR 1997. YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

    • PJ says:

      11:20am | 05/12/12

      Not even the Gillard Government believes it own Socialist Greens any longer. This is evidenced by:

      The Gillard Government has cut back subsidies for rooftop solar panels in a bid to save 8 million Australian households up to $100 million in electricity costs next year.

      The Gillard Government dropped it’s ‘Cash For Closure’, where he paid to close Coal Fired Power Stations. This was the key piece of the Carbon Emissions strategy, but now dropped.

      The Gillard Government removed the $15 per tonne floor price in favour of $7.60, thereby cutting it’s Green plans by 50%.

      Even in 2030 Coal will hold 27.7% of the energy market, compared to Renewables at 6%. No point in us sacrificing our economy for a Naive Common room dream plan, while the rest of the world gets rich on traditional fossil fuel energy.

    • thruthehaze says:

      11:22am | 05/12/12

      @andye: I wonder if you actually read the article in your link or just hoped that no one else would. Because it doesn’t say that the claim that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 16yrs is wrong. It just tries to change the subject. Its pretty standard among the warmoholics ...if you run the numbers and find a warming trend then its the end of the world and we’re all gunna die. But if you don’t find a warming trend then just look for something else to prove your next research funding application should be approved.
      There has been no warming trend in the past decade and a half and no amount of fudging can alter that. Unfortunately for the true believers the data, even data already ‘massaged’ by the Met et al, speaks for itself.

    • thruthehaze says:

      11:26am | 05/12/12

      @iansand : “What do you know that the overwhelming majority of climatologists (who accept anthropogenic climate change as reality) have missed?”

      Well one thing we know is that the claims that the overwhelming majority of climatologists accept anthropological climate change as reality is, like so much of this debate, unsubstantiated assertion without any data to back it up. Whenever I see someone use the silly 97% figure I know I’m dealing with someone who has no concern for the truth.

    • PJ says:

      11:56am | 05/12/12

      How are the declining white Western economies going to persuade the Developing Non White Economies not to have an Industrial revolution on the basis of a theory that remains in most part in flux?

      As our economy slips back, jobs diminish and poverty strikes, Australians are going to resent those Green strategies that were designed to ‘punish them’ to adopt supposed greener domestic solutions, which also sacrificed their economy and for some cost them their jobs.

      Long term the movement to tackle Climate Change will fail. It’s an expensive hobby that requires 100 years of commitment to work.

      And we wont even know whether you are right.

    • Gordon says:

      12:12pm | 05/12/12

      So FOTW, you BELEIVE that!  “If you don’t understand how the world works, then everythings is mysterious to you, and if everything is mysterious you have only BELEIF as an explanation of everything “.
      Go study science instead of writing dangerously uninformed nonsense.

    • andye says:

      12:45pm | 05/12/12

      @thruthehaze: “Because it doesn’t say that the claim that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 16yrs is wrong. It just tries to change the subject”

      Haha, change the subject? We were talking about a DECLINE and now suddenly you are saying “no statistically significant warming in the past 16yrs”? It was a slight increase, and not statistically significant against the long term warming trend. But only when measured from exactly 1997.

      What you are missing here is that It is only statistically insignificant based on the assumption that Climate Change is real and happening. Otherwise it is simply an increase.

      Just to repeat: Your argument only works if climate change is real.

    • iansand says:

      12:50pm | 05/12/12

      thruthehaze - As you are the only person who has mentioned 97%, I can only agree with your sentiments.

      I think we can count the number of climatologist who disagree with anthropogenic change on the fingers of a couple of hands.  There’s Roy Spenser.  Oh, and Ian Plimer (‘cept he’s a geologist).  Then there’s that Anthony Watts character (but he is a TV weatherboy).  Then Jo Nova (‘cept she has no qualifications at all).  And Lord Monckton (but he seems to have invented his qualifications).  There are probably a couple more, but I think that’s it.

    • L. says:

      01:30pm | 05/12/12

      ” think we can count the number of climatologist who disagree with anthropogenic change on the fingers of a couple of hands.”

      No, that isn’t right, not by a long stretch.

      But tell me this Ian, what is a climatologist ?

      It’s a serious question.

      You have heard the name ‘Michael Mann? He’s the guy who come up with the infamous ‘hockey stick’. I mean, he was the poster child of the IPCC in the AR4 release. Does he have qualifications in climatology? Actually, he’s a geo-physicist and mathatician.

      It seems the profession of ‘climatologist’ is a fairly recent thing.. starting about the same time as government grants.

    • thruthehaze says:

      02:02pm | 05/12/12

      @andye: Oh dear, you really don’t understand the issue, do you? And here you are putting your ignorance in writing for all to see…I’m embarrassed for you.
      I’ll try to explain in simple language. When the temperatures are measured there is some level of error. The measurements are only accurate within a certain margin of error. So when global figures are compiled they also have a margin of error. Therefore when year to year trends are calculated they also carry a margin of error.

      So when these trends are determined, we have to take into account that they may not be absolutely accurate. That is where the concept of statistical significance comes in. The idea is to do some complex calculations to determine whether the calculated trend is valid given the margin of error or if it is so small that it falls within the margin of error.

      In very simplistic terms (which ought to right up your alley) if you calculate a trend of + 0.1degrees per decade but the margin of error is 0.2 degrees then you can’t be sure that the trend is real or just an artifact   of the error.

      So (and this is all you need to know for now) if you find a trend that is not statistically significant, then you haven’t actually found anything.

      Hope this helps in your education toward understanding why the whole myth of AGW is, well, a myth.

    • iansand says:

      02:16pm | 05/12/12

      L - Look over there!!!!

      That didn’t work.  I think you had better start naming a few climatologists.

      And you can tell us what you know that the overwhelming majority of climatologists (who accept anthropogenic climate change as reality) have missed?  What do you know that they don’t?

    • George says:

      02:43pm | 05/12/12

      This was a sensible light hearted conversation then along came the party pooper - PJ.  You need to take some chill pills.

      I think the water is deeper over in Perth because the weight of the Liberal Premiers ego.  He lives on the coast in Cottesloe.

      Abbott will tell everyone he is going to repeal the CT if elected.  He will then;
      1.  Claim it is too expensive and difficult to repeal and that it will cost business billions if repealed and “taxpayers’ wiould be the losers so the responsible thing to do is not repeal
      2. Repeal the CT and then claim he cannot implement his Plan because there is no money
      3. Repeal the CT, remove the tax cuts and other compensation and let business keep the CT price increases as profit and then Nah nah naha nah tricked yuh!  I lied and you didn’t get the promise in writing…..

    • L. says:

      02:49pm | 05/12/12

      No Ian, look over here.. in Doha.

      With the climate talks in Doha, Qatar limping along, and support for a new treaty waning among nations in attendance, one might expect spirits to be down among the global warming faithful. But this is not the case.
      Yes, nations like Canada, New Zealand, and Japan seem eager to withdraw from the process. And yes, nature has not been exactly cooperative, with 16 years of no statistically significant warming. However, delegates here at COP 18 remain steadfast in their cause and willing to do almost anything it takes to “save the earth.”
      CFACT highlighted this eagerness to go to extremes by introducing a new gadget called the “sequestration of exhalation device” — a mask that would filter CO2 from a person’s breath. Conference delegates were asked if they would wear such a mask if it would filter out all the CO2 they exhale. Surprisingly, many said yes.

      Hahahahahahaha… Climte deligates are just sooo stupid. wink


      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/doha-delegates-pwned/#more-75264

    • andye says:

      02:59pm | 05/12/12

      @thruthehaze - Oh, sigh. I do actually understand how that works. There has been a lot of people here talking about a DECLINE, though a quick scan tells me you aren’t actually one of them.

      My point was that it was an increase unless you are comparing against the long term trend, which some have done. You can argue whether it is statistically significant all you want but it is NOT a DECLINE, except against the long term trend. A long term trend which can only be accepted if you accept climate change.

      I do think I had conflated your argument with other arguments which I had going at the same time - such as with @flyonthewall. I do appreciate the extra effort you went to to be condescending to me, though. I feel very special.

    • iansand says:

      03:06pm | 05/12/12

      Nope.  Not looking over there, either.

      What do you know that the overwhelming majority of climatologists (who accept anthropogenic climate change as reality) have missed?  What do you know that they don’t?  Surely your favourite Weatherboy Watts can feed you an answer.

    • James says:

      03:20pm | 05/12/12

      More to the point; what is the Punch’s obsession with letting every global warming nut its site to write an article? Why can’t they give at least 1 article a month to a sceptical point of view. This good cop, bad cop piece was nothing short of a joke.

    • thruthehaze says:

      04:13pm | 05/12/12

      @iansand: It all comes down to how you define a climatologist. I suspect you’re definition is any scientist who accepts AGW. Are physicist who study the sun climatologists? After all, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the sun has some affect on the climate smile. Are statisticians who work on calculating trends etc climatologists. After all it was statisticians who showed the errors in the silly Hockey Stick.
      Using your logic I can prove God exists. The overwhelming majority of theists say that he does…(of course I’ve decided that only Roman Catholic priest are valid theists). BTW before you get too carried away, I write this as an atheist.
      But lets play your game. I’ll give the names of a few climatologists who don’t accept AGW (out of the many hundreds or thousands available) for you to go on with:

      Steve McIntyre
      Ivar Giaever
      Dr. Joanne Simpson
      Dr. Kiminori Itoh
      Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia
      Bjorn Lomborg
      Stanley B. Goldenberg

      (lots more where that came from)

      I look forward to you telling us why they aren’t real climatologists because, because…well just because. Or will you run off to Sourcewatch to find out how they used to live next door to someone who working in Big Oil and are therefore hopelessly compromised?.

    • thruthehaze says:

      04:23pm | 05/12/12

      @andye : That’s right. I didn’t say it was a decline. But it could be.

      You know the total increase in temps since 1850 is somewhere between 0.75 and 1 degree centigrade, according to the recorded data. But at one point Hanson (the father or perhaps step-father of the great scare) admitted that the margin of error in temp record was about 2c. Given that, all we can really say with any certainty is that the temps, since 1850,  have risen by up to 3 degrees OR declined by 1.25c, with the truth somewhere in between. 

      And on that flimsy evidence, the high priests of the great CAGW scare want to overturn society as we know it.

      Truly people will look back at this in 50 years and wonder what the hell the alarmists were on about.

    • PJ says:

      05:21pm | 05/12/12

      Global Warming disaster mongers have had there day in the sun.

      The fact is no one outside the Labor Green movement takes Climate Change very seriously any more, because the real world has stubbornly refused to act in accordance with all the climate scientists’ scary predictions.

      - Sea levels have not risen dramatically.
      - ‘Threatened’ regions such as Tuvalu, the Maldives and Bangladesh have not drowned.
      - Polar bear populations continue to thrive.
      - Arctic sea ice is recovering while the Antarctic ice is expanding.
      - But, most damningly of all, global warming stopped at the end of the last century.

      And Fritz Vahrenholt in his bestselling book Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun) Global Warming is in no danger of starting any time soon.

      Vahrenholt’s thesis is based on the observations of increasingly respected scientists such as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark. These eminent scientists say that the main agent of climate change is not CO2 but solar radiation.

      Much of the mild global warming we’ve experienced in the past 150 years (a rise of about 0.8C) was, it would appear, the result of solar activity (detectable in the number of sun spots) which is now slowing down.

      We are entering a period of ‘weak’ solar cycles, and this decline in activity is expected to continue until about 2040, by which time global mean temperatures will have fallen by 2C.

      In other words, ‘global warming’ is something we will never experience again in our lifetime. From now on we can expect drabber, wetter summers and colder winters.

      And as if that was not depressing enough, here the Gillard Government has been regulating and carbon taxing our economy to death, as if the non-existent global warming problem was still something to fear.

      The 1992 Rio Earth Summit was the greatest political gathering the world had ever seen, 172 countries, 108 presidents and prime ministers.

      However, two decades on, about the best Rio +20 can manage is that damp squid from the UK, Nick Clegg. And Gillard.

      No Obama, no Angela Merkel, no David Cameron.

      Global warming no longer seems to be quite the urgent threat it was after a succession of bitingly cold winters and miserable summers around the world.

      You’‘ll recall the disastrous Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban summits before it.

      The Rio + 20 none event summit was beset by bickering, achieving nothing other than a few vague, non-binding commitments to do something serious some time in the future.

      No one’s really bothered anymore. The Mayan calendar has more interest outside of Australia, because it say the world willl end on the 21st December 2012.

    • andye says:

      05:27pm | 05/12/12

      @thruthehaze: “You know the total increase in temps since 1850 is somewhere between 0.75 and 1 degree centigrade, according to the recorded data. But at one point Hanson (the father or perhaps step-father of the great scare) admitted that the margin of error in temp record was about 2c. Given that, all we can really say with any certainty is that the temps, since 1850,  have risen by up to 3 degrees OR declined by 1.25c, with the truth somewhere in between. “

      I think the idea is this comes out in the wash. Over many readings you get more accuracy?

      I also think that your argument rests on the hot and cold periods shown in the longer charts? Am I on the right track here? Commonly called the “Medieval warm period” and the “little ice age” - even though it is technically not an ice age and we are still actually coming out of the current true ice age.

      The difference is the time scale. A true ice age is over millions of years. The “little ice age” was a period of about 500 years. The current warming trend over the last 50 years is far greater than what is estimated for those hot and cold periods in recent history.

      We evolved during a reasonably stable time in our planets life. There have been mass extinctions that reset everything taking millions of years to recover. We have only been around for a merest instant of the Earth’s lifespan or even that of life on Earth. We are not the norm.

      I personally think there is quite enough evidence to worry that we have taken a planet that has many long term cycles and fluctuations and we have kicked one of the factors in the equation, hard. It would be great if you were right, but we need better arguments.

      Like ones that don’t contain the year 1997. If your whole argument rests on data from a single year it is a little weak.

    • Dibbler says:

      05:24am | 05/12/12

      What a ridicoulous load of tripe. We should shut down one of the best parts of our economy based on the rantings of climate ‘scientists’ whose every predicition has been wrong and who can’t even admit we have global cooling not warming, who can’t prove that CO2 is anyhting but plant food and who commit data tampering fraud.

      They told us the other day that emissions went up 2% last year. Why did temperature not go up by 2% why was it a cold winter and why did Tim Flanerys drought not continue?

    • Bane says:

      06:15am | 05/12/12

      Has anything Flannery predicted actually came true. Apart from his anticipation of large sums of tax payer dollars being put in his account? Dams were supposed to dry up years ago, we responded by filling his bank account and thankfully the dams filled up.

    • A Concerned Citizen says:

      08:14am | 05/12/12

      “The best part of our economy” is not very valid as far as WE are paying for it ourselves. In fact it diminishes broader economic stimulation as more people that COULD have been spending their money on other businesses and trade, are instead paying for their power bills and a carbon tax on top.

    • Tim says:

      08:42am | 05/12/12

      Dribbler indeed.
      You do know the difference between weather and climate right?

    • L. says:

      09:14am | 05/12/12

      “You do know the difference between weather and climate right?”

      Yes.. Weather is weather when Team Climate Change (TCC) want it to be.

      Hurrinace Sandy.. or more to the point, Tropical STorm Sandy when it made landfall is weather. But TCC want to use it as ‘climate’, even though NASA and the NOAA say Sandy was no ‘climate’ related.

      Easy..

    • Tim says:

      10:00am | 05/12/12

      L,
      I could just as easily point to team “skeptic” claiming that one cold winter equals no climate change as Dibbler did above.

      Unfortunately there’s imbeciles everywhere on every part of the spectrum.
      I’d rather ignore them and listen to the scientists when making up my mind, why don’t you?

    • L. says:

      11:15am | 05/12/12

      “I’d rather ignore them and listen to the scientists when making up my mind, why don’t you?”

      I’d rather look at the unadjusted data.

      No ocean warming as per the data from 3000+ Argo bouys since 1990.

      No statistically sgnificant near surface atmosphere warming for 16 years, despite huge CO2 increases.

      No measurebale global sea level rise as per tidal guages.

      Antartica ice growing.

      Artic ice coming back at a record rate.

      Polar bear numbers on the increase.

      No extra troposheric heat as measured by million of weather ballons.

    • Tim says:

      12:26pm | 05/12/12

      L,
      and your qualifications in the field of climate science are?

    • L. says:

      12:47pm | 05/12/12

      “L,
      and your qualifications in the field of climate science are? “

      Do I need qualifications to look up the source data from NOAA, GISS, which already have it in a graph?

      Nice strawman argument.

      Furthermore, as for the ‘value’ of scientific qualifications.. Did you know the ‘scientist’ who wrote the paper stating that polar bears are drowning due to climate change was invesitgated for fraud over his ‘scientific’ findings? But hey, I guess you think that’s ok, after all.. he had ‘qualifications’.

      So please, give the “you have no climate science quals” bit a rest. Just like me, you can go straight to the source and read the data yourself.

    • MattC says:

      05:41am | 05/12/12

      ONLY 0.3% of Australia’s surface would need to be covered with solar cells to provide us with power? Wow, that’s ONLY 23,000 square kilometers, or ONLY twice the size of the the entire Sydney metropolitan area!

    • Jen says:

      07:02am | 05/12/12

      Sound reasonable to me.

    • L. says:

      07:31am | 05/12/12

      I wonder where we are supposed to find the raw materials to cover 23,000 Sq Km’s with ANYTHING, let alone solar panels and all the rare earth materials require to make them?

    • Mick In The Hills says:

      08:00am | 05/12/12

      Has anyone calculated the emissions China will put out making and shipping 23,000 square kilometers of solar panels?

      Looks like a zero sum outcome to me.

      Jen, you should have that second cuppa to kick-start your brain before commenting in the mornings.

    • Alex says:

      09:04am | 05/12/12

      Pretty sure there is way more than that in the form of paved roads.  But haven’t crunched the number so maybe someone wants to check that.

    • L. says:

      09:34am | 05/12/12

      “Pretty sure there is way more than that in the form of paved roads.  But haven’t crunched the number so maybe someone wants to check that.

      Yep.. there is.

      Which only took 100 years, constant maintenance and 10’s if not 100’s of billions to produce.

      Furthermore, ashphalt and concrete and in FAR cheaper and oodles more abundant than the rare earth materials required to make solar panels.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      09:45am | 05/12/12

      @Alex,

      Yes, it most likely more than that in paved roads but stringing EV panels in a long line between Melbourne and Brisbane does not make for efficient energy harvesting.  You need to bunch them up a bit.

      And once you do, look at the new shadow areas you create in the local ecosystem.  What impact will that have on the legless lizards, the hairy nosed wombat and the native grasses?

    • neil says:

      11:49am | 05/12/12

      Mick In The Hills

      Quite correct in fact the amount of embedded energy in a solar panel (the energy used to make it) means that the CO2 the panel will save over it life span is less that emitted during it’s manufacture.

      Solar produces more CO2 than coal.

    • Fiddler says:

      05:59am | 05/12/12

      this article is so full of rubbish I don’t even know where to start. I seriously feel it caused me brain damage. I tried looking at your bio to see what qualifications you have in electrical engineering but you don’t seem to have one.

      Solar panels are, well crap. They don’t last forever and use a far more finite resource than coal (rare earth minerals) to produce, the production of them is also a very dirty process environmentally. You haven’t mentioned baseload once that I could see (possibly you did, my eyes starting melting at the amount of emotive language and hyperbole) solar panels can’t provide it. Living on a hippie commune perhaps you can get by with just electricity during the dar and ear-wax candles at night but in the real world we need a little more.

      When you open with going on about “youth from around the world wrote an open letter to UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres demanding that the big industry interests holding back the negotiation process be removed.” It’s clear you don’t have much, it’s lefty teachers around the world doing crap. I recall as a kid on a number of occasions being used to do art and teachers trying to convince us to sign petitions on their behalf. How many 8 year olds even know the UNFCCC exists?

      You didn’t even mention nuclear.

      D-

    • Tubesteak says:

      07:07am | 05/12/12

      They’re all corporationy in their big corporation buildings

      The world can run on love and unicorn farts

      Peace, maaaaaan

    • Borderer says:

      08:56am | 05/12/12

      It reminded me of my time at uni when I was an adult student, I wanted to slap the stupid out of them but thought that life would likely take care of that in a few years regardless.

    • Fiddler says:

      09:49am | 05/12/12

      As actors it is our responsibility to read the newspapers and then say what we read on tv as if it’s our own opinion

    • Bane says:

      06:10am | 05/12/12

      Shal we discuss nuclear power?
      with all the hocus pocus vs science talk, what is everyone’s position on nuclear power for Australia?
      For me, it seems pretty necessary really and I’m feeling confident in the expert opinions that we can do it safely.
      It’s our best solution on offer. Interested?

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:13am | 05/12/12

      Gods, I am.

      You know, when Fukishima went down I was worried.  I almost became convinced that we had a real problem.

      Seriously though - nobody has died from radiation exposure.  Those plants took a big earthquake and a tsunami hit, and they STILL didn’t melt down.  They’re old too; we have better methods.

      We are more geographically stable.
      We have huge expanses of land where we could put them (and a national power grid, while we’re at it).

      The Uranium is already in our grounds.

      According to everythign my (very unscientific) mind can comprehend, I have no idea why we’re not building this.

    • FINK says:

      07:21am | 05/12/12

      @Bane,
      By the time our politicians and greenie friends realise that nuclear is the best and only sustainable base load option it will be too late. We would have sold all of our Uranium to the EU to supply their revamped post GFC economies. Australia the Stupid country.  There has been a small Atomic reactor sitting just on the outskirts of Sydney for years..it’s been there so long everyone has forgotten about it, the same will happen with a Thorium reactor.

    • Gregg says:

      07:57am | 05/12/12

      @Mahhrat,
      If that new job of yours is anything to do with any sort of infrastructure or engineering, you had better do a quick brush up.
      First off we already have something of a national power grid, the east coast states at least from South Australia to Queensland and a cable across to Tassie.
      We might have huge expanses of land but any power station takes an enormous ammount of cooling and thus our limited rainfall limits where power stations can go, usually by rivers/lakes/sea and for Nuclear it’ll probably be a coastal location I would expect.

      That being the case, we may have a land mass that is considered to be old and geographically stable but Tsunamis can travel huge distances, right across to Australia from somewhere in the Pacific or even more easily across the Tasman Sea from near NZ somewhere.
      That said, you could always build at a higher height along the coast somewhere that subsidance is not likely but you still want them as close as possible to your main population centres for the further away they are, the more power you lose in transmission.

    • Tim says:

      08:46am | 05/12/12

      Gregg,
      I agree.
      I’m fully supportive of Nuclear but the Nimby’s in our communities would never let them get built.

      To be effective the plants would have to near population centres on coastal areas or large rivers.

      Who’s going to put their hands up to have one built near them?

    • Bane says:

      10:14am | 05/12/12

      It’s a good question Tim.
      Personally I wouldn’t even like to live near a soap factory, terminal station, other power generation station, box factory or even a car yard or hardware store. Yet we manage as a society.

    • Mahhrat says:

      10:18am | 05/12/12

      @Tim:  I reckon any number of areas on the WA west coast would be happy to have that kind of employment come their way.

      Everyone assumes it has to be like Lucas Heights.  That’s just stupid.  30 minutes drive on a good road is nearly 50km away.  That’s a good head start, even if the worst should happen.

      @Gregg:  As I said mate, those old plants survived a tsunami and an earthquake.  I’m sure we could build further safeguards against them - we do have the odd reasonably intelligent engineer laying about, I’m sure.

      No, people are against nuclear because they are for solar.  They don’t see the forest for the trees - at this point, solar and wind just can’t provide baseload power.  In 30 or 40 years maybe, but not yet.

      Nuclear can and should.  We could be world leaders in this technology.

    • SZF says:

      10:22am | 05/12/12

      Mahrat - TEPCO publicly admitted that there was at least one meltdown at Fukushima. It’s the largest nuclear disaster ever after Chernobyl and like it was rated a 7 on the INES. I’d consider that “a real problem”. There’s a reason nobody lives in Pripyat or Fukushima anymore…

      FINK - a decent thorium reactor design is still at least a decade away, if not more (let alone the construction time after that). Yes, there are some already in existence but these are accepted to be inferior to current uranium reactors.

      Personally, I don’t like nuclear power (when things go wrong, the downside can be enormous). But, realistically it’s something we may need to consider in the short-medium term.

      I’m not an expert (nor is anyone who tends to comment here) but it would seem that if some bright spark can patent a process to reduce loss in transfer of solar/wind/etc then, a) you can build solar plants out in the desert, b) renewable energy becomes viable and c) they will become exceedingly wealthy.

    • PJ says:

      10:30am | 05/12/12

      Nuclear fine, but lets not break into Wind.

      - Wind turbines rarely produce their advertised full power.  On average, wind turbines only produce about 21% of their capacity stated.

      - Wind power is unreliable and difficult to distribute.  When it is needed the chances are the energy will not have been generated due to lack of wind or too high a wind.

      - Wind power is not clean.  It takes a lot of dirty energy to make the materials, manufacture and install a wind turbine facility.

      - Wind turbines are not environmentally friendly.  They are noisy, unsightly, kill birds and other wildlife.  They claim valuable Farm land that will be required when the world faces a food shortage. They interfere with radars, and have been shown to be responsible for health problems.

      - Wind turbines actually require and consume electricity. 

      - Lets say 20% of US electricity came from wind power, the corresponding decrease in CO2 emissions would only be 0.00948%.

      Wind power doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions at all, because traditional power plants have to be run inefficiently to jump in and out of service to make up for the erratic supply from Wind Turbines.

      - It’s a kids dream that Wind power will replace fossil fired power plants.  Germany estimates that by 2020 up to 96% of its wind power capacity will need to be backed up by new traditionally fired power plants.

      - Wind power will not reduce our dependency on Foreign Oil. (Green taxes and PRRT are slowly closing our refineries). Because oil will be needed for the Back up Power Stations required for Wind Farms.

      - Wind turbines have an embarrassingly low Energy Returned On Energy Invested value of 0.29.  The manufacture, installation and operation of wind power facilities will consume more than 3 times the energy they will ever produce.

      We should wait till the world has better Renewable technology than is currently on offer, rather than taxing traditional Power Generations out of sight now. What we are doing presently is damaging our economy for a pipe dream.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:08pm | 05/12/12

      Build nuclear fission reactors - as a stepping stone to building nuclear fusion reactors, to replace the fission ones.

      I don’t understand why we pour so much money into research on capturing the sun’s rays (at which we’re pretty crap: the best solar panels only pull in about 20% or so of the radiant energy coming from the sun) when we could simply build a star here on earth? We are so close on this: there’s at least three nuclear fusion experimental reactors on earth right now, and it is criminal that we are not pouring every last carbon tax’d dollar to pushing that research as far and as fast as it can possibly go.

      It is the ultimate in natural reactions: it takes place inside the sun.

      It is miles and miles cleaner than coal, gas, or fission reactors (whether you use graphite or molten salt as the cooling agent).

      Its byproduct is water, and its fuel is even more plentiful than uranium: hydrogen, literally the most plentiful element in the universe.

      We are potentially only a couple of decades away from a viable nuclear fusion reactor.  Let’s skip solar.  Skip wind.  Skip wave.  Skip geothermal.  Skip all of that useless backyard tech and throw all of the money into the one basket that will solve the world’s power needs cleanly and more or less forever.

      But I also suspect the one thing the Greens really fear is a truly cheap, clean, and more or less free energy source for the entire world to use.  They don’t want prosperity or peace for mankind.  Their very term—“Green”—says they want us all back living in the trees, when human life was short and brutal and utterly without hope.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      02:43pm | 05/12/12

      @ St Michael,

      “Their very term—“Green”—says they want us all back living in the trees, when human life was short and brutal and utterly without hope.” 

      Nailed it completely.  They long for the “noble savage” times when man may have been noble but the world sure was savage.

    • Tator says:

      03:43pm | 05/12/12

      St Michael,
      sorry to burst your bubble on Fusion, but Fusion reactors use Tritium, which is an isotope of Hydrogen, of which there is around a 1000 years supply on earth in various forms including water (H2O)  and fuses the two tritium nuclei together to form a helium atom, which is the byproduct, not water.  What you are confused with is a fuel cell which uses Hydrogen atoms and oxygen to generate electricity with the byproduct being water.  Such fuel cells are currently in use by motor vehicles such as the Honda Clarity FCX.  For further info try ITER.org for the latest in fusion developments as that is the newest reactor to be built.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:55pm | 05/12/12

      @ Tator: so we’ve only got 1,000 years of tritium available on Earth? Well, given we’ve gone from basically the Wright brothers to the Space Shuttle in just under 100 years, I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to figure out something in the meantime! And surely 1,000 years of fuel is better than the standard 10/20/30/40 years the peak oil alarmists keep telling us is left?

    • Super D says:

      06:34am | 05/12/12

      I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone who professes to care for the environment has any time for wind power whatsoever. Firstly it’s the most efficient wealth transfer from the poor to the rich ever devised. Secondly turbine construction is environmentally filthy with all the rare earths. Thirdly the power is so unreliable that carbon emitting backups at required capable of replacing 100% of the potential wind power 100% of the time. Fourthly wind turbines require the industrializing of the landscape. Why a wind tower and not a phone tower or even a factory? Fifthly turbines kill wildlife and cause health effects.

      In short if you support wind power you are an anti-environmental sociopath.

    • Richard the Lionheart says:

      08:34am | 05/12/12

      Visual pollution as well. We have been conned by this government. A clean base power can be provided by gas, medium term, and nuclear, long term.Coal will continue regardless in China and India. Meanwhile, the beach is coming to me.

    • Tim says:

      09:09am | 05/12/12

      Disagree,
      1. How is it a wealth transfer? If they’re cost effective then they’re cost effective.

      2.Are you saying mining is not environmentally friendly? Well I never. There are problems with this type of mining but they’re not unsolveable. They also apply to other types of mining, do you want to curb that too?
       
      3.Completely wrong, a grid with significant wind inputs does not require 100% backup.

      4.So? Are you a fluffy environmentalist who requires natural landscapes? I think they look pretty good.

      5.You’re not one of those “health effects” from windfarm people are you? No credible study has ever shown a link between windfarms and adverse health effects.
      As for bird strikes, the new turbines move much slower and kill far fewer birds than previously. Even then, the mortality rate when compared to car and truck strikes, hell even house windows are low.

    • L. says:

      09:51am | 05/12/12

      “1. How is it a wealth transfer? If they’re cost effective then they’re cost effective.”

      because FGov’s of thr world mandate that power companies buy power off the wind paoers at MUCH higher prices than from coal.. See that word? Mandate. They are in no way cost effective. Plus the handy fact that when we don’t need wind power, the power companies actually have to PAY the wind producres NOT to produce power.

      “3.Completely wrong, a grid with significant wind inputs does not require 100% backup.”

      Utter rubbish. Australia will require 38,000 wind turbines to meet our needs. These will be spread all around the country. There is a good chance that large portion of the country will not receive enough wind 24/7 for the grid to remain stable.

      Furthermore, a wind turbine has a life of 25 years.

      Assuming we can build 38,000 wind turbines in 25 years (huge assumption), as soon as we finish the last one, we will have to replace the first one. So we will have to build turbines FOREVER. This is the Greens idea of ‘sustainable’?

    • PJ says:

      10:15am | 05/12/12

      Renewable Energy to run the countries Energy needs is a kids pipe dream.

      - Wind Turbines are inefficient, producing low ampage electricity.
      - Wind Turbines cannot be operated in a high wind.
      - Wind Turbines can only be operated at 21% of capacities stated.
      - Wind turbines pollute landscapes with a horrible vision and devalue housing.

      Britain’s wind farms produce far less electricity than their supporters claim – and cannot be relied upon to keep the lights on, a study from a conservation charity showed

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1374251/Wind-farms-working-just-21-capacity.html#ixzz2E8CxTvYZ

      The energy from Renewable sources is expensive despite the drop in price.

      From UK
      - Gas, Coal, Nuclear appx 3 pence per Unit
      - Renewable energy 9.8 pence per unit.
      - Renewable Energy is always heavily subsidised by Governments.

      I would have thought that, after losing their Mining Boom to Africa partly due to ‘green’ taxes, Australians would no longer listen to the ‘statements of faith’ from Bourgeoisie Green Socialists?

    • Tim says:

      11:51am | 05/12/12

      Seems another comment gone into the void,

      L,

      1.Yes, and fossil fuel plants have been subsidised by governments for decades. Do you support that as well?
      I’m not advocating getting 100% of power from wind energy but investment increases and cost decreases will make wind far cheaper in the future and we should increase our usage accordingly.

      3.Can you point out the part of my comment where I said we should have 100% wind power? No?
      Then stop dribbling.

      PJ,
      see South Australia.
      Wind capacity factors can range from 20-40%, coal usually sits around 65-75%.

      And where are your energy costs per unit sourced from? Link please, they don’t look credible and that would be completely unlike you.

    • L. says:

      12:37pm | 05/12/12

      “.Yes, and fossil fuel plants have been subsidised by governments for decades. Do you support that as well?”

      By subsidised, do you mean ‘built’..? If so, fancy that… However, those days are long gone. Now private concerns build wind turbines, and are paid NOT to produce power when there is a surplus to requirement..paid..not..to..produce. Only a socalist mindset would consider that a good idea.

      “3.Can you point out the part of my comment where I said we should have 100% wind power? No?”

      Haha.. sure.. then pray tell, what did you mean when you said: “3.Completely wrong, a grid with significant wind inputs does not require 100% backup.”

      By the way, I see you very neatly refused to comemnt on the 38,000 wind turbines required or their 25 yr life span or the 100’s of millions of cubic meters of steel and concrete needed for their foundations or the 100’s of millions of tonnes of refined steel and paint required for the towers etc etc etc…and all for an inconsistant power supply that will require a ‘real’ power station when the blows blows too hard, too softly, from the wrong direction and finnally, if at all.

    • Tim says:

      01:48pm | 05/12/12

      L,
      ” a grid with significant wind inputs does not require 100% backup.”

      It means exactly what it says in reply to Super D’s comment. That a grid with significant wind inputs does not require 100% backup of the wind power. It doesn’t mean we should have 100% wind power.

      And I don’t have to refute your 38 000 wind turbine spiel because I never even came close to making such a claim. Hey what were you saying about Strawmen again?

    • Tim says:

      01:57pm | 05/12/12

      Oh and L,
      with regards to fossil fuel subsidies:
      http://theconversation.edu.au/fossil-fuel-subsidies-up-nuclear-power-down-iea-10703

      “The World Energy Outlook, which provides an annual snapshot of energy trends and projects their impact on the climate, said that fossil fuel subsidies totalled over $520 billion last year. Around $88 billion was spent worldwide supporting renewable energy.”

      That’s well developed mature fossil fuel technologies vs renewables which are new, still developing and require large amounts of R&D.

    • L. says:

      02:59pm | 05/12/12

      Tim, did you even read past the headline of your link?

      I’m guessing not, because if you did you would see that there is not one citation for their ‘facts’, nor is there iany definition of what is deemed a ‘subsidy’.

      Guess we are just supposed to believe them, yeah?

    • L. says:

      03:08pm | 05/12/12

      “And I don’t have to refute your 38 000 wind turbine spiel because I never even came close to making such a claim. Hey what were you saying about Strawmen again? “

      Actually Tim you kinda do.. it was you who suggesedt that we have a green power grid with ‘significant wind inputs’.

      Just how many of the 38,000 wind turbines in total would you deem significant enough?...20,000? 25,000?

    • Tim says:

      04:41pm | 05/12/12

      L,
      Yeah of course they just made up those figures right?

      One little google search will provide all you need to know about fossil fuel subsidies but you don’t read anything that doesn’t support your pre conceived notions right?

      And no, I don’t have to refute your 38 000 wind turbine figure, plus stop putting words into my mouth - I never mentioned anything about a green power grid.

      But if you want to know, the answer to your question is we build as many as are viable at the time just like any other power source once all costs are taken into account.
      But as you’ve shown above you don’t believe what the vast majority of climate scientists are telling us so I don’t think you’d listen to the real costs of using finite fossil fuels.

    • PJ says:

      05:37pm | 05/12/12

      Renewable Energy will always be inadequate for our needs and too expensive to be able to afford.

      - it costs 2.3p to produce one unit of electricity using gas,
      - it costs 2.5p to produce the same electricity using nuclear energy
      - and perhaps 2.9p using coal.

      But Using wind power, the cost is an astonishing 9.8p.
      Exorbitant Costs like this make most reasonable people interested in cleaner, sustainable energy, thats carbon-free and provided by Nuclear power stations or gas-fuelled ones.

      But Global warming alarmists with their dire warnings about the evils of CO2 emissions push us away from sensible options. Some have even changing the sums, and manipulating the maths. (UK Climategate)

      The result is a growing burden of green taxes, renewable energy subsidies and unseen charges that will cost us and particularly our children, billions and billions of dollars.

      Already, additional Green costs are 50 per cent of the increases to all our energy bills, and 50 per cent of the increases to air-fares.

      At a time of severe economic hardship, when hundreds of jobs are being lost and households struggle to make ends meet, this is a potentially ruinous burden, THAT will be made only worse with the introduction of expensive Renewable energy power.

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1359350/Zoe-Balls-father-Johnny-vilified-questioning-global-warming.html#ixzz2E9zXsEZ6

    • Bunch says:

      05:51pm | 05/12/12

      “...fossil fuel subsidies totalled over $520 billion last year”

      Oh good, this argument again. I don’t even have to look at that article to tell you that they’re counting company tax deductions for diesel etc as “subsidies”. It’s a favourite tactic of Greenpeace types who love huge scary numbers and being economical with the truth.

    • Frank says:

      06:36am | 05/12/12

      Bane obviously you and Alan Jones have a dinner date? seriously Climate Change is not like the latest pop sensation fad that blows in and blows out its the evolution of the planets climate, it takes time and it changes in very tempermental ways, dismissing it by saying well has any predictions come true is just absurd, its like saying it is predicted that Christmas day will always fall on a Monday and when it falls on a Tuesday you go out and start yelling at Santa cos he’s a day late…in other words its stupid and its counterproductive

    • Charles says:

      06:37am | 05/12/12

      This article is full of naive hubris and ill-informed opinions.  Wind farms do not supply energy in a way that could be considered useful, and certainly not in a way that would maintain a modern economy.  Addditionally,  it does not reduce emissions by one iota and is essentialy a scam.

      Glad these people are not in a position to make decisions on our lives, as I don’t think we could suvive with them

    • acotrel says:

      08:01am | 05/12/12

      Your comment shows ignorance of how the Snowy Hydro Scheme is used to cope with baseload.  Wind farms and solar fpanels would be beneficial even if only as a supplement providing slight independence from coal fired generators. As Howard Hughes used to say ’ It is the way of the future’.
      Move along folks, it is all over - nothing to see here !

    • L. says:

      08:32am | 05/12/12

      ” Wind farms and solar fpanels would be beneficial even if only as a supplement providing slight independence from coal fired generators.”

      Acotrel, considering we have already spend Aud$10,000,000,000.00+ on wind power, only to generate 2% of Australia’s power needs, are you seriously telling us that the money couldn’t have been better spent upgrading bayswater wto the most efficient coal buring technology with a better outcome?

    • lostinperth says:

      08:41am | 05/12/12

      @ acotrel - I think Charles was taking about wind farms, so why the Snowy Hydro (hint hydro = water) would be relevant is beyond me.

      Hydro would be the best option but we suffer from both a lack of running water in the right areas and a Greens party that opposes dams. Ironic isn’t it, the so called “green” party opposes both nuclear and the dams that could provide hydro-electric power, both cleaner and more reliable sources.

    • Markus says:

      09:20am | 05/12/12

      “Wind farms and solar fpanels would be beneficial even if only as a supplement providing slight independence from coal fired generators.”
      How? The entire problem with both is their complete lack of consistency.

      Even as a supplementary power source, the only way they would be of any use is if an extremely expensive battery storage system was integrated into the grid, or if society adapts itself to become accustomed to rolling brownouts.

    • james says:

      09:23am | 05/12/12

      Nuclear is not “clean”

    • L. says:

      10:00am | 05/12/12

      “Nuclear is not “clean”

      Have you ever seen a rare earth mineral mine or processing plant?

      (Rare earth are required for wind turbines and solar panels).

    • PJ says:

      10:50am | 05/12/12

      Avoid Foul wind

      The wind does not always blow or remain constant, so the electrical output of wind Farms is variable and needs to be offset by Fossil Fuel sources.

      Maintenance is a constant issue because the stresses and vibrations caused by the wind causes wear on turbine parts, which then must be replaced.

      Because of the health and safety issues wind farm must be located in a remote areas, even Offshore, which makes maintenance doubly difficult and time consuming AND EXPENSIVE.

      Wind turbine technology is massively efficiency.

      - Wind turbines are only 20% efficient and have an electrical output of less than 5 MW. So you need hundreds of them blighting the landscape.

      - The typical Nuclear Power Generating Station operates at about 90% efficiency and has an electrical output of 4,124 MW.

      - To generate the same amount of electricity as a typical nuclear plant, based on Wind Power 20% efficiency rate, more than 2,000 wind turbines covering a huge area of valuable farmland would be required.

      .... but even then, you’ve still got the issue with Wind Power, it only works when the Right Wind blows….

      I suggest we don’t waste our time

    • james says:

      10:53am | 05/12/12

      No I havent L, but I know what happens to people exposed to radiation.

    • Darren says:

      10:55am | 05/12/12

      lostinperth says: “Hydro would be the best option but we suffer from both a lack of running water in the right areas and a Greens party that opposes dams. Ironic isn’t it, the so called “green” party opposes both nuclear and the dams that could provide hydro-electric power, both cleaner and more reliable sources.”

      And remember that Bob Brown himself said during the Franklin River campaign that we would be better off “building a clean, coal-fired power station”.

    • Your name:L. says:

      11:27am | 05/12/12

      “No I havent L, but I know what happens to people exposed to radiation. “

      How many people have been exposed to radiation polution from power stations Vs rare earth metal mining and processing in the last 25 years?

      Far, far more people have become ill from the R/earth porcessing than have become ill from radiation.

      In fact, more people die in wind turbine maintenance every year than from nuke accidents.

    • Brenda says:

      06:38am | 05/12/12

      O.K. So you have deduced that climate warming is definitely a result of human activity.

      Tell us, please, why climate warming alarmists are not out there advocating full-on for less human activity?  Less humans?

      Since the global population increased from 4 billion to 7 billion in less than 40 years, where are you on this?  Less human activity = manageable pollution.

      You can’t switch off human need for heating, cooling, manufacturing, air travel (after all, government advocates air travel for its globe-trotting MP’s e.g. Bob Carr, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and even the extreme Greens are partial to helicopter fly-overs) but you COULD be advocating for population control.

      The earth will not sustain population growth at the same rate as the last half century. One day human proliferation will have to slow, and almost to a halt, if humans are to be fed.

      But here you are trying to argue for all manner of remedies yet the one that is most obvious, incredibly doesn’t rate a scientific mention.

    • Mayday says:

      07:27am | 05/12/12

      Contraception and family planning are an anathema to the Church.

      Population control is central to our future and yet as you point out Brenda the silence is deafening on this issue.

    • Gregg says:

      08:05am | 05/12/12

      ” You can’t switch off human need for heating, cooling, manufacturing, air travel (after all, government advocates air travel for its globe-trotting MP’s e.g. Bob Carr, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and even the extreme Greens are partial to helicopter fly-overs) but you COULD be advocating for population control. “
      You could do a lot of that Brenda, especially in Australia where air conditioning is really only something of the last half century and before that we were likely all not so soft and could even get by in most of Australia with minimal heating and many still do.

      I agree, any government needs to lead the way and all that travelling that politicians and others do is just ridiculous, especially with questionable value and alternatives like teleconferencing etc.

      The good news might be that some are predicting a slowing in population increase but then it could be wishful thinking just like that for renewable energy.

    • kitteh says:

      12:16pm | 05/12/12

      Why doesn’t it get a mention? Because the Western world is hugely pronatalist. It has relatively little to do with religion either (though I certainly agree the church needs to act on this for the sake of the developing world) - it really comes down to two things:

      1) Many people have children, therefore praising and finacially supporting the decision to have children is a great vote-buyer for any political party.
      2) More Western children means more good little consumers.
      You can train them from birth.It is a Ponzi scheme of the highest order.

      Ultimately, It doesn’t matter how many geothermal sources we find or Priuses (Priusi?) we make; as long as we keep reproducing at current levels, we’re in serious trouble. But with both our government and commerical sector ramming the breedbreedbreed message down our throats, is it any wonder nobody seems to notice?

    • Angela says:

      06:42am | 05/12/12

      ISophie one day when you grow up you will laugh about how gullible and naive you were in your early years…

    • ronny jonny says:

      07:06am | 05/12/12

      Oh Sophie, did you walk to Doha? Who paid for you to stick your snout in the global warming trough? I am loving all these Doha attendees pontificating from their airconditioned hotels after jetting halfway around the world on their climate junket. You do know what built the luxury hotels and conference facillities you are enjoying don’t you? It wasn’t wind power, nor solar power, nor geothermal…. can you guess? No, not fairy farts, it was and continues to be oil and gas. Look around yourself while you are wallowing in luxury there, you are swimming in oil, you are eating oil, you are breathing oil. Enjoy!

    • L. says:

      07:20am | 05/12/12

      Hey Sophie, how much CO2 did the Climate deligates expell into the atmosphere flying into Doha, or Cancoon, or Rio, or Bali, or Cophenhagen, then staying in all those fully ac’ed 5 star hotels?

      As I have said here before…“I’ll believe climate change is a catastrophe, when the people telling me it’s a catastrophe, start acting like it’s a catastrophe” 

      I wonder how cool the minister for climate changes office was yesterday? 23 or 24 Degs? In Canberra in summer…

    • Mark Rolls says:

      07:21am | 05/12/12

      I’m curious if any of the climate change deniers above (FlyOnTheWall, Bane, Dibbler et al) have an opinion on oceanic acidification. My reading (I’m a scientist and a doctor- not a geologist or climatologist like i assume you all are) suggests that the excess carbon will lead to death of large swathes of the ocean and coral reefs. Even if you don’t believe in anthropogenic warming, surely there is an argument for reducing CO2 for the sake of our oceans. Opinions?

    • FlyOnTheWall says:

      07:52am | 05/12/12

      I’ve read a little about Ocean acidification, and whilst the “predictions” are that the ocean wil acidify at an increased rate, this has yet to be observed.
      This is something that can be found more in Geology, and geologists say that the climate models predicting acidification are bunkum.

      That they have predicted “the death of large swathes of the ocean and coral reefs” is more alarmist hyperbole.
      I’m quite open to believe these risks are real, but I’ve simply heard too much hyperbole and alarmist rhetoric to just accept what people say.

      Add to this, your use of the term “climate change denier” - which I find grossly offensive, and you become part of the problem. Denigrate anyone who doesn’t swallow, the latest WWF press release predicting the end of the world or some other catastrophe. If you’re a Doctor, I’d expect you’d want to rely in empirical evidence. There’s a lot less of that than most people think.

    • Bane says:

      08:58am | 05/12/12

      Will switching to wind and solar help us do that?
      Will switching to nuclear do that even better?

    • Dibbler says:

      09:46am | 05/12/12

      Onlt if you assume this is where acid comes from. Could be underwater volcanoes more likely. If its even happening. Could be more false data like the warming that doesn’t exist.
      the oceans would benefit from more carbon for their algae to use
      More algae = more food for other fish.

    • Charles says:

      11:30am | 05/12/12

      Ocean acidification via increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere can’t physically happen due to the high buffering capacity of sea water.

    • Stephen T says:

      11:36am | 05/12/12

      @ Mark Rolls: Sadly mark any good intent seems to get lost in the politics, as humans we are responsible for our environment but I honestly can not see how the climate benefits from an Emissions Trading Scheme and while Solar and Wind generation may have their place in the scheme of things they are not effective and would still need additional capacity from fossil fuel power plants to meet balancing requirements at peak demand.  I know nothing of ocean acidification but observing what happens to my tropical fish when the Ph balance in my fish tank goes out of whack it can’t be a good thing.

      If we could harness the energy that has been used in the political debate around the issue we would be able to ensure our energy requirement’s for a least the next century, it really irks me that while the broader populace argues politicians get away with token gestures and use ‘climate change’ as an excuse to implement their own social agenda’s.  It’s a highly emotive issue for both sides of the argument and it has divided broad section of the community, I think that this suites the political leader’s on both sides as while we argue amongst ourselves they are never going to be held accountable for effective environmental management.

    • PJ says:

      11:48am | 05/12/12

      Mark Rolls

      I am curious to know how you, who has benefitted from the Industrial Revolution and whose ancestors are rich on fossil fuel manufacture, are going to persuade the Developing Nations not to have there own Industrial Revolution?

      I can just picture you presenting your personal favourite of the variations on Climate Change theory, saying we want 15% of your countries growth sacrificed, so as to prevent this scenario in the future, which may or may not happen.

      How are the white Western Industrial declining powers going to persuade Developing Non White Nations, to install expensive carbon controls to slow their manufacturing practice and output, at the same time as eroding their GDP ?

      My guess is the argument will be as successful as ‘Lets have peace on earth and good will to all men’ has been for the past 2000 years.

      Or the Nuclear disarmament program, that despite arguing that nuclear war will wipe human life off the earth, still sees the building of nuclear capability around the globe.

      The world’s nations cannot agree on anything. And to tackle climate change requires global involvement. Everybody.

      Please bear in mind the declining Western Powers cannot afford to continue to pump billions of their taxpayers monies into these Developing Nations, in an attempt to persuade them to adopt some token Green solutions.

      Because even in Australia, thanks to the Carbon Taxes and Renewable Energy taxes, we have Fuel Poverty now. For example, in SA there has been a 38% spike in families having their electricity cut off because they cannot pay there electricity bills. There is a promise out there from the Green lobby, that Australians will see an 18% annual rise in their electricity bills till 2015.

      So I cannot see you persuading Developing countries to go the expensive green route on a theory. Nor can I see you maintaining interest within the declining Western economies, once the economic realities of their situation bite.

      From my perspective, the only thing I can see the Labor Green lobby achieving , is the’ self harm’ of Australia.

    • 123 says:

      11:48am | 05/12/12

      Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point.

      Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

      The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.

      They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.

    • 123 says:

      11:53am | 05/12/12

      Sorry Charles
      Go to the back of the queue.
      “oceans currently behave as carbon sinks because they absorb approximately 25-30% of the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by human activities. That’s a good thing, right? Not necessarily so, as scientists are now discovering. Oceanographers and marine biologists are now seeing a relationship between changes in ocean pH and carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water. Ocean acidity, as measured by pH, has increased by 30% since the industrial revolution and scientists predict pH will continue to change as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide are absorbed by oceans. Because the chemistry of the oceans is important to life, subtle changes in that chemistry may have significant effects on the health of individual species and on entire ecosystems. Corals and other shell-builders such as oysters, lobsters and pteropods may be at risk as ocean ph chemistry becomes more acidic.”
      Ignorance is bliss

    • Charles says:

      04:46pm | 05/12/12

      Au contraire 123, the only ignorance on display is yours.  Sea water chemistry would show that it would take an atmosphere containing 10000 ppm to change the pH of sea water by 0.1 of a pH unit.

      Since our current CO2 content is 390 ppm, growing at less than 1 ppm per year, we have a long long way to go (the fact that it has slowed to a growth rate of less than 1 ppm per year should make you and your fellow alarmists a bit nervous too) before it becomes a significant issue.

      Additionally it has to get down to about 4.5 in pH or so before it becomes seriously acid, and as it takes exponentially more CO2 to acidify the water the lower you go, then I can’t see how it could happen.

      Temperature is a bigger agent of change to sea water pH and if you were to take a sample at the equator, and then travel 5000 km North or South you would find it would change nearly 0.4 of a unit, however that is about the limit of its change no matter how hot or cold the water got.

      A detailed survey recently conducted on sea water pH found that it varied by nearly 0.5 of a unit of pH depending on time of year, time of day, location and depth of water.  So, while some things do change the pH of sea water, CO2 is obviously not one of them.

      What I have determined is though that when someone pipes up with this claim of sea water being acidified by CO2 then I immediately know two things:

      a) They have cherrypicked the data, and,

      b) They are clueless with regards to the principles of sea water chemistry

    • Queensland Observer says:

      07:22am | 05/12/12

      I find it amazing how, after a localised heatwave, all the climate doomsayers start crawling out from the shadows to spout their irrational alarmism. Yes it was hot here in Brisbane, however at the end of the week temperatures drop to normal levels, and the BOM is predicting a cooler and damp Summer - oh, and I heard it was snowing yesterday in parts of southern Australia.

      You know, if the millions, if not billions we have wasted on Green power schemes had actually been diverted into ways of mitigating the worst of Australia’s natural climatic excesses - like building dams for times of drought, controlled burns to reduce fire fuel load, storm shelters for cyclone prone communities, and dykes and levies for flood-prone towns, well Australia would be far better off and we’d have some pretty important infrastructure to last us into the future.

      But no, this isn’t about being responsible, mature, adult and innovative - it is instead about scaring children, brainwashing school students, and taxing ordinary Australians to the wahzoo and back - and where does that money go? To the Government, so they can repair their budgetry hole, and hand out wads of cash to their Socialist/Communistic Green friends - and meanwhile China, the massively polluting elephant in the room, is ignored.

      p.s. If you are so concerned about emissions, then why aren’t you agitating for nuclear power? It would be the logical path for Australia to take if we were to phase out coal because it is certain that windfarms and solar panels will never carry baseload power and we’d need a reliable baseload power source.

    • Norbert Fiest says:

      07:25am | 05/12/12

      This climate debate is being hijacked by enviromental terrorist with willfully using lying propaganda to frighten and scare children so as they can be groomed accept that they will become apart of a collective.

      This fool Trivett, should not be published pushing this outright lie. The Punch should withdraw this article and apologies to the readers who poisoined their eyes reading this rubbish.

      Publish this cowards.

    • Damocles says:

      09:45am | 05/12/12

      Well said Norbert. Couldn’t agree more.

    • Peter Hook says:

      07:26am | 05/12/12

      While I will leave it to the political left and right to slug it out according to party lines, one thing is unarguable in terms of the article - Australia should be a world leader in terms of solar power generation. I was just at Ayers Rock and could not understand why all of the Resort’s power didn’t come from solar. One thing that central Australia - in fact, most of Australia - is not short of is hot sun, so why isn’t every regional/remore town aiming for self-sufficiency in terms of power generation? It is so obvious and while people will say “coal is cheaper”, everyone needs to look to the long term and start planning now. Surely this is one area where consensus can rule?

    • FlyOnTheWall says:

      10:13am | 05/12/12

      Who’s going to pay for that, Peter?
      It’d be lovely to power an outback town with Solar, with large battery cells for night time power - semi-base load… but I ask, where’s the money coming from?
      This is the fundamental question that is conveniently overlooked by the green set. Pie in the sky ideals, with no-one there to pay for it. If you want to stump up the cash, fine with me, but don’t expect government to fund projects on such a scale.

    • Al says:

      11:47am | 05/12/12

      Peter, they tried this already.
      Look up what occured to the solar power facility out at Whitecliffs.
      As far as I know it was closed down by the government as it was found that the maintainence costs far outweighed any benefit (although it was succesfull in providing power, the cost was ridiculous).

    • Stephen T says:

      12:01pm | 05/12/12

      @FlyOnTheWall: I’d rather see a sustainable clean energy infrastructure project than the NBN, I could never understand their priorities when it came to spending and considering the money that has been spent thus far it may have been doable, sadly no funds left in the kitty now.

    • Peter Hook says:

      07:27am | 05/12/12

      While I will leave it to the political left and right to slug it out according to party lines, one thing is unarguable in terms of the article - Australia should be a world leader in terms of solar power generation. I was just at Ayers Rock and could not understand why all of the Resort’s power didn’t come from solar. One thing that central Australia - in fact, most of Australia - is not short of is hot sun, so why isn’t every regional/remore town aiming for self-sufficiency in terms of power generation? It is so obvious and while people will say “coal is cheaper”, everyone needs to look to the long term and start planning now. Surely this is one area where consensus can rule?

    • Peter Hook says:

      07:27am | 05/12/12

      While I will leave it to the political left and right to slug it out according to party lines, one thing is unarguable in terms of the article - Australia should be a world leader in terms of solar power generation. I was just at Ayers Rock and could not understand why all of the Resort’s power didn’t come from solar. One thing that central Australia - in fact, most of Australia - is not short of is hot sun, so why isn’t every regional/remore town aiming for self-sufficiency in terms of power generation? It is so obvious and while people will say “coal is cheaper”, everyone needs to look to the long term and start planning now. Surely this is one area where consensus can rule?

    • Peter Hook says:

      07:27am | 05/12/12

      While I will leave it to the political left and right to slug it out along party lines, one thing is unarguable in terms of the article - Australia should be a world leader in terms of solar power generation. I was just at Ayers Rock and could not understand why all of the Resort’s power didn’t come from solar. One thing that central Australia - in fact, most of Australia - is not short of is hot sun, so why isn’t every regional/remore town aiming for self-sufficiency in terms of power generation? It is so obvious and while people will say “coal is cheaper”, everyone needs to look to the long term and start planning now. Surely this is one area where consensus can rule?

    • Ken Oath says:

      08:01am | 05/12/12

      BASE… LOAD….
       
      No viable solution exists in current wind and solar technologies.

    • james says:

      09:02am | 05/12/12

      Molten salt, look it up.

    • Ken Oath says:

      09:20am | 05/12/12

      V-I-A-B-L-E.
       
      Look it up.

    • L. says:

      10:05am | 05/12/12

      “Molten salt, look it up.”

      Ppsstt.. james… Australia requires at a minimun 17,000 Mega Watts an hr to survive.

      17,000 Mega Watts a day..Min!

      Most days hit a top of around 29,000 MegaWatts.

      Only nukes, hydro and coal can produce that, day in, day out, 24 hrs a day.

    • james says:

      10:13am | 05/12/12

      Been running 24x7 since 2011, maybe you should be doing the looking up Ken.

    • L. says:

      12:59pm | 05/12/12

      “Been running 24x7 since 2011, maybe you should be doing the looking up Ken.”

      Where?

      How much power produced?

      At what cost/Mehawatt-hr?

      Link please.

      As Ken said.. Show us how V-I-A-B-L-E it really is.

    • james says:

      01:35pm | 05/12/12

      If it was not vialbe then it would not have been built and run 24x7 since 2011.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      02:00pm | 05/12/12

      The farce is strong in this one.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      02:55pm | 05/12/12

      @ James,

      “If it was not vialbe then it would not have been built and run 24x7 since 2011.”  Where? 

      I found this on Wikipedia (no date however the page was updated 2 Dec 2012)...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Project

      “Solar Tres.  Main article: Solar Tres Power Tower
      Due to the success of Solar Two, a commercial power plant, called Solar Tres Power Tower, is being built in Spain by Torresol Energy using Solar One and Solar Two’s technology for commercial electrical production of 15 MW.[3] Solar Tres will be three times larger than Solar Two with 2,493 heliostats, each with a reflective surface of 96 m². The total reflective area will be 240,000 m² (2.6 million ft²). They will be made of a highly reflective glass with metal back to cut costs by about 45%. A larger molten nitrate salt storage tank will be used giving the plant the ability to store 600 MWh, allowing the plant to run 24x7 during the summer.”

      But the fly in your ointment is the tag line “...allowing the plant to run 24x7 during the summer.”  SUMMER.  Because of the shorter and warmer nights perhaps?

      There is also a item under Land Use that says;

      “Solar thermal power plants are big and use a lot of land, but when looking at electricity output versus total size, they use less land than hydroelectric dams (including the size of the lake behind the dam) or coal plants (including the amount of land required for mining and excavation of the coal).[4]”  Well…. how about that…..smaller foot print than Lake Eucembene.  How lovely.

    • L. says:

      02:56pm | 05/12/12

      “If it was not vialbe then it would not have been built and run 24x7 since 2011.”

      Where is the refernce and and a simple answer to $/Watt hr..?

    • Charles says:

      04:30pm | 05/12/12

      Using molten salt to store energy, as per in Spain, allows their collector to store about 7 hours of useable energy.  Theerfore, to supply energy at the rate requiored needs a hot day, followed by a short night.  This happens less than 5% of the year, so for about 17 days a year, you can have the electricity on for 24 hours a day, and after that if that is all you are reliant on then it is a lot less than 24 hours a day.

      In addition, it costs roughly ten times more to deliver the MwH capacity compared to a fossil fuel generator (e.g. if a 500MwH coal fired generator cost $1 billion to establish, then a 500MwH solar thermal would cost approxmately $10 billion).

      So, do the mathematics, apply some logic, and see that it is simply not feasible

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      08:04am | 05/12/12

      Hi Sophie,

      Even though Australia isn’t one of the biggest polluters like China, Russia and the USA, it could still set an example to the rest of the world by relying more on renewable energy resources such as solar energy and wind power.  If a tiny country such as Holland can do it, what is stopping Australia?  Maybe a touch of sheer laziness and sense of security combined with not really thinking on a global scale?  Most of the Western world with an insatiable appetite for petrol and in particular China’s appetite for huge amounts of coal for its cost efficiency in heavy industry, do we need to wonder where our problems and solutions may lie in the near future?

      Should we also ask ourselves why we are actually consuming fossil fuels at a much higher rate then ever before without even giving it much thought at all?  Well maybe we will not be directly affected by climate change this generation how about all the future generations?  I personally believe that Europeans have really mastered the idea of living green and recycling everything in sight.  On German streets you see more Smart cars and better still during the weekdays you hardly see any Germans driving their cars to get to work. It is a luxury put aside for weekends and family outings.

      So can Australia still master this unique idea of demand and never ending supplies, without giving much thought to what we are actually doing to our environment?  Are we also robbing the future generations of what they are ultimately entitled to?  Which happens to have access to good air quality, more natural resources and less suffering due to extreme weather patterns which will eventually affect our agriculture industry in a very negative way, whether we would like to take it seriously or not right now!  Kind regards.

    • gnome says:

      09:19am | 05/12/12

      No traffic jams on German streets- holiday traffic only on the autobahn- Germans will be pleased.  You should let them know too, NK, as well as telling us.

    • Nickn says:

      08:09am | 05/12/12

      Peter.. solar power has been around for half a century and even with the advancement of technologies in this field ,providing enough power to run our current needs requires a vast amount of panels which by the way are produced burning a whole lot of carbon in the first place and are reliant on whether or not the sun shines.This type of energy is currently being subsidised by governments who pass the cost on to all consumers.It is a very very expensive way to provide electricity and the panels themselves need constant replacing.It is obvious that this type of energy will never be able to provide the kind of output needed to run cities and factories..but the dreamers will dream on.

    • ibast says:

      08:54am | 05/12/12

      I agree that PV is not the solution, but we should be putting in a lot of thermal solar.  Makes a lot of sense in Australia.

      It still won’t solve the fact we need coal of nuclear power for base load, however.

    • Anubis says:

      08:31am | 05/12/12

      What is this all about - Julia gave us the Carbon Tax, she said it would fix the problem so why are we still talking about this - it has been fixed, just refer to all of Julia and Bob’s public uttering on the subject. Carbon Tax = climate fixed. After all, Julia wouldn’t lie to us would she???

    • Camapis says:

      09:45am | 05/12/12

      10 year old.
      What a jumbled mess there is inside your head.

    • Joan Bennett says:

      08:35am | 05/12/12

      So, if we move away from coal which is cheap and efficient (and plenty of it) to something that produces a lot less energy, I guess that means we are going to cut our population by mandatorily sterilising everyone able to reproduce and killing off others?  Either that or electricity will only be for the chosen few…

    • ibast says:

      09:13am | 05/12/12

      No, well just have to have one meal per day and we won’t be able to manufacture anything before or after sunset.

      We’ll also have to shower at lunch time, so the workplace might be a bit smell of a morning.

    • Knemon says:

      12:28pm | 05/12/12

      “we are going to cut our population by mandatorily sterilising everyone able to reproduce and killing off others”

      What a great idea Joan Bennett…I’d certainly vote for that.

    • PJ says:

      11:01am | 05/12/12

      We live in a world that is Coal hungry.

      Currently Coal holds 30 percent of the worlds Energy market and an energy Report shows that even in 2030 Coal will hold 27.7% of the global Energy market.

      By 2030 The Developing Non OECD countries will command 96% of the new energy demand to fuel their own Industrial Revolution. And they’ll need cheap coal.

      Over the next 10 years we know that Coal Fired Power Stations will increase by 35% at an investment rate of $140 Billion per year.

      To date the world has only invested $257 in Renewable Energy. Most of that is in the declining Western region.

      Energy reports maintain that in 2030 Renewable energy will only hold 6% of the Energy Market, whilst Coal and Gas will hold an average of 27%.

      With all this global demand for Coal Energy, I will never ever trust the Labor Greens with economic matters again. Read:

      “BHP Billiton head Marius Kloppers has told European investors that Australia’s carbon and mining taxes have helped to render the nation’s coal industry unworthy of further investment at this time.

      Despite reassuring Australians that the taxes were not to blame for BHP’s mothballing of the $US30 billion Olympic Dam expansion, Mr Kloppers referred to both when telling British media that new investments in Australia’s coal sector would not be profitable.”
      - smh.com.au

    • wm says:

      11:32am | 05/12/12

      If anyone can add to the list of 24 climate denying scientific papers, then please share…

      If not, then as you were, back to the gutless smear…

    • PJ says:

      01:04pm | 05/12/12

      i’m going to be really angry if I end up living in a damp turf mound with five other families sharing THE Candle and it’s not even our week to be allowed to pick 5 cherries off the communal cherry tree.

      On ya bike Greenies!

      My proposal is we export Greenies to those economies that pose a threat to our markets.

      Let them cripple those economies with their ‘variations on a theme of global destruction through climate change sonata.’

      While we clean up the customers.

    • L. says:

      01:46pm | 05/12/12

      “If anyone can add to the list of 24 climate denying scientific papers, then please share…”

      haha, what?

      Show us here you go this ‘definitive’ list..?

      Oh, and what does a paper have to say to make it ‘climate denying’..?

    • martinX says:

      09:05am | 05/12/12

      Solar panels have been The Dream for decades. Sticking them on suburban roofs, however, will never be economically viable. Which brings us to large installations: if a dollar could be made from solar, someone would be building a facility with acres of panels and raking in the money. The fact that no-one is speaks volumes. The only people making money from solar are those who get government subsidies, the bill for which which eventually comes back to taxpayers and dropped government programs.

    • Jess says:

      10:52am | 05/12/12

      ACT is. They are in the process of building a a solar farm outside of Canberra to provide power to 4000 homes. The location will be co-shared with pastoral grazing.
      http://the-riotact.com/fotowatio-renewable-ventures-frv-to-build-royalla-1-a-20mw-solar-power-facility/81591

      Home solar generation for farmers is also steaming ahead combating power generation and water loss to evaporation by farmers floating solar panels on their water supply dams. (New inventors) 
      Potentinal for sheep farmers to also share grazing land with solar structures (shade for sheep and auxillary income for farmers during drought years)

    • Steve of QBN says:

      12:02pm | 05/12/12

      @ Jess, and the NSW government are seeking assurances from the ACT Assembly that Ms Gallagher will not use her “call in” powers to stop the environmental impact studies.  They are wary of the impact it will have on NSW residents in the area.

    • martinX says:

      01:08pm | 05/12/12

      Then that is brilliant Jess. Personally, I won’t believe it until it’s up and running and paying for itself. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I have seen the promise of solar energy just out of reach for a long time. Nearly got solar panels myself in the 90s, but they would have been about 1/5 of the cost of the house, there was no feed-in system at all and I couldn’t have boiled a jug with the power they made. For enthusiasts only.

    • BillK says:

      09:13am | 05/12/12

      Maybe someone with some detailed technical knowledge can answer this.

      Is it true that manufacturing of a wind turbine takes more energy than it will actually deliver in it’s life time?

      Or if it’s false, at what point does it become a positive producer of energy?

    • Tom says:

      12:00pm | 05/12/12

      It takes about 10 months to pay back the energy used in manufacture. The most energy intensive components are the tower, gearbox and blades.
      Also keep in mind that a coal or nuclear plant never pays back as it only consumes resources.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      01:42pm | 05/12/12

      @ Tom. 

      “Also keep in mind that a coal or nuclear plant never pays back as it only consumes resources.” What?  You statement is misleading as the value of the produced power (from burning fuel) is greater than the cost of the fuel itself otherwise no-one would be building them.

    • TRBNGR says:

      09:17am | 05/12/12

      “This week here in Doha, Qatar youth from around the world…”

      So, how many international flights were made in the interests of bringing people together to ‘discuss’ climate change? Couldn’t you have all Skyped and saved a whole bunch of carbon emissions?

    • Soylent Green says:

      09:26am | 05/12/12

      I’m all for global warming and the catastrophes that have been predicted. The human population will soon be unsustainable. Nature has a way of correcting populations when they get out of control.  The best part for us is that it will be the third world countries that suffer the greatest reduction in population.
      Sounds harsh, but it will be good for us.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:42am | 05/12/12

      See, this is why hte ‘Adults’ of the world don’t actually listen to the ‘Youth of the Wolrd’

      ‘Oh, we’ll just plonk down 23 000 square kilometres of Solar Panels and the problem is solved’........really?? That simple? Do you have any actual idea of what kind of infrastructure and support we’ll need to put in place for ‘23 000 square kilomtres of solar panels’?? The storage and transmission needs, all the lines, facilities and other infrastructure needed…....and what do we do at night?? There’s what 8-10 hours of no power production at all, then add on inclement day time conditions. And we aren’t even talking ongoing maintenance of so many hundreds of thousands of solar panels that will need to be maintained, replaced etc

      Look, I am all for plonking down renewable energy as much as we can - but lets start with some realistic plans shall we?? Not just plonking down hundreds of thousands of solar panels ‘somewhere’ and expecting things to be hunky dory.

      I’d love to see Australia using some of the Uranium we export all over the world as cheap clean energy. We have one of the msot geoligically stable contnients on the planet. We have vast swathes of land no bugger is or will ever use. And contrary to hand wringing green propaganda - we have come a long way since 3 Mile Island….and no, Chernobyl is not an example since that was a shitty Soviet design with sloppy practices, bad training and procedures and far too much top level only decision making.

      The Qld Goverment recently cancelled funding into what would have been a great solar project ‘out west’, which is a shame because its was an awesome concept. From memorty it was based on the same concept the Israelis have been pioneering with a huge solar array focusing inwards on a central tower. Things like that I would argue for rather than plonking down ‘23 000 square clicks of panels’ without any thoughts.

      We CAN do renawables, but we are really only into the first generations of these concepts. They are expensive and not very efficient. We’d be pretty bloody stupid to commit to rolling them out all over the country. Lets get trials up and running and refine the concepts. Take 15-20 years to develop them further and gain better knowledge and engineering skills. Then we should look to mass deployments.

      We aren’t going anywhere in the next decade or two. Tivalu won’t be under water….

    • kfr says:

      09:46am | 05/12/12

      Our dear sophie rails against the evils of the industrial revolution and obscene march of moderninsation in this world and implies it it is all wrong. Too humour her a little, if she gets her way and the past was all worng, she would not be here as her parents would never have been born and those of us alive today would all be living in caves; just like the greens want. In other words sophie, the world is much more than just you and your myopic thoughts, like it or not.

    • Geko says:

      09:53am | 05/12/12

      The article states “However, weak carbon emission targets are not enough to do our fair share in dealing with the immanent climate crisis.”

      The “crisis” exists only in GIGO computer models and the fevered imaginations of the gullible, not to mention our leftist friends with their hidden agenda to destroy western democracy!

      Global warming lasted only about 16 years from 1980 to 1996.
      Since then warming has plateaued for 16 years despite “SOARING” trace gas plant food CO2 levels.

      What does that tell you about climate sensitivity?

      We have very short memories, otherwise we would remember how the CIA was duped into panicking about global cooling in th 1970’s.

      The CIA’s “Global Cooling” Files
      “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”
      written by the CIA for ‘internal planning purposes’ in August 1974

      The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of GLOBAL COOLING, NOT WARMING.

      And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists.

      This might be the most important lesson of the 1974 report on global cooling:
      that we need to grow up, separate climatology from fear, and recognise — much as it pains politicians and scientists — that our understanding of how climate changes remains in its infancy.

      http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/5592803/the-cias-global-cooling-files.thtml


      http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

      Note also how they attributed exactly the same weather disasters to global cooling which our current crop of apocalyptic warmist friends now attribute to mythical manmade warming!

    • Helen of Troy says:

      09:56am | 05/12/12

      one interesting fact that is looked over is where temperatures are taken.ie in Auckland fifty years ago the daily temperature was recorded in the Botanic Gardens. Today it is recorded at the airport. Id imagine if the temperature was still taken in the gardens there wold be negligible difference to that from fifty years ago. Most city readings are taken at airports which are pretty hot places with all that tarmac !

    • the magpie says:

      10:48am | 05/12/12

      So you are saying that building cities and airports has made the place hotter. Therefore, the warming is due to human activities.

    • Ben C says:

      11:43am | 05/12/12

      @ the magpie

      Laughable how you could draw that conclusion from what Helen has said.

    • the magpie says:

      02:12pm | 05/12/12

      @Ben C

      Not quite as laughable as having keyboard warriors purporting to know more about the state of the climate than trained climatologists and meteorologists

    • martinX says:

      02:34pm | 05/12/12

      The magpie: The National Weather service (US) suggests the following:
      The sensor should be mounted 5 feet +/- 1 foot above the ground.
      The ground over which the [radiation] shelter is located should be typical of the surrounding area.
      A level, open clearing is desirable so the thermometers are freely ventilated by air flow.
      Do not install the sensor on a steep slope or in a sheltered hollow unless it is typical of the area or unless data from that type of site is desired.
      The shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.)
      The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface.

    • Geko says:

      10:03am | 05/12/12

      I’ll only believe this climate change disaster claptrap when the leftists/warmists stop trying to bring down western civilisation and turn their attention to the real problem of nuclear power and overpopulation.

      If these two issues can be resolved then the mythical problem of manmade warming is solved.
      But that’s not what our leftist/warmist friends are after.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      10:18am | 05/12/12

      Sophie, so many mixed metaphors, so many motherhood statements, so little reality.

      Where to begin….  You don’t like manufacturing.  Ok, so where did your PC, iPhone, iPad come from?  China.  And they are opening new coal fired power stations at the rate of one a week.  How did you get to Doha?  On a plane?  And how was that created?  By smelting aluminum (congealed electricity) which relies on lots of cheap power to make.  No planes, no “off to Doha”.  And then, who makes the EV panels and wind turbines?  But wait, these must the GOOD manufacturers, the ones who us only renewable energy and treat the earth with respect.  Errr, no.  Made in China using coal fired power or nuclear power.

      “...if the renewable energy big wigs (who happen to be scientists, economists and the like)...”  This also includes General Electric who, along with providing most of the Wests nuclear power stations, also has a vested interest in building wind turbines.  GE was reported to be looking at reaping $20 billion in 2010 from renewable energy (read wind turbine) technology.  A big vested interest indeed.

      Cheap, reliable and plentiful energy moved Europe out of the agricultural age into the mechanical age.  It made it easier to till the land, to sow crops and to harvest them faster.  It allowed for refrigeration which provided fresh food to people in the cities are cheap prices.  It provided street lights and home lighting.  Home lighting meant that people didn’t need to go to bed when the sun went down.  This allowed the working people to read and study, lifting themselves and their children out of poverty and privation.  Cheap power in Africa means young mothers can cook without having to use dung as fuel.  Dung that causes lung cancers.  It means being able to use a water pump so women and children don’t need to haul water from a river.  EV panels are expensive in Australia, how much more expensive are they in Africa?

      Rather than fattening the wallets of the coal barons, you would fatten the wallets of the wind barons.

    • daniel says:

      10:29am | 05/12/12

      The idea that renewable energies are clean and green is perhaps the most uninformed, primary school thought bubble imaginable. This explosion in the idea the renewable energies are clean and green - albeit, thanks to the excellent people at marketing - is remarkable. It might come as a surprise but renewable energies only address the “speed of recovery” not environmental concerns [unless it has to do with the habitat destruction that accompanies coal mining]. There’s also a matter of cost making solar and wind power prohibitively expensive without subsidies. The task of reducing emissions overall - not just CO2 emissions - is a lot more complex than simply changing the fuel-to-the-point.

    • Geko says:

      10:42am | 05/12/12

      Well said, Helen Of troy, and aslo, don’t forget the insidious temperature data fudging going on to exaggerate the natural warming we’re experiencing since the Little Ice Age.
      Here is an example from the US.

      In The US, NOAA Climate Data Fudging Sticks Out Like A Sore Thumb

      Comparison of all rated climate stations in the continental US

      What the Class 1 and 2 compliant thermometers say:
      +0.155 degrees C per decade warming.

      What the Class 3, 4 and 5 NON-compliant thermometers say:
      +0.248 degrees C per decade warming.

      What the NOAA final adjusted data says:
      +0.309 degrees C per decade warming.

      This warming defintely appears to be man made!

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:58am | 05/12/12

      The only real solution to Global Warming is held by the CDC, but they won’t release it…...

    • ibast says:

      12:10pm | 05/12/12

      The unspoken message behind all this is the fact, that the current measures being put in place are stop-gap measures at best.  At some point we need to address global population growth, or the planet will do it for us.

      It is unspoken because the Christian church is very highly influential in Western poitics (and others) and the Muslim church is highly influential in most of the rest of the world.  The idea of population growth for the good of the church is not an idea that will be let go easily.

      The other problem is our economic foundation.  The foundation of the free market is one of average growth and to achieve this population growth is needed.

      To truly address global warming, and the threat of pandemic diseases, these two things need to be addressed.

    • Jess says:

      11:03am | 05/12/12

      Energy storing is a major blocker in use of renewables. Once that is sorted Australia will steam ahead in the use of renewables.
      bring back new inventers. It’s a particularly good source of information on use of renewables.
      Also why isn’t wave power being discussed? (Though technology in this area is still in it’s infancy)

    • Geko says:

      11:14am | 05/12/12

      The lefties aren’t interested in a “solution” to mythical manmade warming.
      They are just out to destroy western democracy and enslave humanity as the following quote demonstrates ....

      “If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy
      with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.”
      Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth-Plowboy Interview, Nov,Dec 1977, p.22

    • Geko says:

      11:19am | 05/12/12

      Oh yeah. Renewable energy now provides about 10 per cent of our electricity. Sounds like we’ve got a running start? We’ve ‘only’ got to expand it tenfold?

      Except what people like Flannery never tell you in all the headline flummery, is that the overwhelming majority of that comes from hydro power. And nobody’s building dams any more.

      Yes, the body of his report does note that some 65 per cent of that 10 per cent comes from hydro. It’s arguably closer to 80 per cent in non-drought years.

      That means barely 2 per cent of our total electricity comes from what the average person would think as ‘renewable’… Wind and solar…

      That means even using his optimistic numbers for current wind and solar generation, we would have to increase our installations of wind and solar by at least forty times what they are today to get 100 per cent of our electricity from these two “plentiful” sources….

      But that’s to produce today’s power. Flannery’s talking about some decades ahead, when our demands will probably have doubled. So make that a 160-fold increase in windmills…

      Solar and wind could even be the cheapest sources of power for retail users by 2030, Flannery trumpeted. As carbon prices rise, he added.

      Yes, the greatest half-truth of the climate propagandists. Make real power sources ridiculously, unnecessarily expensive and suddenly wind and solar become “cheap.”

    • Geko says:

      11:23am | 05/12/12

      the magpie wrote “So you are saying that building cities and airports has made the place hotter. Therefore, the warming is due to human activities.”

      Yes but it’s NOT GLOBAL WARMING only highly localised warming
      Engage brain before writing.

    • ausspud says:

      11:44am | 05/12/12

      All this Global Warming/Climate change crap is confusing the hell out me.
      1) Coal is only evil if we use it.
      2)Uranium is only evil if we use it.
      3)Tim Flannery say’s if we cut emissions now we will not see the effect’s for a 1,000yrs,so does that mean our current climate was shaped a 1,000yrs ago.They call around that period “The dark ages” mainly because not much was written about that time,now I see why,What sort of evil were they up to.
      4)Solar panel’s-Call a Manufacturer & tell them your about to go on the roof because there’s a problem,and then sit back and listen to them have a heart attack,why,from all the harmful chemicals.
      5)Solar panel’s-To extract the chemicals to make them is an Environmental disaster.
      6)Wind turbines-An unreliable bird killer.
      7)You say mining is evil,yet you would happily use it to make your Panels & Turbines.
      I could go on but I havn’t got all day

    • I hate pies says:

      11:53am | 05/12/12

      “cataclysmic impacts of a rapidly warming world”....“immanent climate crisis”

      Who’s the scaremongers?

      Give us facts, not ideological bullshit and you might sway a few more people.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      12:23pm | 05/12/12

      Dear I hate pies,

      What should we do when the facts are scary?

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      12:42pm | 05/12/12

      This is the same Lisa Meredith that thinks global warming causes earthquakes. AAaaaaahahahahahahahahaha.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      02:47pm | 05/12/12

      Dear Kurisu Sonsaku,

      Do you think I just made it all up then?

      As I said before, it’s been around for over a century. The US Geological Survey accepts the premise.

      Scandinavian countries even have laws concerning land reclamation due to glacial rebound. If you ever watch British archaeological documentaries you’ll notice they refer to it often.

      What do you think is going on if the continents don’t float on the mantle? And if they do, why is buoyancy not a factor?

    • I hate pies says:

      03:36pm | 05/12/12

      Dear Lisa,

      grow up. If you can’t see that these are inflammatory, exaggerating terms there’s not use entering debate with you.
      The only cataclysm we’re about to face is when the current brainwashed children reach positions of power and influence.

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      04:14pm | 05/12/12

      @Lisa Meredith - you are confusing Cryotectonics with plate tectonics.

      “Do you think I just made it all up then?” that is a yes. You are peddling a falsehood

      So you say global warming induced earthquakes have been around for a century? Sorry you are lieing. The closest you could possibly reach for is Post Iceage isostatic Rebound.

      http://www.ga.gov.au/hazards/earthquakes/earthquake-basics/causes.html

      I’ll even dumb it down so the average ecoshill can understand.  You.are.full.of.it

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      04:17pm | 05/12/12

      Dear I hate pies,

      I put it to you that science should not censor its theories based on how scary they are.

      We must use science to argue science.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      06:43pm | 05/12/12

      Dear Kurisu Sonsaku,

      Well it could be wrong, but here are some quotes to show I am not making it up.

      Quote: Allen Glazner of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,  is a geoscientist who has studied the phenomenon. Analyzing an 800,000-year record of volcanic activity in eastern California, Glazner found that “the peaks of volcanic activity occurred when ice was retreating globally.”

      Quote: Patrick Wu, a professor of geophysics of the University of Calgary, which suggests that past disappearance of ice “may still be contributing to quakes in eastern Canada. The pressure of the ice sheet suppresses earthquakes, so removing that load triggers them.”

      Quote: Bill McGuire, professor of Geophysical Hazards at University College; “It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the loading and unloading of the Earth’s crust by ice or water can trigger seismic and volcanic activity and even landslides. Dumping the weight of a kilometre-thick ice sheet onto a continent or removing a deep column of water from the ocean floor will inevitably affect the stresses and strains on the underlying rock,” he wrote. “[While] not every volcanic eruption and earthquake in the years to come will have a climate-change link… [As] the century progresses we should not be surprised by more geological disasters as a direct and indirect result of dramatic changes to our environment.”

    • bananabender56 says:

      12:16pm | 05/12/12

      You can’t make wind turbines or solar panels from power provided by solar panels and wind turbines - you need thermal power stations to provide a base supply for high energy industries - like aluminium smelters. Without coking coal to make steel, you wouldn’t have the wind turbines or solar panels.  Does anyone remember the winter in the UK a couple of years ago when a low pressure system swept down from the arctic, reduced the UK to freezing temps and because the system sat there with no wind, the wind turbines were useless?

    • Geko says:

      01:01pm | 05/12/12

      Shane From Melbourne wrote “The only real solution to Global Warming is held by the CDC, but they won’t release it…...”

      EXACTLY Shane that’s the hidden misanthropic agenda behind this Great Global Warming Swindle!
      Wipe out humanity. They are the enemy!
      Behold the insanity of the leftists/warmists in the following quotes.

      “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion-guilt-free at last!”
      Stewart Brand, Writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue

      * “In the history of mankind we witness Nature’s desperate struggle against an error of her own evolution…. If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die,” Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola


      “Ours is an ecological perspective, that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as ‘disease’ (e.g. malaria) and ‘pests’ (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere.” Dave Foreman, Earth First!

      “I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
      John Davis, Editor, Earth First Journal

      “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” John Davis, Editor Earth First Journal

      “So what? People are the main cause of our problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them…” Charles Wurster, after it was pointed out to him by a reporter that the widespread usage of the pesticide DDT saved lives.

      “The common enemy of humanity is man.
      In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
      dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Club of Rome

      “The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.”
      Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

    • Kelsey says:

      01:05pm | 05/12/12

      Hey Soph. You’re a gun and I admire you deeply. Thanks for having a pragmatic, rational, optimistic voice in the time of a deeply cynical climate debate.

    • PJ says:

      01:12pm | 05/12/12

      So lets get this straight. All Nations around the Global are to agree to:

      - reduce carbon emission to pre industrial revolution levels globally. Thats like living as if it’s 1800AD.
      - we are to be totally reliant on unreliable and inefficient and very expensive wind power for 100 years.
      - after 100 years the climate may have changed in temperature to start cooling the seas.
      - After a further 800 years the seas would have cooled, thereby preventing a 1 metre rise in sea levels.

      cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo

      That’s about as achievable as Jesus Christ’s appeal for ‘world peace and good will to all men on earth’.

    • iansand says:

      01:42pm | 05/12/12

      PJ - As everything in your post (apart from the words “cuckoo”, which is an accurate assessment of what preceded them) is fabrication why do you think anyone would take you seriously?

    • East of Eden says:

      06:25pm | 05/12/12

      iansand
      no one takes babble-on seroiusly
      He can spam the comments section all he wants with his made up numbers. His credibility has been exposed and found seriously wanting.

      Why do you think he keeps changing his handle?

    • Bob from the bush says:

      01:50pm | 05/12/12

      OKSophie, let’s say we accept your “arguement”. In that case you should shut down all of Australia’s coal mines NOW! ! Oh sorry you can do that because Red Julia needs the revenue from them. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

    • shirley says:

      02:27pm | 05/12/12

      It is simply impossible to know whether the planet will warm or cool or how much – there are too many variables and the weather system is too complex.  But it is certain that more people will demand more space, consume more natural resources, need more food, clothing and shelter. This puts more stress on the environment. The climate debate has gone off the rails because people lack common sense.
      Only by slowing the rate of population growth, and making energy cheaper so that people can consume more of it to create wealth and solve poverty, can we make the world and its environment better and more secure. If we do not, then war and conflict is inevitable, and this will wipe out any gains we make to protect the environment. A nuclear or other major conflict, terrorism using bushfires, or use of WMD, will destroy or damage the environment massively. Security policy (including terrorism and immigration policy) and environment policy are interlinked.
      The Greens will not address population control or stop mass immigration even though it is the major stressor of the plant and potential cause of conflict – they want a utopian borderless world. Capitalist extremists want more people and a borderless world so that they can have more consumers and producers and move them freely across the globe, so as to make themselves rich. Do gooder post-modern cultural relativist lefties (not the traditional left) want a borderless world to fill the West with poor people to solve their own post-colonial and rich person’s guilt and make money spending our taxes helping them. They use environment policies as a disguise for third world aid. They do not care about the security and environmental problems that all this creates. 
      The ALP/Greens environment policies are all wrong because they are based on making energy more expensive so that people consume less. The very opposite is needed, with a growing planet of poor people we need to make energy much cheaper, less damaging and polluting, and consume much more. Pollution is only one aspect of environmental damage caused by overpopulation. It is far better to leave the existing prices of carbon intensive industry and energy alone, or get those prices down to save jobs and generate wealth, and spend instead more money on research and development of cheaper less polluting fuels and managing the effects of climate change. Better to slow population growth and have less people living better lives in a better environment in their own nations, and use the money in foreign aid wisely spent.
      The ALP/Green carbon tax simply punishes the poor by making the energy they have no choice but to consume more expensive, so that the money can be spent on mass immigration of poor people from third world countries. The rest of the revenue is wasted on useless utopian green schemes, schemes such as the NBN which the private sector could have built and wasteful stimulus that has never worked.

    • martinX says:

      02:59pm | 05/12/12

      Shirley you can’t be serious.

    • shirley says:

      04:05pm | 05/12/12

      Martin - What a lazy stupid comment. Refute or withdraw.

    • ramases says:

      03:48pm | 05/12/12

      Seems once again I have been cut out of the conversation, why, well to put it mildly I think its because I bring up facts like no base load, cost of production and intermittent power might have something to do with it. Maybe its because I live on 100% solar and know the pitfalls and the costs associated and don’t mind spreading the joy and that doesn’t sit well with the powers to be.
        Solar Power and wind power as the major power supplier is a myth and will remain so during our lifetime , our children’s lifetime and their grandchildren s lifetime.  Its costly, both in monetary terms and manufacturing terms, the amount of minerals having to be mined to produce and the amount of Carbon that is produced just to build the rotten things. Then there is the ongoing maintenance which if left to any Government would see wind fields becoming so much scrap in less than 10 years. and in terms of value for money doesn’t come anywhere near coal , gas or nuclear.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html
        of course the believers will poo poo this article because it too shouts out FAIL from each and every word written and this doesn’t sit well with their philosophy that Green is Good, everything else bad.

    • Kipling says:

      04:57pm | 05/12/12

      Global Warming or Climate Change take your pick of the debate to have. Please though ensure that at no time you move outside of this frame work and explore the impacts of human pollution on the one environment we have to survive in.

      So it seems that despite some saying that AGW is a given apparently, there is still some doubt, no worries I say, doubt away. Industrialisation has in the last few hundred years pumped tons upon tons of toxic waste into our environment. News flash, this is a closed system, eventually tipping point will be reached, yet we (as a species) appear so caught up in our day to day self obsessions to gather more material rubbish around our lives we ignorantly refuse to acknowledge that as a species, we are responsible for significant damage to the environment that we rely on.

      So AGW can simply be true of false and it will be no big deal, we are still poluting and if not us, our offspring or their offspring perhaps will be paying the bill and at great cost too. Nice legacy to leave behind, at least they can be comforted to know that their forebares had a debate about Climate Change or Global Warming or some other important shite whilst stubbornly contirbuting to the deterioration of the environment they will be responsible for coping with.

      By the way, regardless of the cause, there is significant less ice now at the poles, that is a bit of problem. Of greater concern there is also significant less permafrost now (RIGHT NOW) on the planet - that is of very big concern. By all means do your own research into why that is actually worth being very concerned about, regardless of the cause.

      At the end of the day, I am over this entire debate, I am very certain we (as a species) are doing some pretty major damage to our environment and that this will also impact on other species who have no say. It seems pretty clear that we can only pump so much poison into the environment before the environment bites back.

      Finally this idea that Carbon is not a pollutant is somewhat disingenuous. Sure it is a naturally occuring gas, sure mixes of it feed plants that is not the point. Carbon is one of a number of “Greenhouse” gasses, that is how it qualifies as a pollutant (at some level at least). Greenhouse gasses also occur naturally, however, they also seem to be naturally offset for the main part, our input in adding to Greenhouse gasses presently has nothing to provide checks and balances for in nature. It seems very obvious that this should be something we take responsibility for, but reading this thread, NO ONE seems to be even very aware, let alone concerned enough to act responsibly.

    • Gordon says:

      05:03pm | 05/12/12

      Cute. You headline “we have 767 windfarms”, when in fact there are about 50 windfarms operating in Australia.  The installed capacity is about 2500 MW and the average capacity factor is 34%  so the actual energy deliverable is about 850MW…equivalent to about 2 boilers of one good sized coal plant. This is a start perhaps but that’s all. 

      Credits to Dave Clark for his excellent compilation of windfarm data.  http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindPower.html

    • Auzzo says:

      05:37pm | 05/12/12

      Why do I have to reduce the amount of power I use?  Why do MY children?

      I am now ancient with a wife and two children, both married with two children each.

      We, although only working class have lived within our means and only produced the children we could afford to bring up, educate and feed.

      We (Those not still in school) work and pay tax.

      We only use our share of electricity. The amount to power those lights and equipment to give us a reasonable lifestyle.

      We are a pretty typical Australian family.

      Australia has a low population and per square kilometer is an insignificant user of power or contributor to carbon.

      Look around the world and see who are the major contributors.

      They are the ones who dispite their poverty just keep on pumping out more and more babies.

      My message to them is, my house is in order, organise yours. DON’T complain about your lifestyle problems. YOU are the maker of it. 

      Ms. Gillard, To you I say, look after your own.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter