If we can’t lead on CO2, we shouldn’t in sport or science

Eric says:

05:20am | 30/11/09

Climategate. Climategate. Climategate.

That’s the real story. Why no coverage?

Wayne Hutchins says:

05:52am | 30/11/09

Keep trying to convince us guys! Your much smarter than us. We are just not university educated I suppose so we have a bit of trouble taking a lot in! You tell me this is a good thing then hey, who am I to think any different.
You gunna take your bat and ball and go home because us little guys don’t believe all your crap.. Sounds just like your having a spit because public opinion has moved away from your views. Get used to it guys, it feels bloody good to be a SKEPTIC…

Al Marshall says:

06:08am | 30/11/09

Heaven forbid using numbers to make a point rationally.

But I am sure that warm inner glow you will get by reducing CO2 emmisions by 0.075% will be incalculable

When the vast majority have no clue of the actual mechanics of an enormous taxation/control scheme - it is little wonder arguments like this can get traction.

Tom says:

07:05am | 30/11/09

Barnaby Joyce is completely across this. Global warming is, according to 31,000 scientists, nothing to do with human activity. It is an uncontrollable natural occurance. Even if if you believe you need an ETS, why rush this through in a manner that creates heavy additional taxation for Australia, especially when the major contributors have not even made their minds up.

We could close Australia down completely and it would not make a scrap of difference to the climate,

B says:

07:32am | 30/11/09

I still fail to see your argument on climate change.  If we do not cause it then why should we pay for it.  This is a typical article from the Media.  You are so wrapped up in your ‘feel good’ bubble you cant see that we do not actually contribute to this so called “Climate Change”.  This is a natural process called ‘climate change’ it is not cause by us.

Noone has ever been able to provide creditable evidence to me that man-made global warming exists.

The problem is this whole Climate Change fiasco will just undermine peoples faith in science when it is all shown to be a fraud.  All that hard work science went through to get us where we are.

Dave says:

07:50am | 30/11/09

B.  Australia, historically, has built a vast proportion of our wealth by polluting the skies.  The world’s skies.  That’s why we, along with the other developed countries need to man up, show some responsibility and pay our share.

As to people who think that the steady heating of the Earth is natural, just what do you expect will happen when, over the last couple of hundred years, we’ve dumped trillions of tonnes of extra CO2 into the air?  Do you really think that’s not going to have an effect?  The world is getting warmer people.  Them’s the facts.  No-one has ever come up with a credible explanation for why that’s happening without factoring in increasing CO2 levels.  This is science so basic that it can be taught to primary school kids, and is!

An ETS will not shut Australia down, that’s reactionary nonsense.  Mate just because you are too stupid to understand primary school science doesn’t mean it’s not true, it just means you are dim.

Tom who are these 31,000 scientists you speak of?  Show us ONE peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that increasing levels of CO2 and other GHGs are not warming the Earth.  Just one!

Warming deniers can twist the numbers, edit the graphs do whatever but the facts don’t change.  The Earth is warming, CO2 emissions are causing it and that warming is changing the climate, to the detriment of all life on Earth.

Science doesn’t require faith mate.  It’s built on observations, facts, theories, questions and often bitter debate.  The fact that there is overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue should scare the shit out of you.

And say the science does turn out to be wrong, let’s just pretend it’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster that’s touched our planet with His noodly appendage and THAT is heating the globe…  well where is the downside in moving to cleaner power sources?  Where is the harm in saving the world’s forests?  Where is the harm in improving energy efficiency, lowering costs and creating a new generation of green jobs?

Alex says:

08:08am | 30/11/09

I fail to see how people can just blindly say “it’s a crock, we are having no affect on the climate whatsoever…”

Look at what the world looked like 1000 years ago compared to now.. heck look what it looked like 200 years ago compared to now…  How can the changes we have inflicted, the pollution we have dumped into the sky not be having an affect.

This things work on a serious delay, so we may not get any credible evidence until the next generation of scientists comes through, or of course the next generation of scientists may totally disprove it.

But is that a risk we are willing to take… Well there is no concrete evidence on it now, so lets do nothing, only to discover in 50-100 years time… oops, so turns out those scientists were right, the pollution was affecting the climate… oh well, nothing we can do now, but rug up and wait for an ice age to hit.

While I think the ETS is far from the best way to go about doing it, if it forces industry to rethink how they pollute cause they are getting hit in the pocket for it, then I can’t see that as a bad thing.

What bad can come from it?

Steve says:

08:11am | 30/11/09

Dave,

You have been brainwashed, by Al Gore, check out what happedned in high court in Britan over the errors in Gores Fiction Movie, listen to Lord Viscount, there is no such thing as global warming, or how they rebranded it to Climate Change, as sisnce 2000, its actually been getting cooler funny that.

To say we should then pay, so what we have is this govt under Rudd, we would have to borrow money as we do now from Chian, then pay China under a ETS tax, considering there country has higher GDP, and has more pollution, this all makes sense if we were in a fantasy land.

We would also be paying ETS to Zimbabwe, Cuba, all these countries run by despots, so you want to now give money to people who have kept there own people down, or in some instatnces murdered them for years, so you have no problem paying these people billions of dollars.

That is why we need to take a stand, lets see that there is climate change, its more Climate Gate, so those alreay in, can line there pockets with more money

Luke says:

08:17am | 30/11/09

The earth is flat, the earth is flat, the earth is flat, the earth is flat… keep on chanting it Barnaby and Co. and soon enough some of the people will believe it!

Wayne Hutchins says:

08:21am | 30/11/09

And Dave says: 08:50am | 30/11/09,
You have been directed to heaps of credible skeptical scientists on numerous occasions but you choose not to read them and instead continue to place your faith in “paid for” results and scientific witchcraft. Why is it that I can follow the links that have been placed on the Punch on numerous occasions but the true believers continue to deny they exist. I once felt like you and I am sure with a little effort you can pull your head out of the sand, remove your blinkers and stop endorsing an unnecessary tax that will wreck this country for negligible returns on carbon output, at best guess. Let the debate begin! Don’t rush this through!

steve says:

08:29am | 30/11/09

We are not a small country. We are huge country with a small population. We have a land mass the size of Europe with the population of Los Angeles. The statistics you quote are correct and absolutely irrelevant so far as the planet is concerned.

Here is another statistic for you; we are the smallest polluter per square kilometre of land area. I have said in every blog I contributed to; Can anyone confirm that Dinky little Australia placing a tax on power, fuel, gas and jobs will alter the temperature of the planet? Not even the most rapid eco alarmist believes this. If no one believes this is not going to work, Why be the first in the world to do it.

The rest of your article is fairy floss.

Charles says:

08:36am | 30/11/09

Dave and Alex, 1000 years ago the climate was approximately 3-4C higher than it is today.  We know that because among other things the Vikings settled Greenland and survived there for about 350 years.  They cannot do that today.

The amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is about 4%.  It has stayed that way for the last 15 years or so since they started testing for it.  If anything, the amount of anthropogenic CO2 has actually recently fallen (3.2%).
The ETS is promising to reduce emissions of CO2, a colourless, odourless gas, which exists in trace amounts in the atmosphere.  It will do nothing to reduce particulate and aerosol pollution which is probably what you are referring to.  In fact, we will probably increase amounts of that type of pollution, as removing that type of carbon pollution from the atmosphere normally takes energy, of which a consequent product is always going to be CO2.

The climate is changing as it always does, but within normal variables, and a mad Green tax will do nothing to change that situation.

DocBud says:

08:39am | 30/11/09

Dave,

The observations show that the planet is not currently warming and the warming over the last hundred years or so would have been expected after the Little Ice Age. It would not have looked quite so dramatic towards the end of the last century if it wasn’t for the “tricks” of Prof Jones and other Climategate scientists.

Climategate also shows us how the appearance of a consensus was maintained, but anyone who has followed the debate outside of the ABC, BBC and The Age would have known that there never was a consensus.

Of course an action causes an effect, the question is how much? Does a small increase in a trace gas cause a massive effect? Science says no, cue computer models, some speculated positive feedbacks and sensitivities and, hey presto, there’s your massive effect (shame the planet is not playing ball so early in the piece, hence the panic among the alarmists who know their window of opportunity is ever diminishing unless the data can be “helped”).

You know you’re winning when your opponents start trotting out, evermore frequently, “even if I’m wrong and you’re right, shouldn’t we still do what I propose” and throw in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a strawman. Well, no, because it is not a zero cost option. An ETS will not save forests:

http://forestindustries.eu/content/britain-cuts-down-forests-keep-‘green’-power-stations-burning

Plus plants like CO2.

Businesses and households will reduce costs where they can, nobody pays for something they don’t value so they don’t need to be forced to make them. I value being able to have the tv come on instantly in the morning so I’m prepared to pay for the tv being on standby over night.

Jobs are on the cost side of the ledger. One needs jobs that pay for themselves, replacing productive jobs with heavily subsidised green jobs will be a drain on the economy.

Super D says:

08:41am | 30/11/09

Luke,  Its the climate change alarmists who are the flat earthers, or more like the chicken littles claiming the sky is falling in.  It hasn’t got warmer for a decade.  I guess if it cools for another decade the peer reviewed science will be predicting an ice age.  Oh yeah they did that already.  Google climategate and get to the bottom of the scammers behind the climate change movement.  Total fraud. 

We will keep chanting “Fraud”, “Fraud”, “Fraud” until someone demonstrates otherwise.  And by demonstrate we means provides the data and the techniques which can be replicated and withstand scrutiny, rather than just hide behind a “mates review”.

It is after all, about the science, so lets start actually doing some!!

David C says:

08:46am | 30/11/09

I have a question to all those that put forward the argument it cant do any harm if we do something now which then tends to morph in to the insurance argument ie you have insurance for your house in case something happens.
My question is how much are you willing to pay for that “chance” ? I get it that people pay their $1,000 a year or whatever, but how many would pay if it was $25,000 a year?

Macca says:

08:46am | 30/11/09

@ Alex,

feel free to show me the temperature recordings and Sea level measurements taken in 1009, and 1889, across the globe and compare them to today. I think, although feel free to prove me wrong, you may struggle to find this data.

@Pete& Damon, more emotional crap. Barnaby wrote his article using figures, you, like the rest of Saint Gore’s followers, appeal to nothing but my sense of pride. Unfortunately, I like to use my mind for independant thought. And that independant thought is that you two are rubbish

Anthony says:

08:49am | 30/11/09

I still find it amazing that despite all the evidence against anthropogenic climate change, people are still pushing their ideological agendas of “we must change our lifestyle for the planet” garbage. You think the climategate scandal would diminish their faith but some people have thick skulls.

Dave says:

09:08am | 30/11/09

Sorry Wayne but I don’t even know you, and I don’t believe you know me so I fail to see how you could know what links I have or have not followed.

But mate, now is your big chance.  Find one, yep one (1) single peer reviewed scientific paper that shows that increasing CO2 and other Greenhouse Gas levels does not impact global warming.

Or perhaps you want to find me some evidence that burning fossil fuels and tearing down the planet’s trees is not adding GHGs to the atmosphere.

Or, and here’s one for you, show us all one peer reviewed paper that shows that the planet has not actually warmed over the last 100 years, or even the last 50 years!

If perhaps you believe that warming drives CO2 emissions instead of the other way around, please explain what caused the warming, and explain how warming might actually drive a rise in CO2 concentrations.

And finally, please let us all know where the downsides are in clean energy, saving forests and millions of ‘green’ jobs.

Oh and Steve, just to clear up something for you.  Global warming was not ‘rebranded’ climate change.  Global warming CAUSES climate change.

Here’s the sequence for you:
1) Human activity CAUSES extra CO2 (and other GHGs) to enter the air
2) Increasing concentration of GHGs in the air CAUSES global warming
3) Global warming CAUSES climate change

There, that’s not so hard to understand is it?

Also note, Australia is NOT the first country in the world to introduce an emissions trading scheme.  The USA did it with Sulphur Dioxide trading in the 1970s to combat acid rain.  And it worked. And guess what, industry found clever ways pretty damn quick-smart of reducing their SO2 output because all of a sudden they had to pay for it.  The USA didn’t collapse.

It’s also not the first time a product was removed from the world markets for non-economic reasons either.  Go back a few hundred years and instead of using coal, oil and petrol, people had slaves.  The USA fought a civil war over the right that some people thought they had to use other people as a raw form of power, and the slave owners lost.  The world made the moral decision to relinquish slavery as a form of cheap energy and guess what, the global economy, which was predicted at the time to collapse because of the withdrawal of that free labour, has marched along just fine.

Just so, we’ll get by without burning coal, oil and petrol as clean energy comes online. And it will make the world a much better place.

acotrel says:

09:13am | 30/11/09

all those overpaid scientists are LIARS!

Dave says:

09:19am | 30/11/09

Charles show me your evidence for your supposed ‘viking peak’

A quick google shows this
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

No evidence of a 3-4° peak anywhere in the last 1000 years.

And for all you who think your so called ‘climategate’ papers are some sort of smoking gun, forget it.  A few loose terms in some emails between scientists (and yes scientists are people too who don’t always speak precisely) does not in any way invalidate the general scientific consensus.  To think it does is wishful thinking indeed.

And again, what if it is wrong?  Do you really hate the idea of clean power that much?  Is digging up and burning coal that vital to your own well being?  get real.  Solar, just as an example, is getting cheaper and more efficient every month.  Not every year, every month.  Within a few years solar power will be cheaper to generate than coal power.  Why would you want to keep using coal when there are better alternatives?  The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.

Alexandra says:

09:35am | 30/11/09

It shocks and horrifies me that people still continue to deny the truth of climate change.  Don’t you people have eyes?  Can’t you see what is happening to the planet?  Australia is subject to consistent, prolonged drought, that is getting worse every year.  People are subject to stringent water restrictions all year, in order to ensure there is adequate drinking water available.  Bushfires are getting worse each season.  Temperatures are rising.  Freak heat waves are occuring earlier each year.  We used to be able to go home from school on a “hot day” of 38 degrees because it was thought that children couldn’t concentrate in the heat.  Now it’s not unusual for students to be sweltering through 45 degrees in spring.  Rising ocean temperatures have caused bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.  The Murray-Darling Basin is irreparably drying up.  These things are undeniably happening before our very eyes.  How can you then deny that global warming is happening?

The benefit of an ETS or any other scheme that the government puts in place is not so much a reduction in the levels of carbon, as a shift in culture.  It shows the Australian people that the government values the environment and wants to take responsibility , collaboratively, for taking care of our planet.  It causes people to stop and think, and debate the issue of climate change after looking for information from different sources.  Most importantly it shows the rest of the world that, contrary to what they may have come to believe thanks to our popular media, we are not a nation full of racist, narrow-minded, ill-educated bigots.  We are not a nation who are content to “do nothing” because we can’t really make a difference anyway.

The people who think that the issue of climate change is “more emotional crap” need to get some perspective and broaden their minds.  Care, compassion, and responsiblity are values that I hope we would all teach our children, as they are certainly reinforced in schools.  This means not only having empathy for other human beings, all over the world, but also feeling responsible for the care of our environment in which we live and which we will bequeath to our children.

JAYVEE says:

09:36am | 30/11/09

Surprise, Surprise!  So Australia has 1.5 % or whatever of Global emissions. We are after all one of the leading energy suppliers in the world in the form of Coal, LNG, LPG, and God knows what else. Using our own resources is a now a Sin? But if we send these resources offshore to the likes of China and India it is not?
Is it Ok Now to use Chinese made windmills, Solar panels etc. Etc . made with Aussie energy producing, but polluting, products exported to China?
Now if we forced the Chinese & the Indians not to use our coal for instance by not selling it to them they would just go and buy it elsewhere. So much for reducing pollution.
Only a few days ago the Chinese announced they were also going to do something about ‘Climate Change’  Yes Baby get this: They are not going to pollute at the same explosive ever increasing rate as they have been doing in the past. Good one! Meaning they will still increase their pollution at a somewhat slightly slower pace, probably for a much longer period! Trust the pragmatic Chinese : We’ll just poison you all a bit slower than we were doing now but for longer!
I can just hear it in the Chinese corridors of power : “Gee Wangee boy, Aussie peoples is REELLY Nice peoples but so Velly easily fooled!!! Please Send Ruddy Man Prime Minister and his Penny ( Velly Wong) Concubine a message. ” Do not burn Aussie coal in Australia, No good for enviloment,  but Ok in China, Thank You Velli Velli much!”

Andrew Goff says:

09:43am | 30/11/09

Those of you arguing that CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere that it couldn’t possibly have an impact have precisely no idea.

Those of you arguing in the same breath that CO2 can’t be bad because “plants like it” are astonishing.

The second point categorically proves that small concentrations of any chemical can have a dramatic impact on the world.

With no CO2, life on earth is over. With too much CO2, life on earth is over.

If you think small concentrations of chemicals don’t matter, try drinking a litre of water with 0.075%* potassium cyanide in it. Actaully don’t - I don’t want your quick and painless death on my hands.

*(the amount Australia’s proposed ETS will reduce Carbon emissions by)

Alexandra says:

10:01am | 30/11/09

@JAYVEE: thank you for your disgustingly racist comments.  I’m afraid you make my argument that Australia is not a nation full of racist, narrow-minded bigots, seem rather unfounded now.

m says:

10:13am | 30/11/09

Using numbers to lend credibility to a flimsy argument is not a new tactic.
How right you are!
Miss this did we boys:

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

Ann of Perth says:

10:17am | 30/11/09

We CAN lead in control of CO2,and we can lead in sport and science too.

There is nothing that can stop us only our own laziness.

If our ancestors kept on telling things like impossible, too difficult, cant be done , we would be living in caves without the wheels or electricity or freedom.

ONLY the one who are lazy or missing links in the brain say things cant be done.

For normal human can do whatever he or she puts their mind and strength to it.

Anything is possible.

Even animals improve their ways of living and hunting.

If we stay in one place, we will go beck to the caves with no fire.

That is why I have so many Gold Medals.

Paul says:

10:22am | 30/11/09

hmmm. the percentage of CO2 we produce is so small it hardly matters thus we shouldn’t worry about it at all.  I wonder if I can use this arguement in relation to paying tax.

Geo says:

10:23am | 30/11/09

Dave - just let it go mate! Wayne (YOU’RE)) YOU ARE 100% correct on that one. Yes, without a shadow of doubt - MOST of us ARE smarter that YOU ARE. . . and even without the benefit of a University education.  YOU ARE most certainly entitled to YOUR opinion my little ‘little-one’ - but please mate, learn some basic English before opening YOUR big fat mouth, because it’s (IT IS) just so embarrassing, especially when YOU write YOUR, when it should be YOU’RE . . . . And please, please also change that word SKEPTIC to DICK-HEAD too!! PS And by the way - in so far as public opinion is concerned - once upon a time most people used to think that the world was flat too! Harhar, LOL . . .  :O)
PPS On a more serious note - something that concerns me a great deal more than YOU do - why not just focus on this for a moment . . .
Since 1950, most of eastern and south-western Australia has experienced substantial rainfall declines, with the largest drying along the east coast exceeding 50 mm per decade (CSIRO 2007a). It is also recognised that the last 5 to 10 years mark one of the most severe droughts in Australia’s history (BoM 2006 and 2007). Source:
http://www.waterwatch.org.au/publications/2007conference/pubs/newton.pdf
Also refer the following - even more concern on what’s evident on Pages 5., 6. 7. & 8 - Refer: http://nceph.anu.edu.au/Envir_Collab/Short_Courses/SC1/Short_Course_Presentations_Summaries/Symposium_Day One/Presentations/Greg Ayers -The Australian climate.ppt
Now Wayne, is it all still too cerebral for YOU buddy!?

DocBud says:

10:30am | 30/11/09

Here you go, Dave, knock yourself out:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120100252/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf

http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16098488

Climategate is more about the files than the e-mails, the latter show how the scientists colluded to prevent contrary opinions appearing in peer reviewed journals and to maintain an illusion of consensus, the former are showing how they manipulated the data to hide the lack of evidence for AGW.

Phil says:

10:33am | 30/11/09

Why is it that your lot either say we are for an ETS or we want to destroy the planet willingly.

Who wants more polution. Noone.

But if the Rudd Government was serious about climate change and polution, why did they scrap and cut mid term the Solar Rebates. Cause too many were installing it. Why cause it saves them some money, albeit costing plenty up front.  Is not Solar one of the best sources of power. No side effects, takes pressure of the run down system.

Thats right cause they can get their mates at Merchant Banks to fund Wind Farms that we all pay more for. That and their state government mates would end up loosing income down the track.

If they were serious they would give low interest loans, like up to $ 30,000 at 2.5% for an installation of a real solar system. As you would not have an electricity bill any longer, you could make repayments of your normal electricity payments plus a bit more. The system would be paid for within 20 years, and the environment would be much healthier in the process. And no I dont work in this industry, nor stand to benefit from it.

Delaying the ETS so it can be properly looked at is a good think. Even the Greens are voting against the legislation as its bad. Noone is calling Bob Brown a climate change sceptic.

This government will export Brown Coal to India, which will contribute far more CO2 than Uranium that they wanted. If they were serious they would do this and also find a way of ensuring the uranium is used for what it is supposed to be.

Howard B says:

10:56am | 30/11/09

Dave: “Warming deniers can twist the numbers, edit the graphs do whatever but the facts don’t change.”

But isn’t that what the alarmists are doing to change the facts?? I’m told that “The Twist” is back to number 1 in the East Angian hit parade!!

Scott says:

11:00am | 30/11/09

Yes we all know shifting to a greener economy will cost us, but not much mention is happening of the circumstance if we do not develop other sources for energy. Some basic facts:

- Current energy sources of coal, oil and gas are NON-renewable resources
- This means that they will eventually run out
- According to economic theory when supply decreases (& demand stays constant or rises) prices will rise proportionally
- So if we fail to find other sources for energy we will in the future begin to pay more and more for current energy sources.

The Solution:
- The development of Renewable energy sources (with the support of govt’s, communities, businesses, etc)
- The beauty of renewable energy sources (Wind, solar, water, etc) is the supply is not destined to decline, in fact with the development of technology it will increase and provide cheaper and cleaner energy for all!

With or without belief in climate change the depletion of non-renewable energy sources will happen.  Why not be proactive about this and begin to invest Australian resources (be they monetary, environmental, intellectual, etc) into developing a cheaper alternate to fossil fuels?

What the boys in this article are trying to do is help drum up support from a lazy Australian public who always like to support winners, of which we have abundance in Sport. Unfortunately for us, we are not world-leaders in this field and hence ignore it.

Why not get as enthusiastic about developing greener technology or reducing CO2 output as we do about getting back the ashes or winning the World Cup? I know which one will be more respected by future generations….

Charles says:

11:08am | 30/11/09

@ Dave, the proof of the Viking peak (aka Medieval Warming Period) is proven by the fact the Vikings settled the shoreline of Greenland from about 950-1420, growing crops and keeping animals, until shorter summers and perma-frost drove them out. 

The remnants of those settlements exist today, although most are under ice, and there can be no traditional farming operations able to be carried out in their formerly colonised area.

There is some more mathematical data at this link here (joannenova.com.au/2009/11/a-simple-proof-that-global-warming-is-not-manmade/) to show how it has been for the last 2000 years or so.

Alex says:

11:18am | 30/11/09

Both arguments, for an against climate change are based on statistical means.  And anyone that has studied statistics knows that it is very easy to manipulate data to prove your point.

My argument is not that one is true and one is not, my understanding is that there is some very well respected scientists on both sides of the argument.  Is doing nothing worth the risk?

There is no concrete evidence either way, and there wont be until its too late… if we get it at all.  But how is reducing the worlds use on fossil fuels a bad thing.  After all these are expendable resources, which will we are depleting at a rate that nature can no where near replace them at.

Personally I think that human activity has affected climate change, I don’t think it is as drastic that is being made out, but I also see that forcing industry to move to more sustainable measures, and forcing the world to look at alternative power sources is not a bad thing.

So whether climate change is real or not, something should be done purely for the sake of advancement of society.

Margaret Gray says:

11:46am | 30/11/09

“...Why is it that your lot either say we are for an ETS or we want to destroy the planet willingly.

Who wants more polution. Noone…”

@Phil

Being mired in the rhetoric, you seem to have trouble understanding what constitutes “pollution”.

Armed with a basic understanding of science you would know that:

Carbon IS NOT pollution and

Carbon Dioxide IS NOT pollution.

Insisting everything is triple wrapped in plastic for “hygiene” reasons; owning three TVs, a laptop, PC, ipod, two mobile phones, Wii, Nintendo and a Playstation console, PS2 and a Blackberry all destined for landfill is.

So the only question remaining is:

How many of those pollutants do you have?

Andrew says:

12:11pm | 30/11/09

As far as the effect of humans on the environment, I figure there is one.  But personally I think there are enough checks and balances in the system to cope with most of them.  e.g. the SO2 tax mentioned, stopped the production, but the world took care of the original pollution - also it is obviously possible to reduce SO2 emissions, but unless you like holding your breath it might be almost impossible to stop CO2 emissions.  Personally I would prefer to see the government spend billions to develop something that will tackle the problem, rather than tax us until we cry enough and try to find a way out of paying more tax.  E.g. I heard a N.T. senator talk of a tidal energy generation scheme that would have cost a portion of the recent stimulus, created jobs, provided electricity for the nation, and been environmentally responsible…. I mean what are they planning to do with all this ‘green money’ anyway?

I agree humans do have an impact on the environment, but I don’t think CO2 is the worst of it.  Taking real food grinding it up, adding sugar preservatives and a petrochemical wrapper is meant to be better than the biodegradable packaging with built in use-by-date that nature gave it?  Making cars cheaper by making them almost a use-once and throw away mentality?  (If that is an example of what market forces produce, I don’t want a bar of it.)  Has anyone calculated what the net effect of having black roofs, black roads, black cars instead of green grass and trees has on “warming” our world?  Has anyone determined what the effect of building a virtual mountain (city) by the sea-shore has on the rainfall patterns of the area?  Does anyone think that some melting of the icecaps might be a good idea as we humans being approximately 60% water, roughly 40 liters per person, meaning with population growth (not accounting for the ‘obesity epidemic’) we NEED an extra 3 billion liters per year just to have a body, and where does this water come from?  What about the net effect of oil companies pumping (drinkable?) water underground?  What about our storm-water systems that take the water that would have hit the ground, seeped into it and provided some groundwater for this dry land of ours and send it back to the see as quickly as possible as if we didn’t need it?  (Has anyone performed a study of groundwater levels?) 

There are some questions that I’m not sure have been answered:
Would a fire-bug be liable for the CO2 emissions of the resulting fire (will they need to purchase carbon-credits before lighting one?)
Should the CFA have to hold a carbon-credit for back-burning operations?
If oil is simply the product of what was once vegetable matter, then doesn’t the argument that it’s a closed loop and counts as zero (same as the one used for humans breathing 1kg per day not mattering) apply?
Would someone performing euthanasia be a provider of carbon credits?
Is this (the CPRS) the absolute and best way forward for the planet (to minimize our footprint), or is it just the easiest, and most politically expedient?  (a way to be SEEN to be doing SOMETHING)

Personally I think what Iv’e heard on this CPRS is ridiculous, imposing huge cost for no tangible benefit, no accountability of where the money goes and no demonstrable effect on the environment they are supposedly trying to protect.  I think yes let’s be good stewards of our planet, and reducing emissions of all kinds would be a good step in the right direction, but I don’t agree that the current option is the right one.  And think that anyone pushing for a speedy acceptance with a downplay of any counter arguments or evidence is a fanatic afraid that their strongly held beliefs are about to be shown up as fraudulent.

Bang says:

12:12pm | 30/11/09

My fellow Australians, we are involved in one of the greatest swindles ever.
It went by the name of “global warming”, but now its “climate change”
That tells you something straight away!
“Climategate” revealed what a heap of people already knew was bullshit!
The Mainstream media are in on this , so dont expect them to get too involved.
After all, this is a swindle!
Money and power grab by the power elites.
Blokes like Dave spew a lot of crap, that is just that…crap!
Lets play a game.
If i gave the ‘Climate warming global changers’ $10 billion, how would you stop this climate change?
Send chunks of ice to the sun in big rockets to try and cool the sun?
Woops, i gave away the cause of climate change. The sun!
Yes my fellow Australians, the sun , its magnetic field, cosmic and solar flares and the volatility of what happens on the sun is what causes more or less cloud and thats why the temperatures on earth vary like they do!
Mother Nature dont have a bank account!!
The World wide swindle/con is happening.
This is a fear campaign to suck money from your pockets.
Stand for something or fall for anything people.
Climates change, has done for billions of years.
No amount of money, rules, regulations, government interception or political ‘hot air’ will change anything to do with climate change.
Mother nature, the sun and the planets rule.

DocBud says:

12:58pm | 30/11/09

Scott,

Yes, fossil fuels are finite, but they are not about to run out any time soon, certainly not coal and we can also make oil from coal. The technology is already being worked on to introduce cost effective solutions when the time comes. What we don’t need to do is make the change artifically now when it is not necessary and the costs of the alternatives are high and being forced to use them will be harmful to businesses and households. While an energy source is cheap, it makes sense to use it.

COF says:

01:00pm | 30/11/09

Barnaby’s argument is a classic “Tragedy of the Commons” argument, that because we are a tiny polluter compared to the big ones action need not be taken. Regardless of the science or not, its an invalid argument.

The science: it is clear that both the planet is warming, and that the level of CO2 is rising. The correlation between the two suggested to scientists at one stage that one caused the other, which is not necessarily mathematically sound (correlation does not imply causation).

Second point about the science is that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic in nature. This is a very difficult point to prove. I have seen scientific articles on the change in ice data in northern Canada prove that the planet is warming, then for the authors to conclude that the nature of this warming was “anthropogenic” - with what evidence? I imagine this is probably an isolated example.

There is obviously a some sort of consensus in the scientific community that this phenomenon is anthropogenic and must be stopped. I am more likely to go with the consensus than to believe in the conspiracy theory, even if I am skeptical about the science behind it. Carbon centric power is also unsustainable as it is finite - this I believe is a much stronger argument for sustainable energy than the climate change debate.

With saying that, the politics of the matter still needs to be handled carefully. The ETS policy has yet to show me how it will reduce CO2 emissions, and to me looks like another tax - this tax will only be passed on to the people in the form of inflation. We have already seen electricity costs go up over 25% in the last quarter - are we going to see any additional service for this additional cost or is this a sunk cost to every business and household in Australia? A massive sunk cost such as this can only lead to stagflation.

The cost of electricity is already an incentive to minimise emissions. I would much rather see infrastructure expenditure and incentives in sustainable energy and transport. All the technology is there and readily available, and as we progress it will become more available as various 20 year patents expire.

If they are going to slap another tax on us, at least get rid of payroll tax.

Steved says:

01:01pm | 30/11/09

why is it that those who don’t accept only seem to use vitriol and venomous insults instead of cultivating or contributing to discussion…we’re all in it together, and I think is a real shame discussion & debate in this country seems lack thoughtfulness, mutual respect and maturity

neglectedabusedandabandoned says:

01:35pm | 30/11/09

BANG!
Yes, by golly you have stumbled across something that is (sun) spot on - the fact that either way (for or agin as to the human element) - it’s now too late suckers! The irony of it is - if this is something to go by . . .
http://anthropology.net/2007/09/03/climate-change-drove-human-evolution/
It will soon be nature AGAIN, just doing a ‘little adjustment’ in the not so distant future . . . (seven billion down to two, I’d say) . . .
Please everyone - this is not a debate - it’s just opinion bashing. Can we all stop wanking that we think that we “know something” - and that goes for politicians, as well as ex ones, the media, smart arses and celebrities - and just leave it to qualified individuals . . . and that goes for you too BOB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gefSwMCTjuc&feature=player_embedded

Joel B1 says:

01:36pm | 30/11/09

Re peak oil… what about this little bit of “hidden” info that the UN doesn’t want out of the bag.

Future energy sources
“3: oil/gas: a smooth transition from oil to the massive reserves of unconventional fossil fuels. like methane clathrate”

“Massive reserves”, massive, yet I doubt anyone on The Punch had any idea about that…

Information is not really the UN’s game is it? More like “we will decide, you will obey”

Susanna says:

01:50pm | 30/11/09

Good article! I am saddened by the number of commenters who seem to believe that we can continue to suck the earth’s finite resources dry, and take no responsibility for replenishing (or at least not touching) them. Renewable, sustainable resources MAKE SENSE. Even if climate science is wrong (and it’s not), you don’t need a scientist to see that the environment cannot continue to be treated this way without consequences for us - after all, the earth may well recover, but the parasitic organisms known as humans will become a thing of the past. Denialists are idiots. That’s all there is to it.

Tink says:

01:56pm | 30/11/09

The basic concept of pollution is something that is sufficiently excessive to cause instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms. Considering this, some might argue that climate change skeptics are themselves a form of pollution…  (ok, better not be mean - to be fair, you’re no orphans; there’s plenty of other contributors - i.e. think sheer numbers of humans who are either uneducated, unempowered, and/or choose live their lives virtually on auto pilot, with blinkers on as to the fact that they are a part of a living, finite planet that has taken about 4.5 billion years to develop this fragile environment that supports life as we know it).

Can you skeptics not see the bigger picture? The current systems we have in place to extract energy are not the ones we need, for so very many reasons – they are totally unsustainable and pollute not just the air, but also our lands and waters and our own bodies – and they are seriously impairing opportunities for future Australians (your kids, grandkids, etc).

Why can our leaders not see the real opportunities in rejecting (not propping up) our dirty ways and making transformational changes towards a sustainable society? Are we really that dumb? What true leader ever waited for everybody else to step in and lead? When will it be time for us to show the rest of the world how clever we really can be? Remember, size counts, but what counts more is what you can do with what you’ve got.

JAYVEE says:

02:02pm | 30/11/09

My reply to Alexander.
First of all you know absolutely nothing about me! Secondly: Me having a go at or poke some fun at a foreigner is not necessarily racist. It is called freedom of speech. ( which may be a foreign concept to you)  I could easily poke fun and/or take the micky out on a half dozen or so nationalities, every one of which I could obtain a passport from and/or already posses and furthermore speak the language as well.
You can take the Italians, the Greeks and many others who did not really become acceptable here in Australia until they openly started to poke fun at themselves.  This is currently happening with an ever increasing number of Muslim , Vietnamese, Chinese comedians appearing in various places. So far I have not witnessed Sudanese , Darfurian, Somalian, Bangladeshi and or Srilankans. But it will happen give it some time. This process is called final assimilation and usually emanates from these people’s children seeing the absurdities of their parents believes taken in an Australian context.
I for one regard a nationality coming of age here in Australia as a nationality which has started to poke fun at themselves. Call it a yardstick if you will.
Just because something is foreign does not mean it is hands off.
I can just as easily relay Greek, Italian, Norwegian, German, Dutch, Italian, Lebanese, French and a few other countries jokes about the funny way Australians do things. Are they racist as well if told by foreigners about us?
A certain form of mental illness also causes the sufferer to have a total lack of humour. ( Somewhat savant like) I hope you are not one of them.
But just for the heck of it here is a Dutch joke : When do you cease to be a New Australian?  When they carry you away! Why did Greeks migrate to Australia? Cause they got lost on the way to their villages.  ( Nearly Every direction you get in the Greek language is the instruction to go ‘Straight’ i.e.: Straight this way & straight that way and every referral is nearly always next to ‘Tade’ place ( Meaning so and so place- You know the one I mean!) etc etc. , I recently got directed to Braeside with real directions for Doncaster - 10 suburbs away . I simply reversed the instructions and… Wound up in Braeside! Benissimo!
But if you must… Sue Me! I just love taking lawyers apart.

ian says:

02:16pm | 30/11/09

There are two groups in paliament arguing with integrity.  The AGW skeptics and the greens.

Either we do nothing (the skeptics) or we need to do something that will have an effect (the Greens).  What the govt has proposed is a nonsense that will simply cost Australians and have a negligible effect on CO2 emissions.

NCG says:

02:17pm | 30/11/09

Pete & Daemon, since your both numbers men and obviously advocates for an ETS/CPRS, can you explain something that has been bothering me for quite some time. Why is the government so keen to promote “clean energy”, yet the Snowy Hydro scheme runs at approx 12% of its total output capacity year in year out?  Surely if the federal government were so concerned about climate change, they would be utilising this engineering marvel to its full extent?

End of the day an ETS is going to make stuff all difference to our carbon output or the worlds, should other nations do the same. It will however line the treasuries pockets, which, lets face it, is needed for an ageing population who expect the same benefits handed out currently. On top of that we have to repay a massive debt, courtesy, in part, of a pointless $900 handout. Most developed countries face the same issue, the climate change debate is a brilliant way to scare people into emptying there pockets in an attempt to fix the issue, which it wont.

If the Government was serious about reducing carbon output, it would be making coal fired power plants and alike obsolete and banning the creation of new ones. It would re-open the nuclear power debate and get serious about renewable energy schemes, like wind and solar. But that doesn’t make money or pay dividends now, does it?

steve says:

02:43pm | 30/11/09

As I have said at every opportunity ; Can anyone confirm that Dinky little Australia attacking our economy with a tax on power, fuel, gas and jobs will alter the temperature of the planet? No Not even the most rapid eco alarmist believes this. If no one believes this is not going to work, Why be the first in the world to do it.

Why the rush if it is not going to work>??????

steve says:

02:52pm | 30/11/09

Has anyone else noticed just a little bias in the media here? When John Hewson wanted to introduce a GST with “Fight Back” he was peppered with questions for months on the mechanics of how it would function. Lost the election because he could not answer the notorious “cake cost”. Krudd wants to introduce a carbon trading system (read tax) that will add 2.5% to the GST and the public are not told a jot about how it is going to work. The libs get pillared in the media for holding it up? Now the NSW Govt independent dude that sets prices say electricity will go up by 60% not the 7% that Krudd has specified. Next time he shakes your hand count your fingers

Jack Lacton says:

02:58pm | 30/11/09

The immorality of those wanting Australia to cut its economic wrists by unilaterally introducing an ETS is truly shocking. The irony is that people think they’re morally superior to their opponents. How morally superior is it to increase Australia’s unemployment rate for a scheme that will have NO impact on the climate? If we’re meant to be ‘showing leadership’ then why will it work if we show leadership when the scheme Europe (and NZ) introduced have not? With no good answers to these sensible questions those in favour of an ETS simply hurl invective and abuse at their opponents. Think like children, act like children.

Geoff says:

03:01pm | 30/11/09

I love those (mis)leading “pollution” photos…  pity CO2 is a colourless (invisible) gas eh.

The ABC do it with every story… puhlease…  not everyone is a dolt.

Carl Palmer says:

03:09pm | 30/11/09

Nuh don’t want the peace prize, they give that to anyone. They recently gave it to a bloke called Al Gore & the IPCC (Impartial Persons Counting Carbon) and this year they gave it to someone who actually didn’t do anything. Even his country was embarrassed.

Like the ETS, if the ALP implements the Crawford Report then you can be guaranteed that we will be punching with feathers

Here are a few numbers to chew on
•  31,000 scientists scribble their names on a piece of paper
•  John L Daley 1000+ e-mails, 70 odd docs

Guys I know you know this but for completeness - there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics

Albert Hammond says:

03:25pm | 30/11/09

@Carl Palmer

There is only one type of cliche and that’s a shit one. I suggest you don’t use statistics of your own when to trying to argue that statistics are the worst type of lie there is. A little counterproductive?

GeeJay says:

04:11pm | 30/11/09

Forgive me for being an ordinary Aussie with no scientific background ....If the believers are wrong   we will have a cleaner Planet,,which would be a good thing,and may cost a few bob—but then what does’nt.                            If the deniers are wrong.we will have planet that will not be liveable .....So who is right????????

DocBud says:

05:16pm | 30/11/09

GeeJay,

It will cost more than a few bob, and more than a few jobs, and will not make the planet cleaner as the target is CO2, a colourless, odourless gas that is vital for life. In fact it may well make the planet dirtier as there are likely to be incentives in a global deal for companies to move from developed countries with strong environmental legislation to developing nations with less strict environmental laws. So we may reduce carbon emissions, but we may equally increase the truly harmful emissions, the ones that really are pollution.

Unless the alarmists most outlandish predictions come true, the planet is likely to be healthier. History tells us that a warm planet is a healthy, abundant planet.

Carl Palmer says:

05:25pm | 30/11/09

@ Albert Hammond says:04:25pm | 30/11/09

Thanks Albert. I’d take credit for it but unfortunately it’s not mine, it’s a very famous quote. Silly me, I thought you would have known.  Google it & you’ll find a few famous people have used. The quote was also used in the Forward of my statistics course book many years ago. As for the expletive, raise your game, there are ladies present.

Pedro says:

05:27pm | 30/11/09

The point is that we need to find more sustainable ways to live because we are treating a series of finite resources as infinite and it is going to catch up with us. Well, actually it turns out it already has! For those of you who don’t believe in climate change, go and speak to the farmers who are enduring the longest drought we have ever seen. For those of you who do believe in climate change and would rather someone else do something about it because you are too selfish and lazy (or just narrow minded and stupid), wake up! Either way, we need to find better and more sustainable ways of producing energy, and we need to find them soon!

Juju says:

07:39pm | 30/11/09

Dave at 08:50am | 30/11/09,—- ‘Australia has built a vast proportion of our wealth by polluting the skies?  How exactly?  ” The world is getting warmer people.  Them’s the facts.’  No.1. Bad English and No.2. Actually it has been cooling for the past decade. ‘This is science so basic that it can be taught to primary school kids, and is!’  It had better not be taught to my children as it is not proven and is tantamount to teaching creationism. ‘Show us ONE peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that increasing levels of CO2 and other GHGs are not warming the Earth.  Just one!’ - well, try googling CLIMATEGATE and look at the lies being perpetrated by your beloved Global Warming scientists. ‘The fact that there is overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue….’ only by liars - again SEE CLIMATEGATE .  And Dave, the ETS doesn’t mean they’re going to stop burning coal, we have far, far too much of it and Mr Rudd wants to sell it to China, so we’re just going to create some permits and sell them around the place and the coal burning (ie pollution) will still go on and on and on, till we run out of coal.  So Dave, you really are delusional, and if you keep spewing forth with this rubbish, you are liable to suffer a heart attack from sky high blood pressure. Please take a couple of disprin and lie down.

Don says:

07:43pm | 30/11/09

Will anyone arguing against an ETS willing to argue that Australia should INCREASE its carbon emissions? If so how much should we increase them? After all, they’re can’t be any harm in doing so can there? And if CO2 isn’t dangerous then why don’t you put a plastic bag over your head and see how long you survive with no O2 and too much CO2

David C says:

09:27pm | 30/11/09

Don CO2 levels are projected to rise up to 550 ppm by 2100, submarines can tolerate up to 8000ppm. Is your comment really relevant?

Geoff says:

09:29pm | 30/11/09

Carbon emissions?  You mean CO2 don’t you?  I mean it is after all a greenhouse gas and that is what global warming is about…  in fact with out CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses of which CO2 is a minor player we’d be frozen. Without CO2 plant-life and all other life would die out.
Nice attempt at a strawman though, Don.

COF says:

08:09am | 01/12/09

Don,
“And if CO2 isn’t dangerous then why don’t you put a plastic bag over your head and see how long you survive with no O2 and too much CO2”

There is not enough fossil fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration to that level. We are talking about a fraction of a percent increase in CO2 concentration here - it is currently at 0.04%.

There are a few anti global warming political game players here, but essentially the majority of people against this scheme believe it will be an ineffective scheme. It will be just another tax that will be as effective at reducing CO2 emissions as the GST. The Government should try something else - investments, innovation and incentives.

Carl Palmer says:

08:10am | 01/12/09

Carl Palmer says: 11:56am | 30/11/09
Trying again…..Apology should have been Phil Jones not John L Daley

DocBud says:

10:04am | 01/12/09

I for one think that Australia should increase its emissions, as should the world. There is no sense in wasting energy, but the simple reality is that carbon dioxide emissions are an indicator of economic well-being; globally, nationally, for businesses and personally. This will remain the case until there are economic alternatives to our current energy mix. Cutting emissions means cutting energy use (the alternatives are too expensive and cannot come on line quick enough to replace existing capacity by 2020) which means slowing economic growth. At the levels demanded by the likes of the Greens it would mean economic decline, which would hurt everyone, but the poorest people in the world would suffer the most.

PeeBee says:

07:45pm | 01/12/09

Hey has anyone asked the farmers in the Mallee/Wimmera what the cost of not doing anything about climate change is. They are going broke by the hundreds. I’m sure they would like the climate to be like it was.

DocBud says:

11:05pm | 01/12/09

When would they like it be like it was, PeeBee?

Droughts in the 18th century

  * 1789-91 Drought in New South Wales (NSW).
  * 1798-99 Drought in NSW that produced severe crop failures.[4]

Droughts in the 19th century

  * 1803 Drought in NSW that produced severe crop failures.
  * 1809 Beginning of an unusually severe drought in NSW that continued until 1811.
  * 1813-15 Severe drought in NSW that prompted searches for new pastures.
  * 1826-29 Severe drought in NSW that caused Lake George to dry up and the Darling River to cease flowing.[4]

Since 1860, when adequate meteorological recording commenced, the most severe droughts have occurred commonly at intervals of 11 to 14 years. Major droughts that were recorded later in the 19th century include:

  * 1829 Major drought in Western Australia with very little water available.[5]

  * 1835 and 1838 Sydney and NSW receive 25% less rain than usual. Severe drought in Northam and York areas of Western Australia.
  * 1838-39 Droughts in South Australia and Western Australia
  * 1839 Severe drought in the west and north of Spencer Gulf, South Australia.
  * 1846 Severe drought converted the interior and far north of South Australia into an arid desert.
  * 1849 Sydney received about 27 inches less rain than normal.
  * 1850 Severe drought, with big losses of livestock across inland New South Wales (NSW) and around the western rivers region.
  * 1864 - 66 (and 1868).

The little data available indicates that this drought period was rather severe in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.

  * 1877 All States affected by severe drought, with disastrous losses in Queensland. In Western Australia many native trees died, swamps dried up and crops failed.
  * 1880 to 1886 Drought in Victoria (northern areas and Gippsland); New South Wales (mainly northern wheat belt, Northern Tablelands and south coast); Queensland (1881-86, in south-east with breaks - otherwise mainly in coastal areas, the central highlands and central interior in 1883-86); and South Australia (1884-86, mainly in agricultural areas).
  * 1888 Extremely dry in Victoria (northern areas and Gippsland); Tasmania (1887-89 in the south); New South Wales had the driest year since records began; Queensland (1888-89) had a very severe drought, with much native scrub dying and native animals perishing; South Australia had one of its most severe droughts; and Western Australia (central agricultural areas) lost many sheep.[6]

Thanks to Wikipedia

Fletch says:

09:03am | 02/12/09

1) In the same way you wouldn’t consider your house and the rubbish tip one and the same, do we really need figures to convince us the planet is not a tip?

2) Where is it written the effort we spend to curb our emissions should be proportional to the amount we pollute?  Should it not, instead, be proportional to our means?

Pedro says:

09:58am | 02/12/09

Fletch, you are exactly right! The planet is being trashed and nobody wants to hear about any solutions if they actually involve doing anything…

Pedro says:

09:58am | 02/12/09

Fletch, you are exactly right! The planet is being trashed and nobody wants to hear about any solutions if they actually involve doing anything…

Alexandra says:

10:51am | 02/12/09

@DocBud: “the simple reality is that carbon dioxide emissions are an indicator of economic well-being; globally, nationally, for businesses and personally. “

So are you saying that because China and India emit more carbon dioxide than Australia, then they are economically better off than we are?  And by the same argument, you’re saying that because Spain and the Netherlands emit less than we do, then they must be economically worse off.

What a ridiculous argument.

Also, just quietly, Wikipedia is not generally accepted as a reliable source of information.  If you tried to use Wikipedia in a university essay you would be laughed at.

@JAYVEE: It’s Alexandra.  Not Alexander.  Thanks for your response.  It’s really good to hear that despite your racist diatribe and random mumblings about the Greeks that you are not, in fact, a racist.

Papos says:

11:46am | 02/12/09

The last major ice age was millions of years ago. Apparently it has been warming ever since. Seems the senate also agrees. http://www.news.com.au/national/coalition-to-block-climate-deal-in-senate/story-e6frfkvr-1225806001025

DocBud says:

11:45pm | 02/12/09

Alexandra,

China and India have larger economies than Australia, as does Spain. Netherlands has a smaller one. As with all things where many factors play a role, there is no perfect correlation, but are you seriously suggesting that the rises in China’s and India’s emissions are not related to their economic growth and that it is pure coincidence that those countries with the lowest emissions tend to also be at the bottom of the GDP league table?

Smug superciliousness is not an attractive quality, especially when you don’t know who you are using it against. I’m always cautious about using references, especially in reports and academic papers, but in this instance there seems no reason to doubt the veracity of Wikipedia, if you know otherwise, please enlighten us.

Bob says:

02:49pm | 03/12/09

I don’t get it.
If plus 30 dollars per month as result of interest rate rise is such a huge issue and unbearable burden to all working families, how come plus 120 billion over 10 years is totally fine.
ETS will cost at least 50 dollars per month for every single Australian for next 10 years.
Or it’s ok with all GW activists since they are not going to pay anyway?