Put coal kings in the dock for their crimes

Ben Oquist says:

08:29am | 03/06/09

Great piece. just printed it off for the boss. thanks Dan.

Allan says:

09:05am | 03/06/09

I wonder what will happen to Dan Gass if ,as predicted by some scientific disciplines, climate once again returns to a regime similar to that of The Little Ice Age (1280-1850).
With the sun still remaining in quiet mode we should be for an interesting decade as the various theories about earths climate moods play out.
But if sending coal executives to a Kangaroo Court is fair, will people like Gass eventually be condemned and punished for perpetuating a fraud that cost society trillions?
Extreme views that are held by Gass and others are only reciprocated.
But considering that only climatologists are allowed to pontificate about climate and the views of other scientific disciplines are discounted, it is to Gass and others peril if they are proved to be wrong in the next few years.

Julia says:

09:12am | 03/06/09

Very interesting article. I just hope the ICE, when it is created, is quicker to become operational than the ICC. Although the Rome statute was adopted in 1998, it only became a binding treaty in 2002. The first trial of Lubanga did not actually start until January of this year,even though he was transferred to the Hague in 2006.  Of course there were real issues regarding his defence rights, but this could have been indicative of natural teething problems that any new Court and jurisdiction would encounter. Having said that, the creation of an ICE would undoubtedly have a big impact in terms of deterrence, even before it is operational.

MaxJ says:

09:45am | 03/06/09

Further to Allan’s comments, not only will it cost the world community trillions it will also consign a significant portion of the world’s population to life of poverty and starvation.  In doing so it will kill many more people than the atrocities of war mentioned in the article.

The climate is changing for warmer or cooler and will do so with or wothout coal and humans.  The best thing about life on earth is that it adapts and continues to do so.  If sea level rises then get out of the way.  It’s been much higher before during human history.

It’s all very easy to pump out populist naive rants from our comfy office envions Try standing on the other side of the developed nation divide and take away access to cheap power.  It’s not a pretty thought.

Climate change happens.  Adapt.

Chris C says:

10:05am | 03/06/09

I wonder if MaxJ smokes cigarettes and drinks copious amounts of alcohol and believes that the wonderful body will also just adapt?

Does he also believe that we should continue to support child labour because a generation of families will be left without a source of income if we put an end to it.

PJ says:

10:09am | 03/06/09

It is the citizens of Australia who are using more and more coal-fired power - shouldn’t they go to court for climate crimes too? Punters have a choice to use other forms of electricity like solar and, perhaps more significantly, use less coal-fired power through efficient energy-use practices….but no-one is choosing to do so. Solar conversions are low and energy use per household is increasing.

MaxJ says:

10:31am | 03/06/09

Chris C.  I think child labour is abhorrent but that’s my point.  We don’t have to live it.  I mean how do you fix that that.  Point the finger and say STOP!  A way to stop child labour is for third world and developing nations to evolve to the level where we luckily sit today.  To those nations renewable energy is expensive.  To stop supply of coal to these nations would only exacerbate

PJ is right.  As a developed nation we should be using more renewable energy.  I’m all for it.  Throw in some nuclear energy as well.  Why not.  This way we can supply more of our cleaner thermal coal to overseas and they can stop burning less dirtier coal.

PS I quit smoking and drink a lot less than I used to.  My body is in a lot worse shape than when I did both.

Anna rose says:

10:39am | 03/06/09

Great article dan- I know that this generation of law students are hoping to break new ground in the climate change law field

peter logue says:

10:52am | 03/06/09

I wonder Dan will you also put all the cows and sheep and farmers in the dock with the coal industry for their massive methane emissions (which we also export around the world) and will you tell all the billions of people in the world whose lives have been made better by cheaper energy from coal (including yours Dan - or have you ditched the plasma and the airconditioning and switched off the lights in solidarity?) energy that powers schools and hospitals and factories and helps makes the vehicles you drive…I could go on.  And why single out Australia’s coal when China and India and many other countries have massive reserves and burn their own coal? The industry here has put its hand up and said it’s working to do something about carbon emissions through carbon capture and storage technology. Ask your mate Tim Flannery what he thinks about the urgent need for CCS.  Dan, this is just elitist wankery and not a sensible contribution to the debate.

Chindogucci says:

11:25am | 03/06/09

Thanks for this pointer to ICE Dan. Is ICE the same as ICEF (http://www.icef-court.org) which appears to have existed since 1992? Either way it is good and necessary that mechanisms should exist to discourage and, where necessary, prosecute against egregious externalities such as climate vandalism. To me, the underlying requirement is to achieve internalisation of the negative externalities associated with economic activity at all levels - ie factor in full life-cycle and clean-up costs into purchase price of every piece of chewing gum, every megawatt-hour of power, every cheap plastic import. With real costs exposed, our collective ‘needs’ will surely be adjusted.

Matt says:

11:38am | 03/06/09

Have you ever wondered why it is that nobody is embracing a vegetarian diet to combat climate change.

Has to be the easiest thing to to do. It also has no national financial ramifications.

Kate Carruthers says:

12:13pm | 03/06/09

I worry less about the potential climate change issues (so many better informed that I are on top of that). 

Instead I am concerned about issues directly impacting society & the environment right now.  For example, the dreadful im pact mines are having on our rivers and waterways (e.g. http://www.bluemountains.org.au/Mining/rivers-of-shame.shtml). 

There is no debate about what is happening here, no quibbles about ‘is it really happening’.  Mines are damaging our rivers in serious ways right now.

This is real and it’s happening now. When are the mining companies going to be held to account for the damage they are doing today?

Are we going to drink coal when our rivers are undrinkable?

Matt says:

12:16pm | 03/06/09

Dan - a serious question - what would happen if we shut down our coal-fired power stations tomorrow, or even in a year or five year’s time? I would be very interested to hear how we are going to replace the energy provided by coal in the short term.

albe says:

12:25pm | 03/06/09

going veg is far easier than switching off coal-power ... and healthier despite what the meat council might like to tell u.

Put those guys up for crimes against animals! Along with those who keep standing in the way of switching away from coal-fired power.

Anthony Levchenko says:

01:05pm | 03/06/09

I like coal power. I like meat. Damn you greenies, if you want to live in the stone age without affordable electricity then do so, but do not inflict your highly inaccurate views on the climate to the rest of us sane and rational people! Empirical data and evidence does not agree with the catastrophic global warming theories that you will hold to so dearly.

Stephen L says:

02:04pm | 03/06/09

The challenge an ICE will have to face is in drawing lines. Most of us have committed some harm to the atmosphere. Some cases are far more egregious than others. Still, distinguishing between what everyone has done, and what is prosecutable will not be easy. I suspect the place to start will be with those who have deliberately spread misinformation to cover their activities. The denialist talking points of some respondents to this thread have been cooked up by groups funded by the fossil fuel industry, and we now know that the industry’s own scientists told them they were unsustainable, just as occurred in the tobacco industry. I suspect the participating companies will be the first to face charges.

David C says:

02:29pm | 03/06/09

The reason this will not happen or even work is that there is no actual evidence that humans are causing climate change - fact. How can you try anyone based on a computer model??? I get the impression that would not be admissable evidence in court?

Elsa Evers says:

03:19pm | 03/06/09

Fact: The Artic sea ice is melting faster than ever. Fact: Seven of the hottest years on record occurred in the last ten years. Do you want to wait until the facts devastating massive crops or washing your house away? I don’t. Take a warning when you see it and deal with it.

jamie says:

04:17pm | 03/06/09

Fact: The Romans grew grapes in England in 100-400AD when it was much warmer than now.
Fact: The northern climes of Scotland were inhabited about 3000BP because it was much warmer than today. People started to migrate south when it became too cold to live there.
Fact: It was about 2-3 degrees celcius warmer around 1000BP than it is now.
Fact: Climates change, they always have and they always will. there is nothing to suggest that anything strange is happening today.

zebadiah81 says:

04:20pm | 03/06/09

Hey Kev, here’s an infrastructure project for you - why not create a massive solar power generator out in central Australia, one that is big enough to power the entire country for the foreseeable future?  We have so much arid land which is not practical for any other use, and an abundance of sunshine.

Once it is done, we can shut down all other forms of electricity generation, and enjoy unlimited free power for generations to come.  This would also speed up the adoption of electrical transportation systems, and reduce our reliance on oil, further reducing our carbon footprint.

Deborah says:

04:27pm | 03/06/09

Great piece.  Bring on the ICE!

David C says:

06:07pm | 03/06/09

Elsa, Elsa, Elsa, and your point is ? Which one of those facts prove that humans cause climate change? I think you have correlation mixed up with causation.

Razor says:

06:31pm | 03/06/09

Elsa - if you go to the website Cryosphere today you will find that the artic sea ice is not melting faster than ever before.  And in fact you will find that Antartic Sea ice is above the 1979-2000 average.  You will also find that Global Sea ice is also above the 1979-2000 average.

Two questions:

Why do you make a claim that isn’t supported by the facts?

Explain why, if the Earth is warming, we have higher than average global ice?

Dave Mac says:

07:10pm | 03/06/09

Dan, thanks for a well written satirical article. Thank God we have comedians like you to lighten our moods.

Dan Cass says:

08:12pm | 03/06/09

Thanks people for all your comments. If you make factual claims/rebuttals, can you please include links? Then we can all get better informed.

Ben - I hope Bob found this useful

Chindogucci-the ICE is intended to shift values in public international law and yes will ‘internalise’ some pollution costs. Will it be as corporate risk calculations as well as prices?)

Julia-thanks for the clarifications. I’d like to understand the compromises that went into the ICC negotiations…I hope you and Anna will be ace climate litigators!

Chris C - can I use your cigarettes and alcohol metaphor? Its great.

Kate - the damage mining does to rivers is quite an untold scandal for the coal lobby. Did you read Marian Wilkinson great piece in Saturday’s SMH http://tinyurl.com/ps5rrs
Matt - you are too sensible!

Denialists, pessimists & professional coal spruikers - Barry Jones dealt with your scientific probability/risk of inaction issue, two decades ago!  http://tinyurl.com/okbsdc 

I promise to fully respond to you (not ‘Punch’) over renewables in a future article, so stay tuned and thanks for commenting.

MHC says:

01:05am | 04/06/09

So many differing ‘facts’ about what is ‘really’ happening. I find it hard to accept that the thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC reports have got it all so wrong as is claimed by what seem to be a small number of scientist sceptics. If the Arctic ice cover is not diminishing, why are all the countries around it seeking to lay claim to the area with the prospect of mining it for the minerals expected to be accessible as the ice melts? How come the technology facilitating our finding our way from point A to point B in any major city in most parts of the world, or helping farmers plant their crops with guidance from satellites, is unable to accurately show whether the areas of snow and ice are increasing or decreasing? Why are most, if not all, glaciers melting more rapidly than in the past, according to those who live in their vicinity and claim they are shrinking? Why are the laws of God or Nature, the physics and chemistry scientists have slowly understood and used to enable humanity to explore the land, sea and air, even the moon and planets, why are they not providing those scientists with enough information or insight to assess whether humanity is contributing to the clear changes in climate so many ordinary people all over the world are noticing with varying degrees of apprehension? One might hope the scientists on whose judgements Dan has based his comments are wrong, but I fear they are right. We should just adapt! How fast can a forest walk? So far, many of them have not moved fast enough to avoid being overtaken by deserts which are increasing in size in many places.

David C says:

11:25am | 04/06/09

MHC the issue is not that the climate is changing, the issue is whether humans are the cause. This is why the author of this article wants to prosecute “coal kings” a la Nuremberg. Once again it is correlation as opposed to causation. There is a lack of real evidence of humans being behind the cause of cimate change thus the reason for my “climate realism”. To date this is all based on climate models not actual evidence and what is causing the increase in the number of “climate realsts” (especially in the science community) is that each year the predictions of the models aren’t being matched with observations in the real world .

tickle me elmo says:

03:29pm | 04/06/09

You may be interested to know that the philippines is one of the highest users of taditional geothermal energy in the world…..MaxJ, renewable energy is not expensive everywhere, it depends what you are comparing it to. In Australia we have copious quanitites of cheap coal, that’s the difference.
To all the people talking about if climate change is happening and why, “move on”.
Given our energy demand is skyrocketing. using something to make electricity that doesn’t pollute the air is enough reason for me to think we should tap into the free, pollution free energy. I think that’s the main driver for China as well.
You could think of it as an insurance policy for the planet just incase climate change turns out to be real.

Dan Cass says:

07:13pm | 04/06/09

tickle me elmo - thanks, they are great points you make.

David C- thanks for commenting again, but you are grasping at the fringe of the fringe.

What most disappoints me is that there are scientific debates more relevant and interesting for us to be ‘punching’.

Here is my response; science adapts its norms, over time, according to the topic of investigation.

Your attempt to debunk climate science for not concurring with the empirical-experimental model is worthy, but fatally flawed.

Yes, you are right on one level - we do not have experimental evidence of climate change based on large sets of replicable experiments using controlled variables.

So what?

Your ideal of science is only one model and not the universal test of scientific validity.

The empirical-experimental model is the right one to use when you want to do laboratory tests to see how much of a new flea drug is needed to kill the fleas but not the moggie, or how fast a new Holden V8 can safely crash into a test barrier without giving the driver brain damage (at the 95% level of certainty).

But when you are deciding how to live in the era of climate change, you have to think differently if you want to be scientifically literate.

We do not have a laboratory with a thousand planets to do test runs on.

People interested in debunking the skeptics can have a look at the excellent http://www.realclimate.org/

The choice for you skeptics is very real and personal – how do you want to live and be remembered? As someone who kept asking the modern equivalent ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’, or as someone who took seriously the ethical implications of their one life on an endangered Planet?

David C says:

10:06am | 05/06/09

Dan thanks for your reply.

Your comment that I am at the fringe of the fringe veers towards the argument by authority, argument by consensus. Not worthy of really getting in to that. I would like to think that science involves constant questioning and debate. I like the quote “science is not a democracy”

I will take you to task though on your argument against my point of climate models vs evidence. Your whole article on this site was about trying coal kings for crimes against humanity a la Nurmeberg etc. I am merely stating that in a court of law you wont get far without real evidence.

This is at the heart of this whole debate that is building at the moment. If you want to commit billions of dollars, try people, take people’s jobs away, punish the third world again and and change the world’s behaviour I suggest you come up with something a bit stronger than “we believe if this happens then this might happen”.

Provide the hard evidence and then people like me will become your strongest advocate.

As to couple of other points raised in this discussion
- climate change is real we just need to adapt, people live quite happily in Norway and Singapore, the temperature difference is more between those cities than expected to occur globally so it shouldn’t be an issue
- renewable energy - yes absolutely no question, great idea. Just make it efficient ie cheap.

wattty says:

01:27pm | 05/06/09

Dan Cass?

Isn’t he the new script writer for “The Chasers”.

Possibly a bit naive to put the Greens and Greenpeace as few have any confidence in them or their “predictions”

As the Government admitted this week one of the exports that saved Australia from recession was the export of COAL. Not wind farms nor solar panels.

Mr Cass like many of his ilk denounces the Australian coal industry both at international and domestic levels but provides no alternatives.

Another white man dreaming.

Dan Cass says:

04:08pm | 05/06/09

David C- thanks for returning. I will get us punching about how to make renewable energy cheap in a future article. Grid parity for PV and other renewables is much closer than any of us hoped, even just a few years ago.

If you want to come play at The Punch - lift your game!

Harry Eagar says:

06:07am | 08/06/09

‘Your ideal of science is only one model and not the universal test of scientific validity. ‘

Balderdash, but it does explain why you are able to maintain belief in a position for which there is no evidence.

Tom W says:

11:39am | 08/06/09

You’re out of your mind.  In order to be prosecuted for a crime, the crime has to be defined. And what crime is that, pray? “Selling coal”? Is every seller of coal in the world going to be prosecuted in your fantasy court? What about selling petrol? Natural gas? If not, why not?  Where exactly do you draw the line?

Greg James says:

12:08pm | 08/06/09

If there was any sanity in the world then it would be the peddlers of this arrant AGW nonsense , who would find themselves dragged into court to face charges of crimes against humanity.

Anthony says:

01:03pm | 08/06/09

Northern hemisphere sea ice:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

Southern Hemisphere sea ice:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Global sea ice:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Melting faster than ever before? Haha. Antarctica way above average and the Arctic on it’s way up again, and globally above average.

Climate catastrophe! We are going to drown!

Read through some of Dr. Roy Spencers work:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Why have temperatures been falling for 6 years when C02 emissions have risen steeply?

You climate alarmists use the same old excuses for humans causing global warming, you keep pointing out conditions of the earth (Melting ice as one, which is incorrect) but never provide any solid evidence as to why C02 is the cause.

Dan Cass says:

01:47pm | 08/06/09

Harry, Tom, Greg, Anthony - just so you guys are totally clear - you are the Fringe of the Fringe.

Roger Cartrell says:

02:25pm | 08/06/09

Marvellous how lefties barely get into discussion before someone is urging the gulag for non-believers. If you’re so convinced that manmade global warming is such a dire threat, why won’t you support a national debate?

dallas Beaufort says:

02:50pm | 08/06/09

Its getting colder, wetter and my plants need more CO2, So Dan, what are you be feeding your plants with? as mine thrive on extra Carbon dioxide!

Greg James - Seddon says:

03:16pm | 08/06/09

I love Dan’s riposte to those of us who won’t swallow the AGW nonsense:

“You are the Fringe of the Fringe.”

Well I can tell you Dan, on this issue I am more than happy to be the Fringe of the Fringe - it is the only sane position to be.

With the more than $50 billion spent in research on AGW, not one study - not a single one - has ever proven a link between Anthropogenic CO2 emissions and “climate change”. 

Thankfully, we are now entering a cooling 30 year PDO period which should finally put paid to this nonsense once and for all.

nic says:

04:04pm | 08/06/09

This post has had me rolling on the floor laughing. Why of course, the climate change industry requires ‘consultants’ and lawyers, all for hefty fees no doubt. It’s good to see modern leftists ‘taking it to the man’ from the safety of a plush office and a home in a fashionable suburb.

Better yet are the cries about punishment in the form of crime trials and gulags from people who saw Howard as being so ‘uncaring’.

Harry Eagar says:

05:14pm | 08/06/09

It isn’t a popularity contest.

There are no global surface temperature observations before the 21st century, so—to repeat—you have no evidence for your position.

You have a model, whose inputs are imaginary. That’s all you got.

Anthony says:

07:34pm | 08/06/09

Dan Cass, you make me laugh! So easy to just say a bunch of meaningless words rather than actually show evidence linking C02 to dangerous temperature rise. Why do you ignore empirical data and evidence? Why is it that so many of your types, climate change catastrophists, resort to smearing and insults (especially in the media) rather than debating the actual science?

There is no evidence to support your theories, and now, a few years after many ‘predictions’ have been made they have all turned out wrong. Coral reef dying? wrong. Temperature continuing to rise? Wrong. Ice caps melting? Wrong. Increase in hurricanes? Wrong.

It’s just so amusing how easily you green types get sucked into things like this and hold dear to the doctrine.

RA says:

08:37pm | 08/06/09

Wow, so this is the face of eco-extremism.

Dan Cass says:

11:31pm | 08/06/09

I think you skeptics really are wasting your time trying to paint climatology as irrational. It sounds a bit like you some of you might be letting some cultural arguments about the Left or ‘greenies’ confuse your thinking on science and environmental risk.

I hope you are at least doing other things to protect the environment and live an informed, ethical life. 

Come by soon and we can talk about the solution side - renewable energy etc.

JB says:

12:08am | 09/06/09

“Have you ever wondered why it is that nobody is going to jail for causing climate change? “

No, because humans are not powerful enough to change the weather.

Anthony says:

01:40am | 09/06/09

When the green movement falls on it’s behind I sure hope all of the eco-fanatics feel very silly and realise how ridiculous they sounded at one point of their lives. Oh how I will continue to laugh!

Dean McAskil says:

02:21am | 09/06/09

“I think you skeptics really are wasting your time trying to paint climatology as irrational.”

Not simply irrational, utterly insane.

I am happy to be on the fringe of the fringe, because until recently it was the only sane place in this subject. Fortunately my faith in humanity is being restored as the public cries of “the emperor has no clothes” grow louder and more frequent.

Brian Walters says:

11:22pm | 11/06/09

Great article. Those who, with full warning of the consequences, pursue profits ahead of the planet, and pervert the democratic system in order to get their way, and who cause widespread loss and injury as a result, should be subject to criminal sanction. Some creative thinking about this is well overdue.

Dan Cass says:

11:46pm | 11/06/09

Thanks for putting it so much more succinctly than I did, Brian. We need more lawyers who do great public interest law like you do.

Your point about needing some creative thinking on climate litigation echoes something said the recently by a judge, so lets hope the ball starts rolling soon.

Julian Braggins says:

07:47pm | 17/07/09

There is no correlation that would not be laughed out of court between rising CO2 and temperature, and 9 of Al Gore’s arguments in An Inconvenient Truth were laughed out of court in England and 20 other found to have no basis.]

Personal attack seems to be the weapon of the left, not just verbally, Stalin- Pol Pot - Mao eliminated individuals who did not bow to unproven theories of Communist thinking, do you want to go down that path ?