The PM needs to drop his refusal to budge on a target

Eric says:

05:33am | 21/12/09

“Determined Tuvalu”? You mean the country “represented” at Copenhagen by the Australian green activist Ian Fry, who lives in Queanbeyan, New South Wales? Is there nothing at Copenhagen that was real?

Before rushing in to make stupid policy decisions, we need to get some scientific consensus. Climategate has proven that the currently accepted science is dodgy.

Dan says:

06:31am | 21/12/09

What’s your point Eric? That Tuvalu engages outside representations and therefore it’s not real? You really grasping at straws.

Wayne Hutchins says:

06:47am | 21/12/09

Global Warming with a man made cause Pffft. If you want to waste your vote then give it to a green. Funny how the greens have made themselves irrelevant in this debate.

Tony Cooper says:

06:49am | 21/12/09

Here’s a man with absolutely no idea!

Weather carbon is the cause of climate change or just a reoccuring natural event is still open to sceptisism however, this is not the context of this discussion.

In Bob’s article, I see no real solutions. Everyone seems to be avoiding the discussion of using the ‘money’ to retrofit coal fired power stations to LNG or something similar.

I also DO NOT see Mr. Brown carrying the banner to ‘stop all coal mining and exports’ from Australia - a main cause of global carbon.

So where’s the cure for the world?

You see, Bob is just another radical politition without his ‘finger on the pulse’.

Renewables are a small part of the solution which, if implemented alone, will do very little.

Yes, Australia does have a part to play but if we only focus on our local emissions without stopping the export of emissions then, WE MAY AS WELL DO NOTHING!

JohnD says:

06:52am | 21/12/09

Pretty simple really - direct funding to where it will make a positive impact and away from industries that have a negative impact. It’s not rocket science. It’s just ‘uncommon sense’.

Dan Cass says:

07:22am | 21/12/09

Good on you Bob.

I am glad to see you continue to be positive and determined.

Helen says:

07:26am | 21/12/09

We need a new Snowy Mountains scheme, except with wind, solar and geothermal and tidal projects. Climate change mitigation plus employment. Win-win. Oh, and not chopping down those forests - absolutely!

Libbie says:

07:50am | 21/12/09

It’s very easy for the Greens to be stubborn and pontificate when they will never be in control of the treasury benches. If they wanted to be a real political force they would be more conciliatory.

What Bob Brown and the Greens will never admit is they don’t have the numbers. Even if, as Mr Brown’s been saying this morning, the Government negotiated with the Greens and came to an agreement it would not get the ETS or any other legislation through. The Government needs the Greens and the Independents in the Senate and with Steve Fielding sitting there at the polar opposite position of the Greens that is an impossible task.

By taking the extreme position the Greens have once again made themselves irrelevant.

steve says:

07:51am | 21/12/09

Helen
You got to remember The Green would not have allowed The Snowy Mountains scheme or Warragamba Dam for that matter If they were around at the time.
The last two dam projects for approval in Brisbane and the Hunter Valley have been shot down on “Green” excuses. ( Salamanders and Turtles)
The Traffic Lights Party ( Say they are Green but are too Yellow to tell peole they are Red) have evolved from:
NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard
TO
BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone

We could follow down the same road as renewable energy Zealots, Spain if you wanted an unemployment rate of 20%.
There is more to this than just platitudes

Patrick says:

08:09am | 21/12/09

The Greens will most probably have the sole balance of power in the Senate come the next election, all credible psephologists and observers have agreed upon this much, so really, regardless of who forms government after the next election, they are going to have to negotiate with the Greens if they want to pass anything at all through the Senate.

This would be frustrating for Labor, but it would completely paralyze an Abbott government right from the word “go”.  After the next election, the Greens hold all the cards on this issue. If the Liberal party is returned to government and does not have a Climate change policy, or declares its position that “climate change is fake” or some such, then I should think the Greens wouldn’t hesitate to frustrate them at every turn, even on matters of supply.

Peter Hatsworthy says:

08:10am | 21/12/09

The Greens are really an irrelevance in this debate because nothing they are proposing is achievable and would cause the destruction of the Australian economy.

If the Greens truly want a zero emissions economy then they should support nuclear power generation.

As for the comment - “The Greens will be offering our 21st Century vision of a clean, green , cool Australia” - I’d like to ask how the Greens propose that anything Australia does will in any way impact on the global climate.

Carol says:

08:13am | 21/12/09

Hey Bob - the US, Europe and Britain are all freezing over with unseasonably cold temperatures,  I bet they wish they had a little Global Warming at the moment.

James says:

08:14am | 21/12/09

Gosh people are pretty keen for business as usual and bagging the greens. If you accept the premise that this could be a major economic and environmental issue why wouldn’t you take decisive action. The articel seemed pretty common sense to me even if it was only from a risk management perspectiv which I know is not the view of Mr Brown

julie says:

08:21am | 21/12/09

If only the Greens didnt give their preferences to Labor, I would vote for them.

Chase Stevens says:

08:26am | 21/12/09

Labor and Liberal - Outdated and Outmoded parties struggling for relevance. Neither of them still have any attachment to the ideals they were founded for.

Steve what does Spain’s unemployment levels have to do with renewable energy? You may as well say that Ice creams cause drownings because sales of Ice Creams and Drownings both significantly increase in Summer.

Patrick says:

08:31am | 21/12/09

Yeah Carol, Winter generally does that. Back to school for you.

Laurie says:

08:47am | 21/12/09

I disagee that big coal etc called the shots at Copenhagen. The Government is the Government it is a weakness of politicians to say that Big Coal or anyone else made the decision. It is the Politicians dependence on these that called the shots. if Converting the power stations to gas costs seats in the Hunter Valley then is it a big price to pay or a small one.  Creative Inertia is an acknowledged political activity. To look as if you are doing something when you are not doing anything is the norm for Australia and it appears most countries.

Darren Johns says:

08:54am | 21/12/09

You’re right guys, Australia should be exempt from doing anything on climate change. We are too small to make a difference.

And hey, by the same token, I think that Texas should be exempt too. Coz they’re roughly our size. And the UK and France too. Their total emissions are only a little over what ours are, after all.

What a moronic cop-out.

Steve Franks says:

08:56am | 21/12/09

The trouble with the Greens is that for some insane reason they always side with the lying labor movement, Abbot wants a direct action on tackling climate change and that would get better direct results than any ETS scheme which is designed to keep the status quo. For once the Greens should give their preferences to Liberals who are actually closer to being on the same platform as the Greens or they will find themselves increasingly irrelevant to the electorate.

Steve says:

08:58am | 21/12/09

Bob you are absolutely right!

It is so important that there is someone like you in Parliament.

To the climate deniers on this page, you are on the wrong side of history i’m afraid with people that believe in a flat earth.

Patrick says:

09:03am | 21/12/09

Thats some fabulous spin Steve Franks. Imagine that, the Greens giving their preferences to a party led by a man who describes the arguments for Climate change as “crap”.

DocBud says:

09:04am | 21/12/09

James, I for one am “pretty keen for business as usual and bagging the greens.” I do not accept the premise that this could be a major environmental issue and it will only be a major economic one if decisive action is taken. Here is an example of what happens when one part of the world has an ETS and another does not:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html

“Thus, at the end of the day, Redcar will lose its biggest employer and one of the largest manufacturing plants left in Britain. Tata, having gained up to £1.2 billion from “carbon credits”, will get its new steel plants – while the net amount of CO2 emitted worldwide will not have been reduced a jot.”

Bob Brown’s scaremongering is not the basis for any rational risk assessment, a proper evaluation of likely outcomes and costs (which would not be via discredited Treasury modelling which always seems to produce what the government wants) is the correct approach. The outcomes would not be assessed based on cherry picking alarmist scientists and excluding sceptics. Climategate has taught us how flawed the IPCC process is so a new process is required before expensive and intrusive policy decisions are made. Just one example of where Bob Brown ignores the science that does not suit his doomsaying:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/scientists-crying-wolf-over-coral/story-e6frg6xf-1225811910634

“Professor Ridd said scientists who predicted corals would be mostly extinct by mid-century had a credibility problem because the Great Barrier Reef was in “bloody brilliant shape”.”

Mikko says:

09:07am | 21/12/09

So the next election will be fought on climate change, Bob? Er, why didn’t that work for the Greens in the two recent by-elections which some “expert” commentators predicted they could win from the Libs in the wake of their bitter leadership change and opposition to an ETS? The only winner there was Tony Abbott whose job should now be easier in view of the Dopenhagen debacle.
Oh and ask any geologist worth his salt and he will explain the sea is not mysteriously rising to swallow Tuvalu and the Pacific islands while there is no corresponding rise elsewhere. It’s caused by movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates which results in land movement and tsunamis. The islands are sinking and it’s nothing to do with CO2,

jamie says:

09:14am | 21/12/09

In all this GW/ ETS nonsense governments of all persuasions appear to have taken their eye off the ball in respect to basic environmental matters.

Many years ago I worked directly with people on the ground regarding environmental issues, ie, revegetation, rehabilitation, erosion control, riparian regenration, etc. By all means lets see a reduction in pollution and an increase in sustainable/ eco friendly energy but lets also see a return to on ground grass roots environmentalism before we start pretending that we can control climate.

Stopping logging would be a good start.

John of Moving People Foreword says:

09:32am | 21/12/09

We have to pollute less, this is a fact.
As for climate change who knows,if it is happening which I think it is there is no point in fighting it.
This is like a Don Quichotte was fighting wind mills.
Nature has to take its course and we must adapt or parish,stop the dirty,old polluting factory from emitting more chemicals into the air , water and soil is a mast not for the climate but for human well being.
This is like trying to stop a person from aging,we can do everything to slow the aging process,eat better and live healthy lifestyle but you cant stop or reverse aging process.
We must find new technology and energy source for our own benefit to live in better world and pay less for it.
We must move away from living so close to the sea,more people will have to live in eastern or western suburbs.
As for Islands that are going to be swept by rising water,bad luck the people have to move here,before the island disappear we have to strip it of any valuables and natural,mineral resources.
For millions of years humans had to move with moving climate and food sources.
As for Greens they start to go on my nerve as they do a very little but emit huge amount of hot air from two ends,just like Kevin and Tony.
Where there is a chance humans want to make a dollar out of anything now they try ETS which is very hard to sell.
Personally I start my own moving company as millions of people will need resettling,
This is were the money is going to be made in the future,Moving People Foreword is the name just remember to call me.

adam macleod says:

09:52am | 21/12/09

Hi Bob, everyone,

Unfortunately I think the whole idea of cap-&-trade is seriously flawed.  Australia would be so much better off looking implementing at a modest carbon-tax.

A carbon tax is much easier to understand, can be applied to imports (while exports are exempt), it can be gradually ramped up over time (start with a very low rate, and slowly increase over years as businesses adapt) and the revenue stream can fund research into clean energy technology.  Pretty soon clean energy would become cost competitive, driving demand for green energy.  Game over…. planet saved.

As a supporter of you and the Greens, I’m sorry to say that I’m not a fan of the current Greens policy.  This should be an area where we can really offer a better alternative with win-wins for the environment and the enconomy.  Instead we create a policy which is not widely seen as acceptible, and we become marginalised rather than mainstream.

RT says:

09:57am | 21/12/09

It’s foreseeable that a nation’s refusal to sign legally binding carbon reduction targets will one day result in trade restrictions being placed by major consuming markets such as EU and USA. That would concentrate the minds of the Chinese and other reluctant ‘emerging economies’. It would also make arguments about the economic cost and climate change scepticism irrelevant. I think it’s coming.

Troy says:

10:03am | 21/12/09

Hey Bob, How many Gigga tonnes of CO2 would have been saved if they build that Hydroelectric power station on the Gordon -Franklin… The law of unintended consequences strikes again.. reality sucks….

AJ says:

10:11am | 21/12/09

To those who assert that the Greens’ proposals would ‘destroy the economy’, please qualify your statements with, you know, actual facts, rather than bland assertions.  Similarly, rather than asserting that Treasury estimates always produce what the Government want, how about you actually produce some rebuttal of an actual estimate from someone with, wait for it, credibility and qualifications.  I suppose that it’s easier to be a one-eyed troll than a meaningful contributor to debate, though.

Given the purpose of a reasonable climate policy is to reduce greenhouse emissions, it seems to make considerably more sense to give people the means to reduce their consumption of (necessarily more expensive) power from dirty sources than to compensate both individuals and polluters to offset the increase in carbon-derived energy.  It’s a less complex, not to mention less inherently contradictory, means of achieving a more substantial end.

And yes, jobs will be lost in the coal power generation industry.  But keep in mind that nobody compensated the film photograph development industry when everyone started buying digital cameras.  They adapted in order to survive, and those that didn’t found other jobs.  I’m guessing it’s because they didn’t have the billion dollar lobbying arms that Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton have.  It’s strange, but the Greens are actually advocating the purest market solution to the problem.

Lastly, to those who roll out the Government line that it’s a great big tax on everything, it isn’t.  It’s pricing into the market a cost that existed.  Also, it’s a tax/cost that’s EXPLICITLY designed to be avoided.  To pay less tax, consume energy more efficiently and responsibly, and, lo and behold, the scheme proposed by the good Greens Senator from Tasmania would help every Australian do so.

RobJ says:

10:20am | 21/12/09

“The trouble with the Greens is that for some insane reason they always side with the lying labor movement,”

Like when they voted AGAINST the ETS?

Tim says:

10:37am | 21/12/09

AJ,
the problem comes when we put a high price on Carbon when no one else does.
We would then be pricing ourselves out of the market for very little benefit to world wide greenhouse gas emissions.
Renewable energy will be only part of the solution and I find it very hard to take Bob Brown seriously when he is the leader of a party who flatly rejects Nuclear power.
Acting unilaterally on this issue is a fools game.

Max says:

10:40am | 21/12/09

The world needs real leadership, and no leader at Copenhagen was prepared to leave.  Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong were a drag at these negotiations.  They should have been there offering 40%, not 5%.

Bob is right. The political system, dominated by Labor and Liberal is captive of the big polluters.  Unfortunately we don’t have time to change the system over the next 25 years, we need urgent action to drastically reduce emissions.

One can only hope The Greens do well at the next election and start dragging the other parties to a more sustainable future. 

Business as usual will lead to oblivion faster than most suspect.  Look at the state of the Murray Darling basin at the moment!

steve says:

10:49am | 21/12/09

The elephant in the room that we seem totally unprepared and unwilling to acknowledge is this new, modern nuclear.

http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh

A concise two page summary: http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/aimhighthoriumenergycheaperthanfromcoal.doc

Quote:

LFTR Advantages
The LFTR produces less than 1% of the long-lived radioactive waste of today’s nuclear power plants. It can consume nuclear waste now stored at nuclear power plants. It uses an inexhaustible supply of inexpensive thorium fuel. One ton of thorium costing $100,000 provides 1 GW-year of electric energy, enough for a city. LFTR operates at high temperature, achieving 50% thermal-electrical conversion efficiency, so it needs half the cooling of today’s coal or nuclear plants. It can be air cooled—critical to arid regions of the Western US and many developing countries where water is scarce. No plutonium or other fissile material is ever isolated or transported from or to the LFTR, except for importing the nuclear waste it consumes to start up.

Cost
LFTR has low capital costs because it operates at atmospheric pressure without massive pressure vessels or containment domes and because of its compact heat exchanger and gas turbine. A $200 million 100 MW size unit allows incremental capital outlays, affordability to developing nations, and suitability for factory production, truck transport, and site assembly. It can be manufactured on a production line, like Boeing airliners, reducing costs and production time.

End Quote

The relative costs of the possible generation technologies we have, from wind/solar/tidal/geothermal to nuclear have all been analysed in a series (T-CASE) on the blog site of Professor Barry Brook, Professor of Climate Science Adelaide Uni.

http://bravenewclimate.com/category/tcase-series/

Very interesting reading, and starts to put some shape on that damned elephant sitting over there in the corner.

Ronin8317 says:

10:56am | 21/12/09

The reason why the Government didn’t negotiate with the Green is simple arithmetic : as Steve Fielding will be voting against a ETS, a Labor + Green alliance will still be one vote short.

The upcoming election will not be fought over climate change. The Liberal Party will be running on a ‘Magic Pudding’ solution, and the Labor Party will match it with their own ‘Magic Pudding’. The failure at Copenhagen and the subsequent bad press would have convinced the majority of voters that any action is futile.

BULMKT says:

11:08am | 21/12/09

The title of your piece should have been “The Greens need to drop their refusal to budge on nuclear power”.

Once you watermelons accept that nuclear is the only “non carbon” mass energy source then your opinion mean didly squat.
When it don’t blow - wind fails
When’s its dark - solar fails

We also need more dams in this country - for both drinking water and for generating clean hydro but you knuckleheads object to everything.

And enough with the fear about the barrier reef dying. Acidification of the oceans is due to Volcanoes full stop. This is a know fact as Acidification doesn’t occur in land locked lakes, streams, billabongs etc.

COP15 has been shown to be the shame it was.

Glad I live in Tassie says:

11:08am | 21/12/09

I see the dirty polluters spin doctors have been busy posting, again. (must be a heck of ajob just sitting at the ‘puter going from site to site posting the same drivel; I’d want to be paid lots to do it)

Senator Brown, 2010 is gunna be a big year for the Greens. I just wish the Charles Street Shop was still there, it made dropping in donations a whole lot easier.
But to be brutally honest I think mans inherent hubris will win out. Earth will still be here. I don’t think It will care much if we destroy our current way of life (& cause mass extinction of animals). Man as a whole is a greedy SOB. I used to think that we could turn climate change around, not so sure now. WE’RE JUST TOO DUMB to see the forest for the trees.
Best wishes, I hope that I’m just having a ‘dark day’.

BUZZ says:

11:45am | 21/12/09

well done bob brown in the senate you voted down an ETS
you stood beside climate deniers and voted to delay
now NUCLEAR POWER is on the agenda +the possibility
with the help of news ltd we could elect a right wing gov with no climate policy
SO WELL DONE hope you get the extra seats your anticipating at the next election
BUT YOU HAVE LOST MY VOTE

James Ritter says:

11:53am | 21/12/09

A tax wont work for the same reasons the ETS doesnt work.  You need an insentive based system to change our reliance on fossil fuels. A stepped reduction or modification to existing taxing structures and regulations for compliance is a good way to go for example.

“Imagine that, the Greens giving their preferences to a party led by a man who describes the arguments for Climate change as “crap”. 

Actually he was refering to the whole ETS scenario - and it is is a crap system. It has failed in two incarnations in EU with over 700 million banked credits available from phase 2. Guess who was going to make all that money

Wake up says:

11:54am | 21/12/09

If we are concerned about the Great Barrier Reef and not the money ETS will raise here is a suggestion.
Refuse vessels flagged under’” Flags of convenience” entry into Australian waters. These vessels carry oil and many of them do not meet the necessary standards yet are allowed to continue to enter through the reef. There have been ships where the outer hull has been penetrated during testing yet the Federal Govt covers this up and allows the vessels in. Why? MONEY and political pressure (donations to I forget which political party). 
So Bob, I suggest you get stuck into something you can deliver rather than barking like a fox terrier when the dobermans and the rottweillers are playing. Get the boats out of the reef.
Oh, by the way Bob, how is the oil slick off WA going? Why are you silent on this issue? Donations to the Greens perhaps, or some other obscure reason?

Rowdy says:

11:59am | 21/12/09

Money should be pumped worldwide….heavily….into developing nuclear fusion. Nigh on limitless fuel supply, minimal waste products. Until we develop this, we will be p*ssing into the wind.

persephone says:

12:19pm | 21/12/09

Bob Brown - the man who opposes wind farms in Tasmania.

Little test: go to the Greens site. Type in ‘wind farms’. See how committed to the development of alternative renewable energy the Greens really are.

And chopping down trees is carbon neutral, as long as you replant. In fact, some evidence suggests that it’s carbon negative, because the new growing trees suck in more carbon than is stored in the old forest.

But Bob’s attitude to tree chopping is the same as his attitude to wind farms - fine as long as it’s not in my backyard.

Yes, we need action on climate change, and we need to get started. If the Greens had supported the government’s legislation in the Senate, we’d have an ETS by now, as two Liberals crossed the floor to support it.

They have another chance in February. Hopefully they don’t squib it this time and we get something in place.

DocBud says:

12:20pm | 21/12/09

Glad I live in Tassie, if you want to try and belittle your elders and betters, at least get mummy to check your spelling and grammar.

“it made dropping in donations a whole lot easier. “

I guess if you’re too dumb to see the forest for the trees, licking an envelope is out of the question.

AJ says:

12:28pm | 21/12/09

Tim, I’m afraid I disagree.  Creating a market mechanism by which we move away from a fossil fuel economy is, even in the absence of moves by other nations, an inherent good.  Sustainable energy insulates us from an economy where the affordability of basic goods is largely reliant upon the very volatile price of oil, which, realistically, can only go upwards (or do we need reminding that, not that long ago, it was above $150 a barrel before the market imploded).  As with any other necessary major economic restructure, it is better to lead the way, and hopefully become a net exporter of renewable technology and manufactured products, rather than lagging behind and becoming a net importer.

Moreover, other countries have moved to put a price on carbon, and it hasn’t particularly affected their economies.  We all too often forget that emissions trading schemes (albeit often quite imperfect ones) currently exist in a number of OECD countries.

Finally, for those who suggest that wind and solar are unreliable, I would suggest you look into the current states of those technologies, you may find some surprises (particularly solar thermal, as opposed to solar photovoltaic).

James says:

12:40pm | 21/12/09

This election will be a decided on climate change policy and this ALP voter will be voting Green and encouraging others to do the same.

Sceptics get educated and go the the website below.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

DocBud says:

12:43pm | 21/12/09

AJ,

“is largely reliant upon the very volatile price of oil, which, realistically, can only go upwards (or do we need reminding that, not that long ago, it was above $150 a barrel before the market imploded).” Priceless, what happened to the price when it imploded?

‘Moreover, other countries have moved to put a price on carbon, and it hasn’t particularly affected their economies.” Tell that to the 1700 Corus workers in my above link.

claude says:

12:51pm | 21/12/09

The Greens should rename themselves the Hypocritical Party, no matter how bad ALP governments perform they still direct their preferences towards them, it probably cost them their only lower house seat at the last QLD state election doing exactly that. I could not vote for greens while they support the ALP.

mike_in_mudgee says:

12:57pm | 21/12/09

Very good, Bob. The future belongs to us.  It will be a struggle, but we will get there.  NEVER give up.

paulm says:

01:02pm | 21/12/09

In the last 100 years we’ve gone from 1 billion to 6.5 billion people.  Fact.. The proportion of these people living high energy “western” lifestyles has also increased.  Fact.  The per capita energy consumption of these lifestyles has also increased thanks to air conditioners, plasma tvs, personal computers, larger homes, etc etc.  Fact.  Most of this energy has come from burning fossil fuels which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Fact.  Coupled with this has been massive deforestation of the earth, which are nature’s natural carbon sink.  Fact.  We are seeing ice caps shrinking, glaciers shrinking back up valleys, greenland returning to a green land & permafrost melts in Alaska.  Facts.  The list goes on and on, to the point where I believe that the skeptics have had to change their position from “there’s no global warming” to “there is global warming, but its not man made” a few years ago.  Well, to me, on the balance of evidence on both sides, its seems that global warming is man made rather than a mere conincidence.  PS) From what I can gather “Clmategate” involved a highly skilled hacking exercise that would have to have been well funded and professional.  Its release occured at a time to cause maximum damage to Copenhagen.  It involved the selective publication of extracts from 13 years worth of emails, and only the parts that would throw doubt onto the IPCC’s position.  So basically, something smells very fishy on this “affair”, or should I say it smells very oily?

Tim says:

01:03pm | 21/12/09

AJ,
why then does Bob Brown propose putting solar panels on every house or small business in Australia when small scale PV systems are extremely expensive when compared to other systems and are very unreliable?
Paying a massive premium for this kind of economic “insulation” is something our economy can do without.
As well as this, the current sustainable technologies cannot provide the baseload power that would be necessary to start reducing our reliance on coal so why then are the Green’s not even willing to talk about the only proven technology that could?
A full mix of nuclear and renewable technologies are the only way we can realistically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without damaging the economy.

Jim Bendfeldt says:

01:16pm | 21/12/09

Instead of whinging about new potential taxes, why can’t our governments look at simple, practical measures that will reduce some of our energy consumption?

One area that immediately springs to mind is domestic air-conditioning, which has become a national addiction over the summer months, adding significantly to electricity bills, and placing unnecessary strain on power generation facilities.

Thermostatically controlled electric window fans have been around in North America for many years, and are significantly cheaper to buy ($US40-60) and generate a fraction of the greenhouse gases of air conditioning units. They are best suited to climates where it is hot during the day and cooler at night, which makes them ideal for many regions in Australia.

Window fan units are rectangular in shape, and generally contain two 25cm fans (set side-by-side) operating at up to four speeds. They are relatively small in size (30cm x 60cm) and light-weight (4kg), and can be inserted into a sliding or sash window frame between the outer frame and the window itself, the task taking less than a minute.

The object is to draw in cooler (outside) air at night whilst expelling any hot air. During the day, they are removed from the window frame to stop hot air entering the house. This can delay or completely eliminate the need for air conditioning at night. 

In winter the fans can be switched to reverse, i.e. to draw in warmer outside air during the day and expel cold air. Again, in winter they need to be removed from the window frame at night to prevent cold air from entering the house. They work even more efficiently in two-storey homes, where one set can be used to draw in cooler air on the lower floor, with the other set expelling hot air from the upper level.

Since they are primarily designed to use electricity at night, they place less pressure on the electricity supply, and are particularly useful in districts affected by blackouts. They draw minimal power (85-120 Watt depending on size) compared to air-conditioners (1200-3500 Watt), enabling them to be powered by batteries charged with solar cell arrays.

Care needs to be taken in positioning them away from garbage bins, prevailing winds and rain. They are placed on the inside of fly screens and security screens.

Unfortunately window fans are currently unavailable in Australia and cannot be imported directly from North America due to power supply conversion issues.

If an Australian company were to start manufacturing window fans suited to Australia’s power supply (240v), the savings to both consumers and the environment would be significant.

A 3500 watt air conditioner, (cost price $2000), running for 30 hours per week for 4 months will add over $300 per annum to electricity bills, and generate almost 2 tonnes of CO2 over the 12 month period.

A 1200 watt evaporative cooler, (cost price $600), running over the same period, will add $90 per annum to electricity bills, and generate 556Kg of CO2 over the same period.

On the other hand, two 80 watt window fans (cost estimated at $AU100 per unit) will cost around $14 to run per annum, and generate less than 90kg of CO2 over the same period.

Bruce says:

01:50pm | 21/12/09

Let me get this right. The Labor government sent 114 people to Copenhagen to represent Australia, and we come home with little or nothing !! What a waste of green house gases. The meeting should have been done with video conferencing. It would have saved a lot of green houses gases, money and time. I am astounded !!! I want to come back as a politician or any other hanger on’er in my next life.

Sandy Beach says:

02:03pm | 21/12/09

average jet airliner = 5 litres/100km per passenger (if the plane is full)
canberra -Copenhagen return = 32000km (aprox.)
fuel per person = 1600 litres (aprox.)
enough to travel about 16 000km in your average Aus. car.
( next time an evironmental guru flies around the world to tell you not to drive your kids to school tell them to get stuffed)
p.s. if you don’t believe me look it up a 747 400 jet takes only 247 000 litres to fill up.
Hey Bob how many Km’s have you flown?

pc says:

02:04pm | 21/12/09

MISTAKES. SETBACKS. FAILURES.  Does that mean - Roninn8317 “The failure at Copenhagen and the subsequent bad press would have convinced the majority of voters that any action is futile.”  - we have to be impotent? Though thats probably how we feel. Does impotence mean there is no hope? Is there no hope for Tuvalu? Is there no hope for the Maldives? Is there no hope for the word meaningful?

James Hansen had hoped for failure, and thats what we got, I wonder if he’s celebrating? Tony Abbott seems to feel vindicated by the failure to get a treaty and Bob Brown is even smiling. It seems somewhat inappropriate when Lenore Taylor is talking of hopelesshagen and Philip Coorey quotes Gough Whitlam ‘only the impotent are pure.’ I wonder if the impotent feel ‘pure’ right now?

Tim says:11:37 “AJ, the problem comes when we put a high price on Carbon when no one else does.”

Thats pretty much the dilemma a global agreement has for the partys concerned. No one is going to make the first step. Certainly no country is going to make further steps without an agreement between CHINA and the US. In the face of both nations reluctance to make a deal its difficult not to feel impotent. So we blame each other.

The Irish PM, Brian Cowen said “certainly its not Europes fault”, Ed Miliband British Foreign Secretary blamed all the usual suspects; China, the Sudan, Venezuala, Cuba. Tim Gosner, the Kiwi PM blamed “the extremist negotiating culture” of some delegates. Penny Wong blamed South American countries. Im sure Tony Abbott wants to blame Kevin Rudd and Im just as sure Kevin Rudd wants to blame Tony Abbot. Heck. I want to blame Tony Abbott, I want to blame Kevin Rudd, I want to blame Bob Brown, and just for good measure I want to blame Kyle as well. Goodbye Tuvalu, Goodbye Maldives, Goodbye meaningful, its a shame we had to say you so much that you became meaningless. You werent a bad word, after all, its just you were only a word.

thatmosis says:

02:31pm | 21/12/09

This article shows just how far the Greens areout of date with reality. 40%, thats a laugh, how are we supposed to achieve that may I ask when we would be flat out achieving 4% unless of course everybody in Australia is willing to go without the basics of life. Things like electricty during the night as Solar and Wind have no base load capabilities and wont have for decades to come. Stop driving your car, sounds simple until you realise that the Public transport infrastructure would collapse within a day with the extra workload, it cant even cope now. Lets put Solar panels on everyroof in Australia, great except for one thing, there arent enough panels to fill the need already that has been created by the Governments Solar rebate scheme and the cost per household is prohibitive. This airy fairy codswallop from the Greens just shows them for what they are, people whos grasp of reality is tenuous at the most who shouldnt be allowed out on their own. As for the ascertion that Tuvala will dissapppear under the waves if we dont stop polluting I have never read so much claptrap in all my life. Even if there was no pollution this small island nation would still dissappear under the waves as it is an island formed on a fault in the geology that rises and falls with the movement of the techtonic plates and will continue to do so. Misinformation like this is the Greens stock in trade as the truth would show that they are really in parliament to collect their fat pay checks and nothing more. A vote for the Greens is a vote for nothing except lies and more lies to justify their exisitance.

pc says:

02:31pm | 21/12/09

Admit Nothing
Blame Everyone
Be Bitter
(Untitled 1987 Barbara Kruger Photograph

Bruce - “What a waste of green house gases. The meeting should have been done with video conferencing. It would have saved a lot of green houses gases, money and time. I am astounded !!! I want to come back as a politician or any other hanger on’er in my next life.”

Can we trust CHINA? On the one hand its home to the most ambitious renewable energy projects in the world but on the other it refuses to agree to impartial monitoring of greenhouse gase emissions. CHINA, unlike many other countries, has had less difficulty embarking on such projects because it doesnt have much chance of being voted out. The Chinese Communist Party depends on economic prosperity - or so many tell us - for its survival but CHINA knows that survival also depends upon curbing pollution and its effects, desertification for example. CHINA can be trusted to take action, perhaps when its clear the US will lead, but perhaps only once its survival is at stake. So we can trust CHINA to behave exactly the same way that the US or AUSTRALIA do.

Can we trust our own governmnet? Tony Abbott has sought to undermine a treaty by saying “You’ll have to pay.” Havent the governmnet also undermined a treaty by saying “Cant tell you exactly how much you’ll have to pay but its not as much as Tony Abbott might say.” The government have been reluctant to share the plan, if there is indeed a plan, with the citizens. Dont they trust us? Cant we handle the truth?

‘Direct Action’ is another phrase that’s in danger of expiring. Tony Abbott argues direct action is as Jim Bendfeldt 02:16pm says “Instead of whinging about new potential taxes, why can’t our governments look at simple, practical measures that will reduce some of our energy consumption?”

That is certainly part, but we need every tool, and though it is not perfect or enough, a cap and trade system and the markets, we hope, can be the first tool. Direct Action for many, means actually cutting our emissions, actually quitting pollution and in order to do that we have to move from dependence on fossil fuels to renewables. Revenues raised by an ets are meant to fund these investments. Direct Action means the governmnet spends our money as well. Direct Action means those working in mining and energy must KNOW where they are going next. Unless there are jobs in renewables it will be difficult to mobilise support for them. Its difficult to trust you job to a plan when you dont know what the plan is?

IF you fail then perhaps next time you need help? And you need to admit you need help.

Pitchfork Kenny says:

02:38pm | 21/12/09

Thanks for the link, James. No intelligent person could read that without becoming a sceptic. It reads like a list of facts on one side (the non-AGW side) and a list of different ways to bury your head in the sand. Thankyou, I will definitely not be voting for the Greens on the basis of that link alone (plus they’re a bunch of raving loonies).

DocBud says:

02:46pm | 21/12/09

paulm,

The only people who have ever tried to pretend that the climate does not perpetually change are the Climategate scientists who manipulated data in an attempt to show a long period of climate stability followed by unprecedented warming during the industrial era. As you note, we are seeing “greenland returning to a green land”. For sceptics it has always been about causality. I note you don’t state: Fact: there is a direct, proven link between human emissions of CO2 and climate change.

Climategate was far more likely to have been an internal release of information from a whistleblower, either way, Phil Jones has conceded that the information is authentic so perhaps you’d like to deal with the content, a couple of examples:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=356&filename=1062592331.txt

“Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year
extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f***-all about what
the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know f***-all).”

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=407&filename=1080742144.txt

“Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.”

Brian says:

02:59pm | 21/12/09

The Greens are a joke.

Its easy being a Green and offering “solutions” as there is no way you will be under scrutiny as you will never be in power.

The tide has turned and people have woken up to this giant con and fraud attempt and the Greens will go the way of The Democrats.

Mitzi says:

03:03pm | 21/12/09

The Greens ruin their chances of ever having much political clout with all their extreme leftist ideas about other subjects. They need to make more conservative policies in these areas so that the voting public will vote for them & then some climate change policy with clout might come into being in this country. As the current policies of the greens stand I’d never vote for them even though I want to see strong action against pollution taken NOW!!

pc says:

03:15pm | 21/12/09

Hi Docbud, So the failure of the copenhagen talks is the fault of the scientists? I hadnt actually thought to blame them; but seeing as thats what we are going to talk about, I blame those scientists involved in climategate for not trusting us to handle the truth. Rather than acknowledge that science cannot perfectly predict rises in temperature with specific releases of greenhouse gases, as other scientists have and continue to do, they made, what I’m sure they thought were for pragmatic reasons of spin, an effort to suppress.

Admit Nothing

Science isnt perfect, the exact relationship between global temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions isnt perfectly understood. We dont know with any certainty that x amount of emissions will produce y result. We do know that more emissions = more heat = less ice caps = higher water. The idea that Tuvalu is threatened because it is sinking rather than the water rising is just another way of saying, “I dont care what happens to Tuvalu.”

Martin says:

03:19pm | 21/12/09

I have a novel idea. Why not give the scientists who believe that man is not responsible for climate change a go. Let them argue their point without governments taking away their grants and without persecution. Than we could have a discussion without politicians and without the UN and come to an educated solution.

Brian says:

03:23pm | 21/12/09

“The collapse in Copenhagen shows the power of the polluters over the politicians.”

Rubbish. The collapse was because it was a fraud and people around the globe are up to the scam now.

Obama made a token appearance to the beggers conference and then headed back to do some important work.

There are plenty of ways to clean up the planet, but the Greens just want to play politics and have a crack at capitalism instead of putting up solutions. There is too much tax revenue for governments in oil - that is why technical solutions are ignored. Its all about a great big tax and putting a wedge in your political opponents members - not the environment.

Meanwhile some basic things go undone as politics is played. The Greens are a disgrace.

alteria says:

03:37pm | 21/12/09

Rubbish to your rubbish, Brian. If the talks collapsed ‘because it was a fraud’, some political leader would have said so publicly at some point. No government representative of note has expressed serious scepticism about AGW for some time now. Each government has done their homework and realise it’s not tenable to claim there is no problem to be addressed. The ‘fraud’ and ‘scam’ sort of claims are left to sideline commentators and online obsessives.
No, the talks collapsed because getting agreement on something that is so complex and will bring about so much change is really, really difficult.
These talks collapsed, this time. International agreement on legally-binding carbon pollution reduction targets is still only a matter of time however.

Greg says:

04:05pm | 21/12/09

Good on ya Bob,

trot out the same good old recycled lies (recycling good, right?) and fear mongering that now has our youth completely paranoid, toss in some crap figures that have not even been researched and there we have the Green’s Party. Listen mate, why don’t you nick off to China and India and sprout your climate change BS over there. They still need indoctrination apparently, judging by Copenhagen. Who knows the Chinese Communists may embrace you and KRudd and you could be joint chairmen.

Jh says:

04:12pm | 21/12/09

Thanks Bob, for adding another trumped up tage line: “Super Heating!”

Peter says:

04:21pm | 21/12/09

Next year’s election will not be a referendum on climate change. That is just Bob’s rhetoric to make his party seem relevant. Climate change will play its part but you just need to look at what Ken Henry has produced today to realise that the election will also be about taxes, jobs and economy, health, education, plus social issues like the nanny state, internet censorship and governmental ideology etc.
By the way, Bob, you noted that solar power is “pollution-free”, this is not true. To produce, repair and service panels requires pollution. It typically takes a solar panel about 2 years to repay the energy that went into making it. So less pollution, but NOT pollution-free. .

pc says:

04:22pm | 21/12/09

Hi Brian - Blame Everyone - I’m having trouble thinking of more people to blame, so far we’ve got politicians, CHINA, the US, AUSTRALIA, scientists…. perhaps we should start blaming journalists as well? Perhaps we should blame the people that protested at Copenhagen or the RISING TIDE activists that seem to be the only ones directly acting to prevent pollution in Australia?

Blame everyone - Many consider a treaty, like an ets, as an intrusion of government, or the UN, a GREEN monster, something that may seem harmless even worthwhile but really a trojan horse to the WORLD STATE or GULAG.  This undermined the conference. Hasnt it also been undermined by the efforts to pretend that it isnt a major change to the way nation states co operate? In order to get both a domestic and international agreement dont we have to know what we are agreeing to, even those that want to support an ets or global treaty,  dont we need to think its actually going to do something about pollution in order for the politicians to get it? But it also needs the support of those more directly effected, the people that work, and those that depend upon them, in mining and energy.

Be Bitter: The people of Tuvalu dont have time to be bitter. They have a coalition to build. A coalition of islanders, mainlanders, workers, politicians, scientists, and they have to do it before we lose the word coalition to the graveyard of meaningless meaningfulness.

Gran Depine says:

04:46pm | 21/12/09

Has everyone been hoodwinked? Copenhagen was not about climate change, it was about the establishment of a world government and rent seekers trading votes for handouts. For Christmas sake, wake up and see through the smoke and mirrors. There is an order fighting to create a world government. The UN, IMF and WTO are all debating how to amalgamate the pool of funds that will be pooled from this global tax. A ridiculous global tax that concluded or should I say assumes, that money and carbon trading will reduce the core median temperature of our planet. The carbon trading scheme will create DEBT….once you create DEBT…you create submission and control. But someone has to fund the global bureaucrats and the world police/military force. Please wake up and I beg you all to read and ask as many questions as you can to all your Federal MP’s. Google the document formulated in 1992 called Agenda 21. This has all been planned and orchestrated. Don’t be hoodwinked!

Michael Downs says:

04:51pm | 21/12/09

Bob Brown, like his party, is a total irrelevance.  Lets face it, if it wern’t for our ridiculous voting system they wouldn’t even be in the Parliament.  Climate science is dishonest at best and ‘Climategate’ only makes the whole thing look worse.

DocBud says:

05:10pm | 21/12/09

pc,

I can’t see much sea level rise over the last 16 years at Tuvalu looking at Figures 10 and 11 here:

http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2009_1.pdf

Those of us who wanted Copenhagen to fail miserably are grateful to all those who did their bit, small and large. As scepticism rises in the western democracies, it will become less and less likely that politicians will take any action that may hurt them at the ballot box. The Rising Tide criminals are certainly helping with the rise of scepticism, people generally do not approve of criminal behaviour as a means of protest in a democracy. They have the ballot box to make their case, but because their argument is so weak they choose to resort to criminal acts. Hopefully the individuals will be sued for the full cost of their actions.

Greg says:

05:14pm | 21/12/09

Alteria, rubbish to your rubbish of Brian (climate changers make me laugh!) If there was a serious threat to world prosperity such as an international incident between two Nuclear capable countries or a massive asteroid approaching earth, somehow I think all your pin up boys (Rudd, Mugabe, Chavez, Obama, etc) would come to an agreement about a course of action. The very fact that they haven’t would indicate that Obama and Rudd amongst others used climate change to win power. As if Obama is going to embrace something like an ETS when over 10% of Americans don’t have a job. If CC were real he might. And what of China and India? They have two of the world’s largest populations. Surely if climate change were real they would do something or risk civil disorder from nearly a billion people worried about CC. The issue isn’t even on the radar in those countries.

Daniel says:

05:45pm | 21/12/09

I have always agreed with Bob Brown from the start. If Rudd had any brains he would have knocked on the Greens door from the start. This whole thing could have been avoided from the start.Maybe Rudd has to learn the hard way.

pc says:

05:45pm | 21/12/09

DocBud - I get the point. Admit Nothing - The ice is melting and the seas are rising. I know that when Tuvalu goes you will say it’s because of the island sinking, an underwater volcano, godzilla, whatever. Then when the maldives go you’ll probably blame it on mothra. After they go, but probably not before, or in time to save them, the US and CHINA will act.  The ‘not before the rest of the world bandwagon’ will cheer.

That wont be before we have another ‘climate change election that wasnt a climate change election’. Have we already killed the phrase ‘climate change election?’ Perhaps we’ll have an election about the issues related to globalisation and climate change, the pollution we must quit, the jobs we need to create, or will we just have another ‘climate change election.’? How many climate change elections must a country have before it does anything about climate change?

AMS says:

05:53pm | 21/12/09

A vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor… They just flick their preferences that way anyhow.

Philip says:

06:35pm | 21/12/09

Record snow storms in New York? How will Gore, Jones and the rest of
the Alarmists put a spin on this one. Its very cold out in the real world -especially when the emporer(‘s) have no clothes.

alteria says:

06:58pm | 21/12/09

Greg: your post has so many errors. Did Rudd win power with an ETS? That would be the same ETS that Howard also promised in 2007, wouldn’t it? Obama wouldn’t introduce and ETS? Funny, there is one before congress now. China and India: they were there at Copenhagen and signed the agreement, such as it is. I think it is on their radar. They are ahead of many countries on using renewable energy. Mugabe, asteroids, nuclear war - WTF??? You underline the loopiness and misinformation peddled by many sceptics/deniers.
Phillip: any weather extremes may be exacerbated by climate change, hot or cold. You must pay more attention if you’re going to comment.
ASM - a vote for Greens is a vote for Labor only if voters list their preferences that way. Voters have the choice.

Greg says:

07:01pm | 21/12/09

PC, we did not have a climate change election in ‘07. We had a propaganda campaign against work choices with a small dose of Climate Change thrown in just so those who never want to get a job or wash their hair would vote Labor as well. If you care so much about this contrived science how about we implement a voluntary tax so those that believe this crap can pay an ETS and those hard working individuals who have seen all this type of BS before can continue to prosper. Oh, sorry I forgot, those hard working individuals are the only ones not on benefits. Perhaps those wanting the introduction of an ETS can hand back their welfare payments to fund clean energy and those paying uni fees can donate this money to fund clean energy as well. Think of yourselves as Martyrs, it will be so much less painful that way without your iphones, Facebook and Twitter.

Tim says:

07:10pm | 21/12/09

Phillip,
You do know the difference between weather and climate don’t you?

Matt says:

07:29pm | 21/12/09

“the Greens would redirect this vast sum to retrofit every house and small business in Australia with solar hot water and solar panels” 

Yeh great, except solar panels only convert 20% of the heat they absorb into energy.  The rest gets absorbed by the black solar panels and then re-radiated at night, making things warmer. YES, WARMER.  You’d be better off paiting rooves white to reflect heat all day.

DocBud says:

07:32pm | 21/12/09

Tim,

Kevin Rudd doesn’t:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/heats-on-to-approve-carbon-plan/story-e6frgczf-1225799949696

pc,

Tuvalu may well succumb to the oceans, the seas have been rising for 10000 years so may well continue to do so. The Maldives are less vulnerable but have been known to suffer at the hands of the sea with gales destroying some northern islands in 1812 and 1955 (about when I bought my first and second SUV).

Hopefully, other than adaptation, nations will do sod all about climate change because that is exactly what they can achieve.

Derk says:

08:14pm | 21/12/09

Rudd has learned the meaning of shame, how history will judge this pm will not be kind indeed. One word - ineffective, sums it up.

harquebus says:

08:49pm | 21/12/09

“solar panels to produce pollution-free electricity” = crap.
It takes more energy and pollution to produce photovoltaic panels than they ever give back or save. It would be more efficient to burn the coal and use the electricity. The Green need to stop trying to con the public and just tell them the truth. The only way mankind is going to pollute less is to consume less. That means restraint and not just a little.
Come clean Bob, tell it like really is.

Nicki one says:

10:04pm | 21/12/09

Bob, show us that you care and get working with the government and pass the ETS.
If not for planet Earth, do it to p… off Tony Abbott.
Be Bob the builder,can you do it ? ,yes you can!

Helen says:

10:13pm | 21/12/09

Helen
You got to remember The Green would not have allowed The Snowy Mountains scheme or Warragamba Dam for that matter If they were around at the time.
The last two dam projects for approval in Brisbane and the Hunter Valley have been shot down on “Green” excuses. ( Salamanders and Turtles)

Well, perhaps that’s why I didn’t describe this mooted Second Snowy River project as featuring the same things as in the first. If you actually read what I wrote, I proposed a new national project but involving renewable energy. But BB’s opponents always like to attack strawman versions of green supporters’ arguments, not having the argumentative tools to use actual facts and logic.

Even glader that i live in Tassie says:

10:37pm | 21/12/09

DocBud, sorry it’s taken me a while to get back to ya, been busy lookin’ after the teenage grankids (me Mummy carked it yonks ago)... yeah mah gramar und spellink does stinc - sometimes. Does that meen Im not aloud to post? oops me bad.

Thanks for the laughs, Doc. Everyone should have at least 1 good belly laugh a day… 

Gran Depine, American, are you? Or have your nutbar Republican friends been sending ya links from that stinky cheese fella - Brash Limburgh?

Joe says:

11:47pm | 21/12/09

The real powers behing the Copenhagen summit set the stage well, Al Gore and co. did an amazing PR job aided and abetted by the mainstream media and our governments swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker.
The Greens never spotted the great con and were loud and visible in their demands that all nations sign on to save the world. Yet what really had been achieved when everyone went home? Western developed countries had agreed to hand money over to UN run programmes in third world countries where corruption and despotism are bywords. As for saving the environment, well theres always mexico!
The moral of this must surely be that we mitre our own corner first before trying to save the world.

S.L says:

06:38am | 22/12/09

Heard the line of the year on ABC news radio a week or two back spoken by a global warming believer working for I think the CSIRO while trying to explain that the mild weather we have been experiencing recently isn’t really that mild (In other words it’s all in our heads!)....... “Because the world really is gradually getting hotter we only think that the cooler days are cooler when they actually aren’t?” Er with that sort of philosophy how can anyone with a differing opinion have a reasonable conversation on this subject when this learned person can come out with this rubbish on national radio?

PaulH says:

07:40am | 22/12/09

Once again a radically incorrect rant from Mr Brown.This man should be made to publicly explain ALL his failed scaremongering pronouncements from the last 15 years.People would then see the fool he really is.Mr Brown there is NO thermostat that can simply alter the earths temp.The predicted ocean rise by the IPCC is 30 cm,over the next 50 years,yes 30cm.Please can the media stop this fool from preaching such drivel, perhaps if you just ignored him he may go away.Its bad enough to have Rudd scaremongering over climate change a subject he clearly does NOT understand.This whole scenario was an attempt by Rudd to get his lifelong ambition of a seat on the UN.
Acting here in Australia on basic emission cutting projects and strategies will cost nowhere near the multi BILLIONS these clowns want to spend, can someone please get through to Rudd/Brown the money has to come from somewhere,with our economy threatened and industry forced overseas where will the money come from?? we would quickly become a third world economy and perhaps be able to claim monies off that fine body of non corrupt sponsors the UN, its all a farce

Wizard says:

09:45am | 22/12/09

Its all a lie. The climate-gate data exposed all these greedy politicans and fake enviromentalists as what they a MENACE to our civilisation. Kevin should hang his head in shame for trying to forefill the NWO agenda and make every Australian a convict again under the false bondage of taxation, regulation and serfdom.
What is more a tragic is that they they IPCC and man-whore Gore have wasted all this time on fale science instead of solving a real threat pollution with plastics and other chemicals.

Jim says:

12:03pm | 22/12/09

Bob Brown, do you have any other policies other than destroying our heavy industry, preventing new investment in infrastructure, and pushing power bills through the roof? Didn’t think so. Your column is so void of facts, it is laughably bad - you refer to increased drought, storms etc to instill guilt - but there is no evidence of this actually happening, or ever if those things ever will happen, let alone linking it to human emissions of a gas that constitutes less than 0.04% of our atmosphere. Bushfires have always been part of the Australian landscape. If more houses are at risk or lost in bushfires, it’s because more people are living in rural areas, in bush areas where you mob won’t let people clear fire breaks. Case in point - one of the few houses to survive the Victorian bushfires survived because the owner cleared the trees near their house. But the council made this person feel like the worst kind of vandal, with fines and court action for clearing the trees. Yet when the fires came, their house survived. And another glaring error - Tuvalu is not at risk of rising sea levels. The Hawaiian tide station that was closed in 1999 showed almost no sea level rise. Their island is more at risk due to their own garbage pits, tree clearing and pollution - but you ‘Greens’ choose to ignore this, don’t you? But if they claim CO2 emissions are ‘sinking’ their islands, they can get compensation from Western nations, so to them that’s a scam worth pursuing. Bob Brown, I will never vote for you or your crackpot party, and it will be a bad day for the nation of Australia if there ever is a Green government.

David C says:

01:14pm | 22/12/09

The main income of Tuvalu is foreign aid. All they were doing at Copenhagen was what they do best, getting more foreign aid!!

Richard (not a Green Voter) says:

01:51pm | 22/12/09

Bob Brown, you shoudl do your homework on the Great Barrier Reef.  Or is it too much to expect that you would actually use facts in one of your tree-hugging diatribes…

Why don’t you take out some time from parliament to get up to speed with what is happening in the world of ‘real’ science….

Jim says:

02:48pm | 22/12/09

Bob Brown pulls out every environmentalist cliche in the book in this rant - I forgot to address the old chestnut of the Murray-Darling basin. Yes, this is an environmental disaster of human creation, but it has NOTHING to do with CO2 or climate change. It has ALL to do with state governments failing to cooperate and taking each other to court over water allocations, and a difference between states on water policy. The fact of the matter is the Eastern states have mismanaged the river system into oblivion, with far too much water being drawn out for such water intensive crops as cotton.

Anthony says:

05:00pm | 22/12/09

Some believe the hype - others like myself don’t. Judging by all the blogs calling somebody a “climate change denier” seems to have replaced “racist or redneck” as the trendy lefts way of trying to insult those who don’t agree with their myopic view of the world. Tony Abbott has, at least for the time being, saved Australia from an unnecesary super tax & for that I am grateful.

Luke says:

07:03pm | 23/12/09

Regardless if climate change is real or not….. renewable energy is cheaper long term. There is an extremely large initial cost but the savings are also huge (long term). I think initial carbon reductions should come from industry and households. Provide incentives for people to install solar. Solar is extremely expensive for individual households and to make your money back in savings takes years.

Heather says:

02:30pm | 24/12/09

The next election is more likely to be a referendum on Conroy’s attempt to make us China through censorship than MMCC, Bob. Wake up.

Heather says:

03:36pm | 24/12/09

To: Martin.04:19pm.. |

*gasp*! No, we couldn’t do that! We uneducated peons are too stoopid to handle fair and equitable debate and be relied upon to make the “right” decision!!

Anton says:

12:13am | 26/12/09

In my view, the reason for which there is only inaction on climate change is that there was no period of debate over which the science was revealed and disseminated to the public. 

Though I am a believer, I can appreciate that for many skeptics, man-made climate change feels just like any other fad the mainstream media has gripped with its talons and flailed in front of us serfs.  All we hear are catch-phrases from proponents of man-made climate change along with McCarthy-istic accusations against so called “deniers”. 

Climate scientists are not the priest-caste of modern society; we are not obliged to take their predictions at face value.  The more fools like Bob Brown and Al Gore fear monger and try and force our hand, the more resistance they will find.

If we want action on climate change we need to go through the period of public debate that we missed, where it is okay for skeptics to question and instead of being snickered at by self-righteous Prius drivers, they are instead persuaded.

Green Rubbish says:

04:35am | 26/12/09

Tuvalu has always faced extinction! If the sea falls due to Ice Age it will be hundreds of km from the sea, iif the sea rises it will drown, and unlike all the “predictions” the only certain thing is the climate will do on or the other just like it always has!

“loss of the Great Barrier Reef”
“90 percent reduction of farming land in the Murray-Darling Basin”
“sea level rise affecting 700,000 properties this century, as predicted? “Worse bushfires?”

The Boogie man cometh!!! Welcome to life on Earth, a continuous cycle of warm and Ice Ages and volcanoes and earthquakes and tsunamis and meteors and disease and famine etc. Get used to it!

“The Australian Greens alone will be putting forward action to responsibly”: The Greens have never done anything responsibly!

“the 40 percent reduction scientists say is essential.” You mean SOME scientists say, do you mean the ones implicated in fraud, deception, conspiracy and corruption in the Climate Gate scandal?

“vast sum to retrofit every house and small business in Australia with solar hot water and solar panels to produce pollution-free electricity, and insulation.” What a useless feel good suggestion! Current solar panel technology is useless with less than 10% efficiency and massive cost overheads. Put the money into research to make BETTER solar panels instead but there’s no “Green publicity” in real research is there?.

“2010 will give every voter in Australia his or her say on climate change”. I hope so, but unfortunately the corrupted media like the ABC will do their level best to make sure the Greenwash message gets out there.

Jeremy Williams says:

01:49pm | 26/12/09

To the people who talk about nuclear I say fine but it is still co2 producing in the mining and construction and very expensive but yes put the price on carbon and let the market decide.
To the people who talk about climate gate - what a massive beat up with all the polluter’s efforts that’s the best they could do. Some dubious emails from some defensive scientists who knew lobbyist wouldn’t be fair with their data.  Drop in an ocean compared to the irrefutable ocean of evidence supporting man made global warming. To the people who want to do nothing hope you enjoy your food bills going through the roof, hope you enjoy swimming with deadly stingers at Noosa in 20 or 30 years time.  I fear the world is passing the point of no return and its because people don’t want to pay a tiny price or take any individual responsibility.

Pedantic says:

11:42pm | 26/12/09

GreenRubbish - If the sea falls won’t the nation of Tuvalu be the same distance from the sea as it is now, it will just have more land. Or is there some form of black hole in the Pacific that exists between land masses and water?

You are right though about the continuous cycle of earthquakes, tsunamis volcanoes etc. I think we should ban people from doing anything to mitigate risk from these events. It all adds to much cost to the taxpayer and heaven forbid my tax payer money help anyone else. The fait accompli approach is much better (oh as long as the relevant issue doesn’t affect me of course, ‘cause if it does and the government did nothing I would have to whinge a lot and question why they did nothing)

Stu says:

11:02am | 27/12/09

World temperatures have fluctuated since time immemorial and they will continue to do so irrespective of what humans do. The earths temperature has been hotter than it is today on many occasions and it will be in the future yet we have still survived. Wouldn’t surprise me if the “Experts” told us that there is another ice age on the way as they did in the 70s when they look at the weather in Europe and the US.

Rodney says:

04:26pm | 27/12/09

In response to Patrick telling Carol to go back to school. Carol’s point was Scotland, Englad are having the coldest winter tempretures in 20 years. Not your fascecious reply that winter;s are generally cold. Maybe you should go back to school. If global warming is getting worse then winters should be getting warmer not the coldest winters in 20 years, I am in Scotland just now where the top was -12 on one day…..yup def global warming.

Green Rubbish II says:

08:27pm | 27/12/09

Pedantic says 12:42am | 27/12/09
“If the sea falls won’t the nation of Tuvalu be the same distance from the sea as it is now, “

Nope, when the sea levels fell last time the coast of Australia was between 30 and 100km further out to sea. The Great Barrier reef was a dusty sea side plain where aborigines hunted megafauna. In Tuvalu’s case the sea floor around the island is shallow and a fall of the same size as last time would leave the island a long way from the current shoreline, not sure how much because the ocean depths are only given approximately.

Tuvalu is in much more imminent danger from either earthquake directly or tsunami as it lies smack bang on the Pacific Plate Boundary known as the “ring of fire”. It was completely subsistence fishing based community and is now completely dependant on foreign aid including their “climate change spokesperson” and activist (and Australian resident) Ian Fry.

Jason Ransome says:

05:14am | 28/12/09

Rodney your spot on mate. I’m in Switzerland and we have had days where its been -16. I also laughed when I saw Patricks comment

Mickey D says:

08:57am | 28/12/09

Want to reduce emissions? reduce population of humans on earth. The governments and scientists know this, they also know that it will occur naturally within 50-100 years as food production capacity falls well below demand. Problem solved no one particular government or person held accountable, seriously name one politician that want’s their name in the history book as the one that suggests culling off a couple billion people.

Luke says:

03:54pm | 28/12/09

Why are people still even talking about nuclear? LOL I thought we buried this outdated tech - building a nuclear plant takes ages, the whole life of the plant is actually very expensive (mining the uranium which can be very un-environmentally friendly, all that security - yikes, is it all going to still be safe in 100 years?)  Look, all nuclear does is heats water, creating steam to make a turbine spin around, 24/7 - geothermal is the same damn thing (heat of the earth to heat the water), much safer, easier to get going quickly, and will also make power available 24/7.  But it is one component of a large renewable mixture.  Islands in the Tasman should seriously look at wave power (there really is a rough sea there!) and I love Bob’s ideal of decentralising power to every home/business, but we all know power companies hate that!  Bob - love your work (generally) but if you want to have more say in the senate, you have to stop being such a hard ass, and compromise with the Govt in power, and Christine Milne is NOT your best asset when it comes to that.  I will vote Green in the senate, but please, a lot of people just think Greens are obstructionists, and it’s that sharp tongue of Christine’s doing a lot of the damage IMHO.

Peter Tosh says:

09:20pm | 28/12/09

OMG lol!

I have no idea whether global warming is the result of the coal industry, or whether the sea is going to flood sydney because I drove there on the weekend.

What I know is that I’ll vote green for one reason only. They’re the most likely party to legalize Marijuana, which is what all you people need. To role up a big fat blunt and chill out.

Richard says:

03:10pm | 29/12/09

Google “climategate” and see how Bob Brown is deceiving you.

Anthony says:

06:28am | 31/12/09

Climate change seems to be the way that the pollies think that they are going to make their mark at the forthcoming election. Does anyone remember all of the promises made by the ex drum beating dyed in the wool green Peter Garret, Penny Wong, Kevin Rudd “Save the Murray, Fix climate change, Save the Whales etc etc” What has changed? Absolutely nothing & what will change after the next election regardless of who you vote for ? Absolutely nothing. I would love to go back through history & find out just how many pollies promises have been kept. It seems to me that the only qualification needed to become one ( a polly) is to lie through your teeth & have absolutely no conscience.

Jed says:

10:13am | 31/12/09

To all the climate change deniers,
You know when people kill them self’s by running their car in the garage? Well that’s what we are doing its just a lot more cars and a much bigger garage. Wake up and smell the fumes climate change is real and we are the cause of it.
I don’t see any reason why Australia cant take the lead and make real changes even if the rest of the world doesn’t follow right away, they will eventually when they see what we can achieve.

To those who think this will adversely effect our economy I say look at America over 100 years ago the lead the world in the petro-chemical revolution and grew a very large empire we can do the same with solar/wind/nuclear. Job loses in old dirty industries will be replace with jobs growth in new clean green jobs and at the end of the day I would rather see massive job loss over massive life loss caused by repertory disease and extreme weather patens.

My opinion is that we need to encourage energy companies to move to Green not reimburse them for carbon tax. If they can see money to be made in providing clean energy they WILL make the change.

Gav says:

01:42pm | 31/12/09

“I don’t see any reason why Australia cant take the lead and make real changes even if the rest of the world doesn’t follow right away, they will eventually when they see what we can achieve” - Jed.

Jed, here’s what would happen if Australia implemented an ETS and the rest of the world did not:
- Large polluting companies would take their business to other countries that aren’t a part of the ETS and pollute all they want
- This would come at a cost of many thousands of Australian jobs
- It would cost our Government BILLIONS in revenue, which they receive each year as tax from these companies
- The countries the polluting companies move to will become richer, whilst Australia becomes poorer.
- Last but not least: It would have NO EFFECT ON REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS!  All that will happen is that these carbon emissions will be emitted in other countries.

Radagast says:

04:13pm | 31/12/09

Isn’t it amazing how human kind always shoots the messenger? Unfortunately, we will wait till it’s too late. Then all the big mouths will be screaming environmentalism. There is nothing new under the sun, and disturbingly, all the ridicule and name calling from the far right has an all to familiar ring to it. Thank God for the Greens

Sean says:

03:57pm | 01/01/10

The problem with the Green is that they’ve marketed themselves as being about “saving the planet”. The planet isn’t important; they should focus on human problems. Because at the end of the day, the planet is going to be fine; the people living on the planet are ****ed, but the planet is fine.

Geoff S says:

11:09am | 02/01/10

Has anyone noticed how this summer in Melbourne seems like a return to the cool wet summers of the early 90s? I can’t get a tan this year Bob. Take your climate change and go away. Tuvalu is sinking because it is near the edge of a tectonic plate where the ocean floor sinks. The beaches I sit on have the same sea level as when I was a kid. Explain that.

Jim says:

08:16pm | 02/01/10

Jed: Your ‘garage’ analogy is ‘garbage’. It is poor and heavily flawed. A garage is not a highly complex ecosystem with trees, animals, weather, clouds and oceans. Your analogy merely highlights human’s lack of understanding of the chaotic system that is Earth’s climate.

Don says:

01:24pm | 03/01/10

I would really like to see some serious scientific research that shows evidence that oceans are rising.
I live on a canal with concrete walls and I can assure you that the Pacific Ocean on the east coast of Australia is not rising.
In fact at this time king tides are not as high as they were 13 years ago.
Before people start to believe this oft repeated claim lets get proof and not just say anything that suits the climate change argument and hope that if it is said loud enough and often enough it will somehow become fact.
Lets start dealing with facts and truth and not just mindlessly repeat fiction and lies.

Andrew says:

02:23pm | 03/01/10

Please explain how reducing our CO2 emissions fits in with an extra 500,000 migantas a year…..someyhing does not add up here.

Tony says:

01:32pm | 04/01/10

Unfortately the “Green” movement stopped being about the environment around 1990 and started off on some journey to looney left socialist nirvana about the same time. Just happened to be right after the fall of the Berlin wall eh Bob!. Ask the founders of Greenpeace what they think of the “green” movement these days.

Tony says:

01:32pm | 04/01/10

Unfortately the “Green” movement stopped being about the environment around 1990 and started off on some journey to looney left socialist nirvana about the same time. Just happened to be right after the fall of the Berlin wall eh Bob!. Ask the founders of Greenpeace what they think of the “green” movement these days.