Rudd adopts climate sceptic line
Blog Post
Wednesday 10th September 2008, 4:07pm
by TimHollo in
It was a relief that Professor Garnaut's defeatist proposal last Friday that we effectively give up hope of preventing runaway climate change was received with some scepticism and disbelief in much of the mainstream media. Journalists weren't overly enthusiastic about an approach that kisses goodbye to the Great Barrier Reef. When I raised with them on Monday an array of other impacts, including loss of the Tibetan glaciers that feed all the major rivers of Asia, they were even less impressed.
So I was extremely pleased to see three of Australia's top climate scientists - David Karoly, Bill Hare and Amanda Lynch - come out swinging yesterday, saying Garnaut had gotten it wrong. The Age's Adam Morton did an excellent job getting that story out, and it ran across the media all day. Here are Christine Milne's comments from yesterday on it.
But perhaps the most powerful revelation of the day was that, when push comes to shove, Prime Minister Rudd would rather fall back on climate sceptic-style lines than confront the need for real change.
When asked for his response to the criticisms of Garnaut by the three IPCC scientists, Rudd said "My experience is not all scientists agree and you can have people who have different views."
This is worryingly close to the kind of weaselly things our former Prime Minister use to say to justify his inaction. Howard's Four Corners interview with Jonathan Holmes back in 2006, for instance, was full of statements like:
"I don't reject the climate change argument out of hand. I accept the broad consensus if you like but I am very sceptical of of some of the Doomsday scenarios and this area is laden with Doomsayers."
and
"I accept that climate change is a challenge. I accept the broad theory about global warming. I am sceptical about a lot of the more gloomy predications. I also recognise that a country like Australia has got to balance a concern for greenhouse gas emissions with a concern for the enormous burden to be carried by consumers through much higher electricity prices, higher petrol prices, falls in GDP, of too dramatic an imposition of what you might call an anti-greenhouse policy. It's a question of balance."
I know Rudd's statement isn't true climate sceptic stuff, and is a small step ahead of Howard. On the face of it, it's true - of course all scientists don't always agree. But you can't choose to believe some bits of climate science and reject those bits that are, shall we say, 'inconvenient'. Climate science isn't something you can choose to 'believe in' or not 'believe in'. Either you accept the science or you don't.
Fundamentally, it is rude, arrogant and unscientific of the PM to effectively dismiss the work of three of the top climate scientists in the country without citing powerful evidence that contradicts them. The challenge for Rudd is to name a single respected, peer-reviewed climate scientist who disagrees with Karoly and co that Garnaut's recommendation is too weak to be accepted.
Unless and until he does so, no-one should take the word of the Prime Minister over that of globally respected scientists of the calibre of David Karoly. And Australians should be increasingly sceptical of a Prime Minister who would rather rudely dismiss some of our top scientists than consider taking serious action to reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions.
You can also listen to some of this debate from yesterday's ABC PM program here.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Rudds Comments
From the wording above, I believe that the PM is only stating the obvious. There are experts on both sides of the fence which the PM has to listen to, but political sense dictates that he must move forward at a slow steady pace.
Any dramatic changes that cause major pain to the of outer suburban residents of our major cities, when they are already suffering with problems paying mortgages, putting food on their tables, and having enough petrol to go to work, would result in him being a 1 term PM, and the handing of the situation to the Liberals who would be even less active.
The Feds need to put a project plan in place that works toward an achievable objective reduction %, in slow steady pace.
A matter of priority
In my opinion based on evidence the Rudd stated impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef has not been differentiated from impact of nutrient pollution feeding algal blooms that in turn are smothering and killing coral that then bleaches white under sunlight.
There is more evidence of substance about nutrient pollution feeding algae in GBR waters where coral bleaching and/or whitening is occurring than there is evidence about CO2 emissions causing coral bleaching and/or whitening.
Priority should be to reduce nutrient pollution from sewage pouring from outfalls into rivers and the ocean.
There is also evidence that nutrient pollution is doing more damage to the marine environment than commercial and amateur fishing. Why is it so that ABC public media reports news about stopping fishing but not about reducing government outfall sewage nutrient pollution.
Irrefutable evidence indicates Rudd should be duly developing marine ecosystem management policy as priority before any further aquaculture policy.
When will a peer reviewed scientist acknowledge or deny the serious and general depletion of fish stocks and the advanced state of collapse of the marine food web and environment? When will ABC media report relevant socio-economic impact and critically urgent need for solutions?
Fish should never have been removed from the Australian Consumer Price Index. Needs of society need to be understood, not hidden. Marine ecosystem management policy should include reinstatement of fish in the CPI in order to ascertain supply and demand economic influences as well as justification to sustainably manage the marine environment.
Check the price of fish in the nearest fish shop and consider how fish depletion in already costing consumers well in advance of cost of climate change.
Irrefutable evidence without support from scientists?
Something odd about this post.
You say there is "irrefutable evidence" and yet despair that no peer reviewed scientist will support your position. This is a deeply problematic inconsistency. What is the source of your "irrefutable evidence" if not from a peer reviewed scientist.
In any event there is no such thing as "irrefutable evidence" in the scientific method, if there was EVERY single scientist would enthusiastically support it and this never occurs. Popper holds that all findings no matter how strong are refutable. In science we estimate the size of the error in our findings and then admit a new finding into the body of knowledge when the likelihood of it being wrong is sufficiently small. (In this case we actually reject a competing null hypothesis which is not quite the same as accepting the new finding.)
I suspect you will find hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers supporting your position.
Incoherent statements weaken the impact of your argument. A few hours of effort at online search engines for databases of peer reviewed papers will help enormously. This will require far less time and effort than endlessly repeated flawed posts on the same issue.
Snodgrass observation
Snodgrass,
The world is not just about science and scientific evidence. I did not say "irrefutable scientific evidence". The source of irrefutable evidence I refer to is sometimes from scientific literature, sometimes from observations in the real world, sometimes from eye witnesses and sometimes from answers to questions put to experts. Sometimes a discovery is involved and it is necessary to learn from new situations.
In any event, science in some areas I am dealing with is out of date or incomplete or just non existent. Science seems to have one or two very big problems, including a lack of resources and sometimes lack of political freedom. A big obstruction is science policy, that if something can not be counted or measured it does not exist. So as no scientist counted or measured world ocean fish stock populations in the beginning and no scientist can count or measure stocks that remain, there is no scientific evidence of fish stock depletion according to science. True or false?
Meanwhile, matters I have stated can be proved correct beyond reasonable doubt. I can prove science is constrained by a bounday jurisdiction that prevents science in the field from engaging in science beyond that boundary jurisdiction? Take time to observe the boundary I refer to, being the southern bounday of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Pasrk Authority situated between the GBR Swains Reef and Frazer Island. The GBRMPA does not carry out science upstream from the GBR. I wonder if that southern boundary position and obstruction to science has been peer reviewed.
Empirical evidence indicates the once natural food supply that fed and grew the Great Barrier Reef has been flowing northwards on the east coast of Australia and into GBR waters, making the Swains the largest coral reef in the entire GBR system, yet this very food source within east coast and Fraser Island alongshore current waters flowing into GBR waters is not included in GBR science? Why is this so?
Now even more jurisdictions are being developed in plans to exclude the Coral Sea and GBR from the 'Coral Triangle'.
My posts may be flawed as I am a layman, but I think you get the message. Prove me to be incorrect if you can, I welcome that. Debate is healthy and can be very productive. Science can split atoms and pinpoint asteroids about to hit Jupiter, yet science barely knows the basic biology of life in our coastal ocean. Meanwhile do we just sit around while whole world ocean animal populations and food web ecosystems continue to be devastated? Do we ignore marine animal starvation? Do we ignore malnutrition and disease and unrest amongst Pacific islanders dependent on protein from the sea?
When will science develop ocean ecosystem management policy?
Evidence
John you speak of proof however proof demands rigour of thought and disciplined use of words ensuring consistency in their meaning. I detect in your posts rather too much fluidity of the meaning of terms for it to be worth attempting to seriously discuss proof with you.
I may be able to illuminate one thing however in reference to your comment:
"So as no scientist counted or measured world ocean fish stock populations in the beginning and no scientist can count or measure stocks that remain, there is no scientific evidence of fish stock depletion according to science. True or false?"
The answer is emphatically false. At its core scientific evidence is about taking observations of samples and that data from making inferences about populations. It would be very unusual for a scientist to ever contemplate making measurements on an entire population.
It is entirely straightforward to produce scientific evidence about fish stock depletion without counting fishing stocks "in the beginning" or "that remain".
You may misunderstand what scientific evidence is. Evidence is not proof. Evidence is merely an observation that can be used to support an argument. Evidence can vary enormously in its power to support an argument. Evidence can be weak and still be genuine evidence. Evidence will almost always exists on both sides of an argument.
An amusing phrases I see often repeated is the almost guaranteed to be erroneous claim that "there is no evidence" to support some argument. It is exceedingly rare that evidence only exists on one side of an argument. The false claim about "no evidence" may arise from a misunderstanding of what consitiutes evidence or more likely a desire to dishonestly use "spin" to gain the upper hand in an argument. Dishonest "spin" is probably resorted to due to either lack of sufficient debating skill to win the day or perhaps due to suffering from weak and unconvincing evidence on their own side.
The existence of evidence to support an argument does not constitute proof. The evidence merely has the effect of conditioning (to a greater or lesser degree) our belief about the validity argument.
Maybe Rudd has been listening to the AIG a little too much
In thinking about what's too far and not far enough in terms of emissions cuts, maybe Kevin Rudd has been heeding the Australian Industry Group a little too much. I've done some analysis of their 5 September media release at my blog, Northcote Independent.
Essentially, they're arguing for considering the proposed cut (10 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020) as a percentage of what we're on track to emit in 2020. From there, it's a much longer fall to 10 per cent below 2000 levels, and a much greater percentage of the total emissions projected for that year (i.e. 25 per cent on the level projected for 2020).
It makes Garnaut's meagre proposal seem more substantial, but if the trajectory to 2020 were even worse, his flimsy reduction would look even heftier still. That is to say, a bad trajectory suits the AIG's spin down to the ground - not in terms of protecting our climate, but for purposes of arguing for weak government action/compensation for business and industry.
The Rudd Government needs to do much better.
Disagreement
Grant you are right to say not all scientists agree on all details of the issue, however Rudd transparently commits the sin of leaving a sound bite hanging which will certainly be interpreted in another way. Saying there is disagreement without identifying the either the dissenters or their relative credibility is a low trick to defuse the potency of the abovementioned criticism of Garnaut's plan.
The most obvious impression Rudd creates for the less informed is that there is a proportional number of scientists of equal standing who feel Garnaut has it right. The better informed would immediately recognise that this is far from true and as such an opportunistic and disturbing distortion in a debate that badly needs clear thinking. If he was comfortable with his position he wouldn't need to resort to this tactic.
Clever and tricky undermining of others and then defending ones statement as a truism is simple deceit and the enemy of clear thinking.
Ruddly and his actions.
I think Rudd is almost betting on antler formation on mooseheads converted to Garnaut as moon astronaut.Mathematically speaking.I have read the nong has written a letter to all the environmental groups,outlining why he did more than adjust his eyebrows for the costly report.If I am playing the man instead of the ball,its because they both shine in a manner that reminds me of myself,without the humility of some self-deprecating.And my head has still got some stuff similar to antlers.Having said all that in a timely way about a future tense,that evolves from a past tense while I find the genre that operates the present,I must unfortunately add,that the report is a hyper-generalised form of extrapolation without even a syringe full of appropriate science.I notice that apart from the environmental groups and others critical of Garnaut,are some critics who are outsiders completely.Like the experts who man microphones everyday on the ABC!Its like having a chance to be off subject too.Give me a millimetre and I will take a giga-byte thanks! So now I am dreaming up a a way to criticise the buying up of a farm on the Darling and why both Wong and Greens are wrong about purchases. As a hint,I hate my enemies not knowing my punchlines,because I do like seeing people bored silly,the cotton plant,isn't a great user of water,it becomes so in the conditions of being in a paddock all its day night life,and,b, it is generally the most available plant to be turned into bio-char.So return your cotton underpants,the ones not going to the Byron Bay underpants Museum to Phyric Victories C/ Santa Claus.
Open letter from Garnaut
Professor Garnaut has written an open letter to scientists and environmental groups in response to the criticisms of the targets and trajectories report.
Im not really negative.
I just had a feeling that once again Labor was going to cave in to the business community on this vital issue. The ALP are just as bad as the Liberal party blind freddy can see that. Look at Labor in QLD and the Bligh backflip that is going to now cost the Great Barrier Reef. Labor and Liberal cant be trusted. We need more elected Greens now.
"From the wording above, I
"From the wording above, I believe that the PM is only stating the obvious. There are experts on both sides of the fence which the PM has to listen to, -"
He doesn't have to listen to anyone. The "expert on both sides of the fence"? Well, I can find you "experts" who'll tell you that there world was created just 6,000 or so years ago, that HIV/AIDS doesn't exist, or even that the Earth is flat. Who should I listen to? Well, I'll listen to those whose advice will confirm what I already want to do. Which may be nothing.
"but political sense dictates that he must move forward at a slow steady pace."
That's right, because quick actions and bold ideas by political leaders are never popular.
Rudd and decisions and Green Statements
I dont want to waste anyone's time who are Green sitting members, but is it true that the Greens in principle supported the buying of the cotton farm Toorale rather than as Heffernan has been quoted in the SMH today as saying the water was a separate matter of legalities.Were you across all this,legally,or is something else going on.If Wong and Rudd are buying Business votes,it doesn't seem Green's Policy.Were you set up!? if a is a word,then i have learnt something today.
Water and land
Anonymous, it is true that it is legally certainly possible to buy water rights separate from the land, my understanding is that, in this case, it was the full package that was up for sale.
Bill has a habit of making good points (and particularly bad ones, for those who remember "deliberately barren" and his campaign against Justice Kirby) which might not necessarily by directly related to reality.
I will check with someone who knows more than me about this particular case, but if the sale was for the whole package, then it would not have been an option to buy the water rights separate from the land. A big question is whether anyone would have bought the land without the water rights, of course.
The land has other uses
The present owners may prefer to sell the package as they have no other interest in using the land, however you can buy the package and then as the new owner sell the land separately. There is no reason to think you must be saddled with holding the land asset.
Other owners might want to use it for extensive grazing, or opportunity grazing after irregular events like flood or general rain.
Other owners (say a carbon offset provider to an airline or a European group) might want to use it for large scale tree planting using a small amount of water to establish the trees.
Or you could even use it to build a big concentrated solar thermal plant, they will have good infrastructure there already to held establish that.
Right now you can be sure they will burn an enormous amount of diesel for tractors, trucks and pumping and so changing its use in the above ways will reduce the carbon footprint of the land.
Greens position on Toorale Station purchase
Anonymous, the Greens did support the buying of Toorale Station for water use - you can read Rachel's press release here.
We do, however have concerns around what will happen to the water that IS released - there need to be systems in place to ensure it is not used up further downstream and instead goes to the areas that need it.
We'd also like to see the whole area be used for tourism use - it is a huge, stunning piece of land that could greatly benefit the local community with tourist dollars. There has been some concern about the short (and long)-term impacts of this purchase on the local area - which could be alleviated with a new tourism industry.
Tourism?
Have you considered the carbon footprint involved in getting tourists to and from this location and the diversion of tourist income this would cause away from other existing tourist destinations.
We can be sure that with a high Australian dollar incoming international tourism will decline relative to past years.
We can be sure that with the credit crunch domestic tourism will decline.
We can be sure with rising fuel and energy prices in the future that tourism will be affected reducing the pool of funds available. Air travel is expected to become a luxury item in the not to distant future.
There is a limited and probably shrinking (with advent of carbon taxes and end of the global boom) total tourist potential and existing Australian destinations are already struggling and will probably be affected for decades if not permanently.
This is hardly the environment in which to be developing additional tourist destinations to put more pressure on the viability of existing ones.
Although to be fair economics has never been considered a strong suit for the Greens.
Wouldn't the area be better suited instead to decarbonisation activities?
Garnault and a Tasmanian product.
I consider myself,amongst other things besides a non scientist climate change sceptic,where there is no intention to offend people here,also at times ready to buy Green supporting products,even if as a product they are symbolism as purchase.Wakame Leaf Sea Power label supports the anti-whaling matter.And on its information on the paddock focuses on the need to conserve whales so they fertilise sea plankton.So whilst politically and nationally thats another front to fight on over climate change matters as well as whale conservation,or better whale rights.Garnault has expressed little interest in this side of matters,and even in whale chewing Japan,there are bound to be many people who would vote with their mouths and money.Carbon Trading would seem a nonsense,if this matter isnt considered. Better that than the bloody Buchanan dropping into Tasmanian ports on their way to bomb the shit out of Iran.
Toorale
I dont have to admire the farmer from Junee Tim.I listened to the ABC Radio news stuff on all these matters,and whilst memory understanding and faulty emphasis on matters of an issue are all possible,I am more concerned the Greens have been caught,supporting Eddington, who I think,is getting enough free kicks as it is.If a large amount of money is available to solve the Murray Darling problem,it just seems common sense to buy out the Water Rights first,then, if the farm property is really worthy in a conservation sense,and there is nothing pressing for the farmer involved,in this case investor and a company that just wants to play the Stock Exchange,then buy the property with other conservation monies.Because,if one large organisation can get away with it,put up your hands children to get the free kick and ice-cream from the government.Which just happens to be a Party that claims,and its largest membership base are non shareholder investors workers and the also-run.It occurs to me the Murray Darling problem even for environmental and ecological reasons is water first land second in terms of how the apparent survivalability is possible.I worked on a farm block at Colignan Nangiloc where the farmer who owned it was badly advised on a matter other than water,but water still had significant effects on his nematode problem.The State Government of Victoria went to a different method of calculating the salinity factor in the Murray.At the time,I believed they hadn't been served by the bureaucracy involved,and lead the farmer to certain attitudes about government and water allocations.Its almost like to me,it has been a slow practice of squeezing out smaller concerns and allow larger holdings to take over.Compensating and buying out the very large,certainly will never be social justice,even if it solves some environmental problems.Personally companies like that are more interested in money than trying new practices..an Australia wide problem associated with Get Big or get out.
The Murray
I am really disappointed in how difficult it is to get solutions to the Murray water crisis going quickly.As a person,who suggested the use of bales on the snowline,as ways to control,and save ,and enhance native habitat for critters,and human safety,if a push occured to use more snowline,thus park large numbers of bales here and there to define skiable country ,etc.The whole idea requiring much knowledge base,of how to define snowmelt to get more water through the system whilst ensuring little loss of the ecological values.And even using bales around buildings,thus reducing fuel use in the coldest snow peaktimes.I know it seems odd to think bales could also filter seawater so no iron sulphate problem occured,But there is also ricewastes,and even barley,and surely readily available compounds that could be mixed with bales so no iron sulphate problem occured as bales in large numbers well and truly dried tied and thick was where the sea water was enabled to flow over it.Perhaps some plastic sheeting.Bales have now been used to build dams and all sorts of pollution control along side other means to achieve and end.I also know as bush lore the potato bag has put out fires when wet,and the Coolgardie Safe Idea didnt exclude saline water.And finally an idea,of mine, because I haven't one a prize for it yet,the idea of compressed air as of a certain Lake Ainsworth in N.S.W.Then when you are looking up compressed air matters,look up ExAir using compressed air as as a means to reduce temperatures below zero.And well if no-one thinks these wont work with sea water or too costly...I say as impolite as I can be,besides the fuel used,Pigs Arse!
Murray
I am just wondering wether Rachel S. got any answer back re the C.S.I.R.O. and the Murray problem,and surely there must be a day to day occurence round this subject..could you have a update space!?
Asking Senators questions
Hi Anonymous,
best way to get a question like this answered is to email Senator.Siewert@aph.gov.au and ask her direct. If you'd rather not, please make sure that you put your comment into a relevant thread. Rachel and her staff will read the threads that she is responsible for, but are unlikely to read others.
Climate Change Sceptics.
Writing this here,can only be a form of justice I thank the Greens for.I am a Climate Change sceptic,and there is hardly anything that the Greens do or say that I can find as deplorable.I know there are others like myself,maybe slightly different emphases,but are not about a sort of denial,of what is possible if the Climate Change acceptance is entirely true.So Rudd,a person who hasn't really been in any environmental change group at all,is bad mouthing some very serious people who are sceptics,but are not entirely unhappy with the developments of efficiency and lifestyle change etc.involved in a less wasteful existence.Rudd's solution of somewhere in the future pouring it into the sea,to me remains a complete no-brainer,the sewerage as no value mindset,of if you dont see it ,it will not harm you.Science has and is moving on,the expertise of this P.M. on any matter is to be easily found.Why they think pipes here there and everywhere are a cure for economic and environmental maladies is just unacceptable,and to put the Greens into fighting rear-guard again,rather than plan more effectively.It is electioneering,using engineering as the means.Pipes have their place and could be placed upright in present dams,so that in the deepest parts of a dam there is a possibility to aerate the total water body,via the reality of air compression,or maybe by design inside large pipes letting water find its own level be a means of water and air recirculation.There is the possibility that with design of such pipes in dams the pipes could pull down atmospheric condensate,and also be a air lock system to let go massive air movement below surface,thus ,maybe, no longer needing chlorine and other matters re algae growth.The same pipes vertical could be fish species breeding habitats.And finally act,if a major flood event occured that would destroy the dam as readied to spill the water in further directions,such as the potential exists with the Sydney Warragamba !And finally upright pipes,but not an open ened design ,maybe a simpler means to explore the re-use of carbon dioxide as fuel,next to and using sewerage and even common sea salt as a means to get calcium and magnesium in usable form.The bloody idiots are into proving their Climate Change credentials,whereas ideas are still necessary to be put up,and maybe shot down too.This government hasn't got the answers,only its tremblings.
Why is that climate change
Why is that climate change sceptics frequently prefer to comment anonymously, and so often are unable to use punctuation, paragraph breaks and other things which make reading easier and clearer?
Why non-compliance with Tim's suggestion is necessary here.
I know the Green's cop it from many sides,but,when I fail to punctuate correctly and will not email a Senator,the reason must be other than a plus b equals c.Wether Kiashu is unsure of Green's policy or not,I feel very handicapped or disadvantaged by the whole process of computer use.And I cannot accept a email to a busy Senator,under attack herself,with all the marvels of computers and the necessity of individuals to communicate with each other is that important,when someone suggests someone is off subject.The fact is,if I was proving I was on subject,then I think the same processes of thought would eventuate anyway.Another aspect of this,is that if I leave my thoughts here,they then can be taken into consideration,other than another person pressuring for some activity,where as activity can only take place if someone accepts it has to.If the talk here about the Murray hasn't become part of the subject,then maybe the Green's dont actually totally believe what their position is .I find most matters of concern for humans are intertwined a web of concern.I am disappointed that Heffernan keeps being abusive when he makes his points.I found no fault with his point,but was Rachel really denying the reality of potentials of rain and snow failing!?The answer is most probably not,although Heffernan could of made his point wisely,if not a bit more patiently.Having said that,I have some impatience myself,and I dare say Bob Brown might to,and it isnt the fickle nature of human hormones ,but,the tough subject matter.I think in all this Heffernan is partially right,but,no-one seems to be working on the proposition that maybe sea-water should fill the lakes,and,in no way am I suggesting this in an antagonistic sense,to the very obvious concern of hard decisions having to be made.In fact,I am hoping for a breakthrough,where scientific and technological matters allows for a few more options,other than a lack of proper water quality and quantity.And here and elsewhere I have suggested matters.I really dont know,if they are at all useful,but are not intended to muddy the waters so to speak,but seeking practical possibilities.Heffernan The Greens and even the Wong may not be getting the proper use of the media stick on this..Lateral thinking evolves from a display of options and potentials rather than people just getting on together. I know this first hand in seeing some of my ideas taken up before.That's why I suggest them,not to disadvantage myself,by punctuation error or leaving the anonymous stuff in the rectangle.You have some very boring posters here,if Kiashu is important to your outputs as a party.In fact,I feel a level of contempt for that,similar to perhaps Heffernan.
An apology where necessary
Today's SMH has a letter to The Editor about what will happen to Toorale if it isnt worked as a farm,that includes the prospect of wild pigs.I dont know about that at all,and wish to point out my previous posts here,were not to put pressure on The Greens,if in fact, someone or three came here and built another issue out of ,what may appear a failing of Green's Policy on that matter.The dog may follow me,but I didn't whistle it. Even if it proves to be the case,the land-owners are responsible in every sense of the word for animals that do not read maps,speak English ,have Lawyers and their own lobby group they pay,for being considered vermin or undesireable pests.The Green's Policy may not be a failure,I was just concerned with Eddington,and having available monies ,under Wong's control to continue.I hope the Green's also will have more time to assess,wether it is entirely possible to allow the lakes to be brim full throughout the year,by low cost use of technology,that reduces the saline content,and disallows pollution matters.If not brim full,always full to ecological determinants.The present dependence on weather doesn't seem to meet everyone's expectations.And well ,then,why should it!?
Government to Follow Basically Garnauts Proposal
According to interviews with PM Rudd and Penny Wong on Thu 31st Oct, it appears that the Gov will basically follow Garnauts proposal for an ETS in 2010. From the interviews, it also appears that the Gov will monitor the economic position in 2010, and may need to make a softer introduction to a ETS if necessary.
This is probably a very wise position to take, both politically and economically, and may save the tax payers from large expenses that the Gov would occur as they subsidise some industries, not to mention the need to subsidise the low income sections of the community.
As the economic climate improves, and the Gov is also able to assess the actual impact to business and the community, then they can ramp up the controls on carbon emissions to slow down its production.
After listening to, and reading about the current Gov position, I believe that they will have a large problem in any major reduction in emissions when we have the following:
a. An expected population increase of 3+ mil during the planned period. This will be apparently made up of immigration, refugees and natural birth rate increases.
b. 750+ k of new motor vehicles going on our roads each year. With the large distances we have in Australia between our towns and cities, electric, and hybrid cars are not very practical (except for a few people who live in inner city areas).
c. An expected 50+% increase in road transport requirements during the period
d. From the population growth, large numbers of new electrical goods (fridges, freezers, aircons, TVs etc.) and other appliances being sold and all needing power.
e. Tens of thousands of new homes required each year, mostly being built on city fringes where residents require motor vehicles to drive to work, or the nearest station.
f. A current city mentality that business should be centrally located, not located in satellite suburban areas, which would ease travel requirements.
g. The large costs involved if the average family would like to attempt to mitigate energy usage by running their own energy generation systems. Currently in Melbourne, it is widely advertised that you can run energy generating solar systems from $7,000 up. This may not sound much, but not many average families have a spare $7,000 (or even $3,000) just sitting in the bank.
h. The large volume public transport systems (i.e. trains) were generally designed in the early 20th Century, and as the Victorian Government is finding out, the costs to upgrade the network (additional lines) is prohibitive. In most cases there is no ability to increase capacity apart from a few extra services / trains (central hubs are bottlenecks).
i. The list could go on and on.
It should be pointed out that, over time, very few of the above cannot be circumvented, but a team must be put together to project manage the emission reduction outside the political arena. While the whole game is a political football, I suspect that we will follow Canada, and never reach even modest targets.
One last point to remember (from a retired Project Manager), is that targets / objectives, need to be Stretch Targets, but also need to seen to be achievable, else people will not put all their effort into meeting a target.
THE CLIMATE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM AND THE SEVEN "WISE" MEN
The runaway nature of climate is now irrefutable, as indicated by rapid disapparance of polar sea ice and advanced melting of ice sheets. This is recognized, among other, by Professor John Holdern, Obama’s White House new Director of science and technology, who described global change as a misnomer: "It implies something gradual, uniform and benign. What we're experiencing is none of these" (CT 3.1.09).
Most climate projections are based on General Circulation Models, plotting linear - accelerating or tapering-off CO2 and temperature trends. These models assume "stabilization" of CO2 is possible but are far from certain at what point will major feedbacks kick in.
MOST PARTICUARLY METHANE RELEASE, FROM PERMAFROST, SHALLOW ARCTIC SEA, TROPICAL BOGS, THE AMAZON, ANIMALS.
Many models take little account of ice sheet/water remelt, which Hansen et al (2008) estimate as responsible to near-50 percent of feedback forcings.
With the exception of US paleoclimate scientists, only few climate scientists take full account of the abrupt tipping points shown by the recent climate history of Earth, when temperture changes of 1 to 4 degrees C occurred over a few years (Steffensen et al. 2008; Kobashi et al., 2008).
Science and scientists are inherently conservative. Many decline to "come out of the box" and present their evidence in public. Climate scientist employed by research organization are to a certain extent bound and restricted by their Departmental policies. There are scientists who tend to err on the side of theircareer/standing/"respectability" rather than on the moral/ethical/public good side ...!
Huge blind spots exist. Politicians/economists/social scientists etc think in terms of compromises, yet no compromise is possible vis-a-vis nature. The "5%" to "40%" etc game takes little account of runaway atmospheric processes.
Vested interests pour huge resources into supporting their mouthpieces, perpetrating old misconceptions, claiming conspiracy theories against the IPCC and using ad-hominem, with privileged to almost exclusive exposure in some of the media.
In my view what is no alternative to a rapid 6-8 percent reduction in CO2 emissions PER YEAR likely coupled with stratospheric SO2 injections to increase the Earth's albedo.
(Dr) Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleoclimate scientist
Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 0200
7 January, 2009
THE CLIMATE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM AND THE SEVEN "WISE" MEN
The problem scientists like yourself appear to be encountering, is the Outer Suburban Mr and Mrs Average do not understand, and therefore, no Government will be able to make the major changes you state are required, except over many years, possibly decades. (I quote Outer Suburban Mr and Mrs Average, as these are traditionally swinging voters, who have the potential to unseat the encoumbant Government, and usually do).
From your letter, you appear to be stating that Governments need to implement major changes, that may severly impact the current lifestyle of their citizens. Major change, implemented too quickly, is a certain receipe for a Government to be thrown out of office, again by the Outer Suburban Mr and Mrs Average, and then a large time delay while a new Government runs the usual enquiries before starting again.
A test may be encountered next year with the ETS, and how / if, Mr and Mrs Average accept large increases in all their costs as carbon taxes will be added to everything they need, or if the pain is too great, and the Feds are kicked out of Government at the following election.
A Government needs to walk the tight rope over many years to educate citizens, and make progressive small changes to meet their required objectives. It is critical that Governments prepare detailed phased project plans, showing, costs, deliverables/objectives, and deliverable dates, then ensure all the population accept the plans.
It should be up to scientists like yourself to work with Governments to produce realistic plans that will be accepted by Governments and their citizens (ie. Mr and Mrs Average)
Post new comment