Hard to work out what is being said here, but it seems to be the familiar cry:

"We need to do something NOW, before it becomes clear to everyone that we don't need to do anything!"

I guess even a symbolic victory counts against an imaginary enemy.

"Further, such a result would not be a victory for the climate movement."

It could be a far better "victory" for the climate movement and the narative in terms of credibility if the climate movement was being seen to be working towards real solutions rather than throwing support behind political measures such as Julia's carbon price/wealth redistibution package.

The public has got very cynical about the issue in part because of the kind of thinking that underpin's this article. We've had enough of the climate movement playing politics to try and get the message across rather than being honest.

I've seen nothing which convinces me that Julia's plan will make any measurable difference to climate, if that's the reality and the climate movement has thown it's weight behind the carbon price as the article suggests they should it will make it all the harder in the future.

Now is the opportunity for the climate movement to regain some credibility by speaking out against a proposal that is more political than environmental.

R0bert

A soft article to be sure.

RObert
Fact is, any action/inaction on climate change is going to be decided by politicians and economists - science takes a back seat.

Given it is a global problem, it would seem prudent for all politicians, economists and community to act in concert - they don't because of their ideological differences.

Until such time politicians come together to solve a common problem, nothing substantive will eventuate. As it is, extremists (from all sides) just try to trash each other, as we have seen.

I am not sure what you mean by the "climate movement" or "real solutions" ... perhaps you can elucidate?

The climate problem is indeed potentially serious. But Joel Dignam’s well meaning efforts are misplaced. Of course we all want ‘a safe climate, a healthy environment, a safe future for our children’. Classic motherhood statements. But to the extent that he has an action plan, it seems to be driven by two distorted notions: that evil polluters must be punished as they are causing the climate problem and making ill-gotten profits to boot; and that clean cheap energy is the opportunity for these evil doers to make good.

Dislike of industry must not be the basis for climate action. Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant was originally a tactic specifically aimed at inciting hatred against industries that use energy to produce the goods and services that we all consume. A seemingly harmless semantic tactic worked, as Joel makes clear. But if he is to make a serious contribution to the problem he should revise his thinking and remember that whether we burn coal in a power station or metabolise the food we eat, carbon dioxide and useful energy are released in pretty much the same proportions. The gas is a co-product of the energy we now rely on, not a readily suppressed ‘polluting’ by-product.

As for zero-carbon energy, Joel has been sold a litter of pups. The clean reliable renewable energy promoted since I was a student (and that’s a long time ago) has remained elusive – and it’s not an industry plot. Apart from a bit of hydroelectricity, there is no method legally available in Australia to stop carbon dioxide accompanying the production and/or use of the things we all seem to want, like computers, tofu, intensive care units, windows, recycling, trains, ATMs, footpaths, coffee shops, bread, classrooms, police cars, in fact everything we own or do. The prospects of renewable energy sources doing the same job as the ones we are accustomed to are dim. Again, Joel needs to rethink.

The problem with any "action" like Gillard's carbon tax is that it is already a terribly poisoned chalice and the thing is stuck to her fingers with the Green (do it or your government will fall) super-glue.

The argument that we have to do something "as insurance" does not hold much water if that action is in fact of no benefit at all which sort of leads to the cleverness of the coalition policy on climate change. While it will have no more effect on the climate than Gillard's Carbon tax it will have positive benefits by improving soil quality and improving our water and landscapes. In other words even if the threat of "climate change" does prove to be less than the alarmists claim the money spent will not be entirely wasted.

What will the value of Gillard's tax be if the sceptics are correct? I can see nothing but downsides to that huge money churn...

bonmot I've used the term climate movement in what I presume is a similar context to the way the author used it. Those groups and individuals genuinely concerned about climate change and wanting some action to reduce the impacts.

As for real solutions, maybe a careless phrase but I'm thinking in terms of proposals likely to make a credible impact on human contributions to climate change or likely to minimise the consequences of climate change.

R0bert