Perhaps the young demographic sector should spend less time indulging in new drinking games and in watching climate fiction horror fantasies produced by and starring Al Gore and his mates, and do a little research. Mankind's puny emissions of carbon dioxide are nothing as compared to naturally occurring cataclysms. We can, if we are so stupid, destroy the carbon fuel based economy which has transformed our society from one of drudgery and poverty to the prosperous society we enjoy in Australia today, by bringing in a 'Big New Tax' (whoops, there go the vodka shots again). But leave your TV and get out into the real world where endless examples show the power of nature, and the impotence of man to 'change the climate' for better or for worse. An excellent example is on:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/Walter%20Starck.pdf

You work in "health and social policy development in Canberra. She is the Youth Ambassador for the Office of the (OCSE)"

So inventing drinking games to make fun of the "hated" opposition is something you're proud of, and you work in health? Have you heard of the government's issue with binge drinking? The government you seem to think is worthy of support over that awful mob the opposition? Hey, how about a shot of tequila every time some one in government mentions "Workchoices", or "working families", you and your mates will be drunk constantly..

It seems to me your friends might be described as a "spoiled brats and little princess's who throw tantrums when they don't get their own way" I'm sure that's not the message you intended to portray but it certainly seems to be in the realms of possibility.

"The young people I talk to still want to see Australia lead the world on climate change, but they are so sick of the debate that they’ve disengaged" what a bunch of wimps, you don't instantly get your own way, you all give up. At least now, as you say, there is actually some debate, more like fanatical attack by AGW believers on the skeptical heretics though.

You seem to think politician's election promises are all going to be kept - wake up, grow up, this is the real world. It's not just for your generation, we got here by older generations paying the way - when you pay your way, you'll understand.

BTW - Taxation is not trivial "Frankly, it’s pathetic that one of our leaders would assign such dramatic language to a tax." we're talking billions of dollars that could be spent on hospitals, education, roads, water and you would like to see it all used for .. what? Giving away to underdeveloped countries, like China, India? We're minuscule int he scheme of things, we're not a big player or heavy hitter - no one cares what we do. We could disappear tomorrow and our emissions would be replaced by China in 16 weeks, think about that.

The simple reality is that post-Copenhagen any action on climate change by Australian politicians would be politically fatal. CPRS was meant to be the most important legislation of Rudd's administration. Since Copenhagen silence. He was not even invited to the key meetings giving the lie to how important it was for Australia to pass the CRPS legislation.

Obama has not said a word about climate change since Copenhagen either.

India and China are far more worried about getting their people out of poverty than worrying about climate change. The reality is that the new world leadership is now the G20. Any power the UN had has gone and the because of the GFC the power of the US and G8 to effect change has been (fatally?) weakened.

Putin left the conference early quickly realising which way the wind was blowing. Obama left after 14 hours. You only know the truth when people vote with their feet.

As the previous comment notes the science is dubious. Even more important the CPRS scheme as proposed by Labor would be a economic disaster. It would be a legal night mare to unwind. The only group really keen on the CPRS concept are the investment bankers who know it would a great chance to make money. Lehman Brothers did not hire Al Gore as a consultant out of the goodness of their heart but to make serious money.

Dear Maiy, where can we begin? I really don’t know where you’ve been for the past four months? Too many Vodka shots perhaps?

Lets’ just cover some basics first. You speak of “climate change” and then confuse the subject with a CPRS.

Climate change has been a feature of our planet since the Romans clear felled much of the Mediterranean. There are thousands of examples of man made climate change at local and even regional levels, nothing whatsoever to do with carbon emissions. I know of very few, even on OLO who would disagree with this.

Then you speak of a CPRS which is a “solution” to the theory that residual atmospheric carbon is a “pollutant” and causes the greenhouse effect and thus “global warming”.

I refer you to some groups of information.

1. Under oath and legal advice before the UK parliament, Prof. Phil Jones has made statements that reduce the AGW theory to “exaggerated conservationist propaganda”
2. Following some “post Copenhagen” political analysis by some very smart people, the political will for Carbon Taxes of any description has evaporated. (you will note that yesterday, the French electorates have now also dumped their plans)
3. If you wish to understand why the IPCC and the CRU has lost all credibility, get yourself a copy of the “US Senate Minority Report in to the CRU”. This lists many pages of indictments against AGW “predictions”. These indictments are likely to feature in many of the 16 litigation notices lodged against the US EPA.
4. This week, the German press ran articles of concern that if they legislated for a CPRS, with whom could they trade? We might well ask the same question.
5. The European (EU) Carbon market has, in just six months, gone from 46 Euro’s per ton, to 18.4 Euro’s per ton and on Monday this week it hit 1 Euro per ton.

Since the CPRS is the answer to AGW and NOT climate change, you need to stop obfuscating and explain why Australia should buy into this Euro-centric financial suicide.

I think it is morally weak for Australia not to lead in emissions reductions. Our per capita CO2 is an appalling example to the rest of the world. Worse we are an emissions pimp by gleefully finding new customers for coal and LNG. I've seen the figure of 428 million tonnes of combined production for domestic brown coal and for domestic or exported black coal which will create over a billion tonnes of CO2 when it locks with oxygen. That's perhaps 3% of world net emissions yet Australia has only 0.3% of world population. One day there will be a crisis over food or water supply for which climate change do-nothings can take some responsibility. Some might suggest the way Australia already depends on desalination and freak storms shows the crisis has already arrived.

Even if AGW weren't true there are good reasons to use less fossil fuel. We need a smooth transition to a future based on clean energy. We should bite the bullet and make some moderate sacrifice now rather than a panic later. When and if it all goes bad those who did nothing will be pilloried.

Azize - look, I hate to upset your dreams but there is simply no point to a CPRS, now that any hope of any international agreement vanished with the Copenhagen Conference. Any economic trade off was doubtful enough as it was, but without an international agremement such a scheme would be, at best, an expensive ideological gesture. Do we really want expensive gestures?
Nope! If you really believe in the various dire scenarios forecast by the IPCC, the only real path is mitigation. Get rich; build barriers; buy air conditioning.
Activists hate being told that. They want the gesture to "show leadership", but we live in a democracy and to be fair people must be informed that its an expensive gesture. If they then want an expensive gesture so be it, but lets fully inform everyone first.

Taswegian, I fully support your sentiments in relation to reducing fossil fuels and a smooth transition to clean energy.

What I do take great exception to is your assertion that people like me are “morally weak”. I am very comfortable with my moral values thank you and I do not need to adopt yours, which, if I read you correctly, require me and the rest of Australia, to fund your moral values.

You seem to take the view that the rest of the world is morally wrong for not legislating Carbon Taxes. Consequently it is up to each Australian taxpayer, now and for generations to come, to demonstrate that we are prepared to sacrifice our economic future to salve the consciences of the Taswegian’s of this Country?

Your comments are tacit recognition that the scientific case for AGW has collapsed; therefore it must now be justified on “moral” grounds? And if the rest of the world cannot justify it because the carbon market has collapsed and the economic basis has vaporized, YOU propose what? That I will be “pilloried” for failing to make the sacrifice now?

Just who the hell do you think you are Taswegian?

Personally I would of though someone with a political degree from ANU would have far more sense than to play little games with Vodka. Then again some people take more time to grow up than others.

Runner, why on earth would you think that? I have never seen any evidence that time at any uni has anything to do with becoming sensible, or growing up. There is, however more than a little to suggest the opposite.

On the other hand, there is irrefutable evidence that drinking lots of alcohol is very closely related with time spent at uni.

I wonder if that's why we get so many silly articles from people like Maiy.

Oh Maiy, perhaps the change is because the self styled climate scientists were caught cooking the books, & lying all the way to the bank.

Curmudgeon - very good point, and a very good way of looking at the current popularity of the "we're number 1" mantra constantly proposed and our youth all seem to gravitate to this like moths to a flame, much of a "We're so cool, you are not!" mentality.

As the author has stated, when the opportunity to be "number 1" isn't taken up, they lose interest.

Maybe we do need immigration to make up for the lack of interest our youth show in anything unlinked to social networking internet sites?

I agree with the mitigation, someone suggested that if rising sea levels ever threatened Sydney, they would just build dikes, good plan.

We could probably air-condition Australia if we wanted, and set our minds to it and had Nuclear Power, why not, I'm up for a challenge, but not one to actually try to change the climate - man, that's BIG!

Oh, I get it. You took Rudd seriously when he said it was 'The greatest moral challenge of our time.'

Perhaps he's moved on to other moral challenges as he gave up pretty easily. The silence is deafening at the moment.

Maybe he'll just put up a carbon watch website and be done with it.

“A few weeks ago, a friend of mine working in Parliament House suggested we begin a new drinking game: every time an Opposition MP used the words “great big new tax,” we would all take a shot of vodka.”

That just shows the ‘maturity’ of young people who believe that they have all the answers.

“The young people I talk to still want to see Australia lead the world on climate change” seem more interested in knocking off Russia as world leader in vodka consumption.

Australia, a very, very tiny emitter of gases in the scheme of things, has no reason to “lead the world on climate change”.

Thankfully, Copenhagen knocked the climate change rubbish in the head. The ‘big new tax’ does get a little weary, as do most clichés used by politicians; but a tax the Rudd scheme is, and taxes will have no effect on climate change.

When Maiy Azize’s generation takes over, I will be dead, and I’m ever so thankful.

Seems I touched a nerve there spindoc. Perhaps I am a bit of a hypocrite since while I personally try to be energy frugal a bunch of people are flying over to visit this weekend. I should have told them to take the bus and ferry. I have no problem with extravagant energy use, just not from coal, gas or oil. I'm not the one struggling with AGW. I think it is real and a serious danger to the wellbeing of humanity. If that becomes even more apparent in the next few years we'll all have to ask ourselves what we did to help.

Here's another reason to burn less fossil carbon; it helps prepare for the inevitable. It appears that global crude oil production peaked in July 2008 and is now declining about 4-5% a year. There's plenty of coal but China the world's biggest user may experience shortages by 2015. Australia can't logistically make up the difference and I suggest it is also unwise to flog so much LNG as we may want a lot of gas for ourselves. We should make the transition away from carbon smoother and earlier than what will happen anyway under likely conflict and economic hardship. That means as Australians we should
a) get used to less carbon, not necessarily less energy
b) help the rest of the world to do the same.

@Curmudgeon: Any economic trade off was doubtful enough

If you think the CPRS was about us winning economically, your wrong. It was always going to harm us economically compared to developing countries.

@Curmudgeon: there is simply no point to a CPRS, now that any hope of any international agreement vanished with the Copenhagen Conference.

Sadly, I think this is probably right. All we could do is offer moral support, and we did that at Copenhagen. Politically, AGW's time in the sun is over for now. The planet has effectively decided to take a "wait and see" approach, and Australia can't do much to change that.

But don't count your chickens just yet. If we get another 1998, and that is looking statistically more likely as time goes on, it will be on again. The fundamental concern that drove the AGW concern in Australia - the drying out of the southern half of the continent, proceeds apace.

rstuart - I think 1998 is well recognized as being very hot due to an El Nino event, which I'm pretty sure we can't actually be blamed for (yet). Same as we're in now and why the east of Canada was warm during the Winter Olympics recently while the USA was freezing.

So regardless of a CPRS or similar, nothing we can do, at present, can stop or change El Nino, or even La Nina events, let alone stop or reverse climate change.

Imagine if we could control the climate, who would we trust with the control panel .. PM Rudd, Tony Abbott, Lara Bingle, Bob Brown, George Clooney, Bob Carter, Phil Jones, Rowen Atkinson, you, me?

We'd have as much chance finding consensus on what the climate should be like as we would on a republic in Queen Elizabeth's lifetime.

And that's the way it is .. the climate changes, yep, I can accept that and am not in denial about it.

sorry, the WEST of Canada .. senior moment!

rpg - there is no point in getting stuck into me. I am simply the messenger. Reality is a pain, I admit, but there it is - if you really believe in any of these dire scenarios then adaption is the only way out.
RStuart- when I said that the economic case for the CPRS was dodgy I was refering to the case with the assumption that it would have made a difference. The economic case for cutting emissions always required both extreme assumptions and playing fast and loose with the time value of money. The Stern report basically assumed that the value of a dollar today is not much different from the value of a dollar in the 22nd century - on ethical grounds. The report made other, major assumptions but that was the main one. It was the only way to make the case work. Now its all moot of course, but I don't think the general public realised how dodgy the economic case was.

curmudgeon - sorry mate, certainly was not having a go at you, you're possibly the sanest poster on OLO, always on message - I appreciate your posts very much.

Please reread my post - it was possibly more sarcastic than needed, but I do not seriously believe the doom scenarios (mass extinction). Particularly the ones relating to tipping points, it will be a long time before we see any real effects.

i am also constantly amazed by this current generation, I work with many of them, and see them in other areas and find them the least disciplined of any generation so far - maybe that's just how it goes, but I've not ever seen such a bunch of people with a such an overblown sense of entitlement - are we doing this, are we bringing them up to expect they can have whatever they want, just because they want it?

Other people in my industry comment that the average useful life of this generation on the workforce is 8 years tops, after that they just lose interest. Probably because no one has made them CEO in that time.

The message is clear, if the climate change means sea level rises or anything else, than we have to adapt, whatever that cost since this fallacy that we can change things, because we want to, is just that, fantasy.

Maiy, perhaps you need a new drinking game - one designed for suggesting that climate change is real on online opinion. A shot for every denialist response within 30 minutes. A shot for every claim that the climate has always been changing. A shot for we're not warming, another for climate change science is a religion and maybe another one just to anaesthetise yourself to a community of fanatics who turn away from science in order to have a scientific opinion. I might go have a shot now too. This site reminds me of films of the abandoned undergrounds of London or New York, inhabited with people who have spent far far too long in the dark.

@Amicus: I think 1998 is well recognized as being very hot due to an El Nino event,

Yes indeed. Well that is the AGW supporters line anyway. It is their explanation for why we haven't had a year hotter than 1998 so far. I am glad to see you in agreement with them for a change.

I trust you understand El Nino can't be the explanation for 1998 being the hottest year in modern records, as they have been occurring for longer than we have had records.

@Curmudgeon: when I said that the economic case for the CPRS was dodgy I was refering to the case with the assumption that it would have made a difference. The economic case for cutting emissions always required both extreme assumptions and playing fast and loose with the time value of money. The Stern report...

I misunderstood you then. I though you were saying the CPRS would not reduce emissions. There is a fair amount of evidence it would. As for the assumptions made in the Stern report, there is a good description of them on Wikipedia. They seemed reasonable to me, and I gather most economists think that too. By some weird coincidence, the people who do complain loudest about Stern's valuation of money in the future are also the ones who loudly express their views against AGW.

@rpg: whatever that cost since this fallacy that we can change things, because we want to, is just that, fantasy.

Nah rpg, that's dead wrong. A CPRS would reduce our CO2 emissions, for better or for worse. That we can change, if we choose to. Not that we will get much choice about it. All sources fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) will peak this century, possibly within the next 40 years. When that happens, whether we choose it or not, our CO2 emissions will drop. Thus a CPRS would help prepare us for that, too. As Taswegian pointed out, that is no bad thing.

Amicus says "rstuart - I think 1998 is well recognized as being very hot due to an El Nino event, which I'm pretty sure we can't actually be blamed for (yet). Same as we're in now and why the east of Canada was warm during the Winter Olympics recently while the USA was freezing." By implication and stated time and time again by nay sayers that the temperatures have not risen since 1998.

As usual absolute non scientific rubbish from Amicus and Co; the following chart (you need to go to the site as it won't render in OLO unfortunately)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif

This is unmodified, "non-dodgy" data from Nasa satellites (YES WE KNOW THEY ARE PART OF THE GLOBAL CONSPIRACY)and it shows without any doubt that temperatures HAVE risen since 1998 and continue to do so...notwithstanding a small drop in the rate of rise in 2008 (there was still a rise), the rate is resuming its trajectory. If you doubt this data there are numerous other unrelated charts showing the same trends.

Of course we go round in endless circles like the DoDo bird in the vacuous argument that climate changes; yes it does but not in a 50 year cycle! The science IS well and truly settled on man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere and that CO2 increases warming but hey, don't let facts get in the way of a rabid rebuttal.

It is sad that by the time it really is self evident that some will be able to say to many OLO contributors "told you so"...but there will be little comfort in doing so.

I am reminded of the Phantom of the Opera reprise "past the point of no return..." so perhaps we are all wasting our breath!

@next: Spot on. No wonder I'm a bit tiddly.

<burp>

Peter King, what on earth are you on about?

rstuart said "If we get another 1998, and that is looking statistically more likely as time goes on, it will be on again'

amicus said "I think 1998 is well recognized as being very hot due to an El Nino event"

Where did either of them say that there hasn't been a hotter year since?

You are reading things into a simple statement and response ..

calm down

How do you get to "By implication and stated time and time again by nay sayers that the temperatures have not risen since 1998."

What implication?

"As usual absolute non scientific rubbish from Amicus and Co" how do you work out Amicus was trying to be scientific. he just said it was hot year, that's all - jeez you guys will wind up anything into a really good conspiracy won't you?

mate, you're making things up as you go, and inventing things that simply aren't there - it was just a simple conversation, and you've gone off on a tangent.

Who said climate changes in a 50 year cycle? Certainly neither of them in that exchange.

I agree that the climate changes, and if there is any contribution from man, it's not proved yet that's it's CO2, so I don't want the bejesus taxed out of me for that (CO2 reduction) and we should be using our funds to adapt to the changing climate.

"Of course we go round in endless circles like the DoDo bird", yep, lost the plot, I'd recommend a Bex and a lie down.

The allusion to drama from you, is apt.

The author does not do justice to the political science and law disciplines, nor to her role as youth ambassador.
Science disciplines call for truth and integrity, not false propagandising. The law discipline works with integrity only when it is based on truthful evidence.
The author fails on both counts, by adopting warmist ideology that has been proved to be essentially false. Her call for action on climate change is based on false grounds, and consequently is against the national interest.
She is doing immense damage in her role as youth ambassador, by brainwashing the young with warmist propaganda.

rpg - very well, my apologies, I did misunderstand your post.

rstuart - look, Wikipedia has its uses but its too biased a source for reference.. the big assumption in the Stern report involved what's called the rediscount rate and it most emphatically was not accepted by a majority of economists. In fact, the low rediscount rate was almost universally condemned. (Perhaps one or two economists of any note agreed, and those were probably the ones quoted by Wikipedia.) There were other assumptions, all of which are disputed strongly, but the biggie was the rediscount rate. The economic cases for a CPRS is and remains almost non-existent.

Then there is the question of what evidence there is that a CPRS actually reduces emissions. You say there is some evidence but how could that be? The only existing CPRS worthy of the name is the European ETS, and it is difficult to identify any reductions that have occured because of its operation. If there is any change in any individual country emission figures its because they've done something like change the power industry from coal to gas or, worse, changed around the allowance for forestry carbon sinks. If you can point to any real world (as opposed to theoretical) study that shows the ETS has actually made any difference I'd be most interested.

It will take an election to clarify the situation.

I can understand why young people are concerned about climate change, they havent lived long enough to see any for themselves, just reacting to what they here,

After 70 years on this earth there is nothing new about our present climate. In the 50s and the 70s we saw just as many floods and earthquakes droughts and temperature changes, the same as our present.
The Lord God will bring this world to an end in His time, Man does not hold this world together.