If The Media Had Covered Climate Change As Well As They Did Toyota……….
For the last 24 years of crisis warnings, the IPCC climate scientists have continued to agree that the consequence of Climate Change on the planet Earth is still estimated to be anything from “catastrophic” and “unstoppable” warming, to negligible consequences if any, and may or may not include more extreme weather events.
In other words, climate change was Liberalism’s WMD-ridden Iraq War of fear mongering and lying.
Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 24 years of climate control instead of population control. Nice! History is watching.
NOW. who’s the neocon?
System Change, not Climate Change

Hm, I don't recall using the term 'neocon' anywhere. Are you sure you're arguing against my article and not someone else's?

I'm not going to get into an argument about the basic science here. The evidence is in and has been for 20 years, it's just shouting left. But even if you don't buy it... aren't efficiency savings and lower emissions good for everyone?

James, good to see an author engaging on the discussion thread. You'll find that the article is often a sort of Rorschach blot that people then bounce-off to talk about what really interests them in that area. It's humbling as a writer to labour over a model of clarity only to find what seem to you to be the most obvious points misunderstood.

I actually tend to agree with both you and mememine69. There is still an argument to be had about what increased amounts of CO2 actually mean in temperature terms (and I think the empirical evidence will eventually be in, because I don't see emissions slowing down, despite all the talk of it), but I don't see any point in using energy wastefully.

I certainly have a problem with much of the trading-off green issues that goes on, plus the failure of journalists and politicians to ask questions about just how effective a particular measure will be.

One point about your analysis. You seemed to ignore the second hand market in things like cars. As cars are normally sold to someone else when the first owner has finished with them shouldn't you have spread the CO2 savings over a much longer period?

Yeah, comments will always be based on what sparked in someone's mind. =) I've also spent enough time online to know my way around. Mostly just trying to keep on-topic. =)

As for the second-hand car market, that cuts both ways. You may personally be saving emissions by running a more efficient car, but if you sold yours, then that more-emitting car is still producing emissions. While your own ongoing emissions might be down, the overall emissions arguably haven't gone down at all. In any specific instance, you'd need to track the chain of transactions back to someone who got rid of a car without passing it on... and then see what happened to that one. The main point is that it's just a lot more complex than it is at first glance. My advice is really more what I see as a good bet rather than something backed by solid numbers.

As for climate science in general, yeah, there are questions... but one of the strengths of science is what questions are always asked. Just because that's happening doesn't meant that there's doubt over the underlying science or the upward trend in temperature. It's why I didn't tackle that at all in my article -- it's a side-point. Scientificaly-speaking, it's settled.

Interesting article.

I certainly agree with what appears to be your thesis - that the word 'green' (and associated words) has formed the core of a 'feelgood' industry movement that may not actually produce the goods it claims to. Kind of like certain charities that take monthly donations, a small percentage of which go where the donor thinks they are going.

I think that, as the environment remains a constant in the 'guilt market', some regulation on the use of terms like 'green' needs to be imposed. Just as marketers of 'light' foods need to specify just how they are 'light' and those peddling 'low GI' foods need to state exactly what their GI is, I think 'green' merchants need to state in a quantifiable way how they are 'green' and how that 'greenness' is achieved. Thus the buyer who wishes to make an informed choice can do so. The seller who wishes to con buyers into making uninformed choices must obey regulations which make the con much less of a con. There will still be misinformation (e.g. yeah we save water, but we use a lot of plastic) but at least there will be information rather than just empty claims.

Sorry for all the quotation marks. I don't think I've ever put this many into a single post!

Good article James. Certainly the 'Green' business has opened the doors to anyone wanting to cash in on people's eagerness to reduce emissions, use less chemicals, non-GM etc.

Food and the organic industry has been commodified in the same way with the end item not always the authentic article. Last night there was an interesting documentary about the Tibetan 'caterpillar fungus' which has spawned a whole counterfeit industry milling out thousands of capsules of a related fungus of which the efficacy is exactly nil, for which people pay huge sums of money.

The commodification of green was inevitable - where there is a market money will follow.

The answer as always lies with the consumer being vigilant enough to do some homework before buying, comparing products and reading reviews and most importantly actually reading the labels.

Choice recently listed their top dodgy products, one being a well known fridge brand which claimed a low energy rating but was found to be rather higher emitter.

The trap with 'green' is not to fall into the appearance of doing something ie. the feel-good factor, as opposed to the reality which involve some of those pros and cons that you raised in weighing up emissions with the environmental costs of manufacture and issues of planned obsolesence.

The good news is inbetween the dodgy claims and products there will be some wins for the environment particularly if we rely on some good old fashioned commonsense.

Each time I walk into a supermarket I am only too aware of the numerous products laying claim to "green" credentials. The list of ingredients on the back is meaningless unless you happen to be an industrial chemist, so one feels strongly the consumer is being conned. Without a doubt, this is commodification of green in its most exploitative sense.

Recently I bought a bottle of white wine because I was intrigued by the green story on the label.

The story was about care for the land and care to produce a carbon neutral product. It talks about the emissions which couldn't be reduced being offset by "contributing to accredited carbon reduction projects." This product tells the consumer an entirely different story to that found, by-and-large, on supermarket shelves and one feels it is sincere in its green endeavours as opposed to pretensions.

But what exactly are carbon reduction projects? We all know about tree planting and schemes to pay poor countries to plant trees and believe this to be a good thing.

But you write that planting too many trees in northern latitudes turns white tundra into dark forest that traps more heat.

What then of our ever expanding cities built of brick, mortar, concrete and tarmac? Are they not one of the biggest heat banks and as such, wouldn't they have a massive impact on climate? It stands to reason then, that if climate change is to be addressed so too must be cities around the world which act as heat banks - but how?

And what of the increasing population? More population means more resources are consumed and thus more pressure on the environment, more cities and so on. Should population control not be at the forefront of "green" thinking?

I do not agree that the science is settled, there are to many issues loitering around which attack the credibility of the science. But I do agree with your thesis on the commodification of "green",and that it has been turned into just another commodity.

James...you say:

All around us we see the industry that has grown out of Green.

Umm...yeah right.. let's just look at 'one'.

"NSW solar input subsidy.. 60c/kwhr paid to you for your solar system grid input,- 'feed in tarrif'"

Here's the speel:

The New South Wales (NSW) Government has announced a Solar Bonus Scheme. This Scheme is applicable from 1st January 2010. There are certain criritera to avail this Solar Bonus Scheme. The Solar Bonus Scheme will credit eligible participating customers with a "gross" feed-in tariff rate of 60 cents per kilowatt hour for all the electricity that their eligible solar photovoltaic (PV) system. The Scheme is valid for 7 years.

SEVEN years eh ?

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/nsw-to-slash-costly-solar-feedin-tariff-20101027-173hs.html

NSW is slashing the gross feed-in tariff for its solar bonus scheme because it is costing too much.
Premier Kristina Keneally today announced the government will cut the tariff from 60 cents to 20 centsc per kilowatt hour, and introduce a total capacity cap of 300 megawatts.

O---k... 'costing too much' ? hmmm me smelleth a very putrid rat!

I wonder if it's not more a case of "Electricity companies not making enough" ?

Amazing stuff.

We invest in Solar... = Income redistribution. "we pay more or get less"

We don't invest in Solar= "We pay more and get less"

Perhaps the place we need to 'get' is OFF the jolly grid!

Thank you everyone for positive comments. =) I think a lot of authors don't like to admit it, but many of us thrive on feedback, especially in the early days.

Otokonoko, it's definitely a guilt market. Many charities work in a similar way. Pelican, yes. We want to do something, so we reach into our consumer culture for a quick fix instead of changing our lifestyles. I don't just mean 'other people', either. I did buy that kettle myself.

Ibbit, the degree to which the albedo change from a small area of replanted forest, or a city, shouldn't be overestimated. It's small, but figures I remember seeing (though can't now find) said that it reduced or negated the carbon savings from the planted trees. Suffice to say, the best way of reducing carbon in the atmosphere is to try to keep it from getting there in the first place, not removing it afterwards. As for the science, it does take city heat bloom into effect. That actually pales in comparison to the CO2 emissions -- it's a factor, but a small one.

ALGORE, heh, I hadn't heard of that one. I have a suspicion that you might be right there. A nice analysis of the economics of climate change responses is found on this very site, here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11154
In that, the author argues that the least efficient of all interventions is the 'direct action' approch of subsidising individual efforts, but that that's the only line of attack that's getting any support. It's well worth a read.

finally a short succinct read..with some..clear thinking thrown in

i cant critique..the words..
thus seek only to add to..the absurdities you reveal

the cost...to make..the world...'green'..is built on lies
[the tempratures...fail to include..the fact..that the temp..is modified..by building in..close proximity..to the measuring stations]

there is clear fraud..in the models..used to sell this con
[to bring in this big new tax..for commodity traders to speculate in..and trade with...let alone...accord the credits..for]

take..uk..steel industry..got credits for closing a british-steel plant[lossing near 1000 jobs]..then the owners..took the..'credit'..and built..a much bigger plant..in india

add to the facts..these wind/mills..solarcells..are produced..[by industry...making more carbon..in their production...add in the facts..of spain..who went..green'..big time...and now its built..no more jobs..[and huge govt sovreign debt]

this green-creed..is so rife..the hrenies are a bigger danger,..that the issues they guilt us into...[home composting producing near the same foot-print...as cows]

those pretty subsidised..solar cells..on so many roofs..[were cleaned using a solvent..100 times worse..than co-2...

add in transport...building 'infastructure'..to these subsidised new industries,...often off the grid....there is a huge..new quongo...trying to suck more govt funds from the allready overburdened tax-payer..con-summers

add in this 2..BILLION subsidy..for nEW cars[more carbon]..and realise..the poor..CANT buy new cars..you see..yet more govt largess..to the rich..[or bail-out..of foreign ownedc multinationals..or poor car dealers]

see we SEEMINGLY...have destroyed..the globe..BUILDING..this current system..[so much so..that industry ran out of consumables..for us to buy]...but They..NEED to keep on building..SOMETHING...anything..

so green guilt..[and govt subsidy]...
and media..sells the spin...we know..their advertisers..run their pr

anyhow..i have vented...[as if penny wrong..holding NOW fionance...isnt a clear enough sign..of who's adgendas..she really is serving...[noting most the spokes-people...are economists..there you have it]

is it cheaper to bail them out now
or let capitalism sort them out tomorrow
we have our vote..by what we buy into...

stop the deciets,rupert[julia]..mr GORE..
and the rest of..the unwashed..investers in..wet/green-dreams

no subsidy to any wealthy person
let capitalism...decide..what it can afford
then let govt do the rest...

[govt entripeneeer-ship..thats a way to go...let the people..get the proffits..not bankers/investers]

and..stop selling off..the peoples assets

[and building..pipelines for exporters...
that 'infastructure'..THEY CAN PAY..THEMSELVES]

Actually, when it comes to consumerism, it is easy being green. You just embrace the Way of the Tightarse. Don't buy anything you don't need, and don't buy it new if you can get it second-hand. Grow your own vegetables if you have the space. Go dumpster diving. Steal (just kidding). You'll not only save the earth, you'll save lots of cash in the process.