The Forum > Article Comments > Who is denying what? > Comments
Who is denying what? : Comments
By Peter McCloy, published 13/6/2011Here's the elephant in the room that Al, Cate and Bob are trying to ignore: millions of people in the Third World want some of the creature comforts now enjoyed by the
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 13 June 2011 9:36:06 AM
| |
Far too sensible, Peter: prepare to be vilified by the fanatical devotees of the AGW death cult.
Several years ago now I put forward five propositions that had to be proved correct to make AGW amelioration economically viable. Here they are again: 1. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. 2. This increase will cause radical changes in the climate. 3. These changes will be, on balance, destructive rather than beneficial. 4. These changes can be feasibly stopped or reduced by human activity. 5. The cost of stopping or reducing these changes is less than the cost of allowing them to occur and adapting to them. What's the score on these so far? 1 is probably true, 2 is doubtful, 3 is anybody's guess, 4 is highly unlikely, and 5 is almost certainly a complete porky. And remember, all five have to be proven true to make it worth doing anything at all. Posted by Jon J, Monday, 13 June 2011 10:13:33 AM
| |
I agree with much of what the author says, though it can also be seen as rationalisation for business as usual. I agree completely that Cate and co should look to "cut" their consumption to equitable levels, (rather than buying off-sets--which amounts to exporting the damage--or giving their prodigious consumption a green makeover), before preaching to the rest of us. Indeed altruistic vegans and Greenies like Peter Singer and Bob Brown, and even Peter McLoy, are little different in that their "lifestyle" choices are pure privilege and not available to the vast majority anywhere on the planet.
James Lovelock, author of the Gaia principle, certainly sees it as a pointless exercise trying to slow the momentum or undo a process that's probably already well-nigh unstoppable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRQ-NqaYFzs But my position is that I don't want the world as it is saved, preserved via hyper-optimistic green-technologies-entrepreneurialism--great, new markets! I don't believe it's possible anyway, but more importantly it's unconscionable. Why would we want to save it as it is? Like saving an infestation of carp. On the other hand I'm not ready to cave in to the "inevitable" either--an excuse to do bugger all. Life's always been precarious and that's not going to change. The only sane thing to do, for future generations and in all conscience, is to radically alter the dynamics of the growth paradigm: get rid of privilege and cut consumption. Dismantle Western consumerism and embark internationally on a program of controlled attrition until sustainable populations and living standards are reached and can be husbanded. By all means continue exporting coal, but not to maintain hyper consumption or to make profit, but to maintain the international process of attrition. Failing that (because it's not going to happen!) I suggest the development and release of a nano virus that arbitrarily (in terms of class) and painlessly eliminates five in six of all the humans on the planet--an artificial plague. Posted by Squeers, Monday, 13 June 2011 11:34:24 AM
| |
Thank goodness for your article Peter- FINALLY someone who has separated sensible power generation from Carbon tax ploys and the nonsense rationale behind it;
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 13 June 2011 11:34:38 AM
| |
The two best ways for Australia to reduce its greenhouse gas emmisions is to.....
1. Stop all immigration. And that includes "refugees." Every new "Australian" wants to drive a car, and have a house run by electricity. Our capitol cities are now building desalination plants to cope with increases in water use caused by our eer expanding population. . We can never even begin to manage our greenhouse gas emmisions while we continue to import 200,000 new energy consumers every year. 2. Build nuclear power generation plants. But the same idiots who want to increase immigration and who refuse to accept nuclear power are the very same ones who go into paryoxisms of self righteous apoplexy over global warming. The Gillard "carbon tax" is insanity. it is indicative of a mindset which just loves finding new ways to spend public money while agonising over how it find some way to squeeze the good old Aussie taxpayer even more. The "carbon tax" means that the government gets a lucrative new tax. The carbon industries then simply pass on the costs of the new tax to their already overtaxed consumers. Julia Gillard can then use part of the windfall carbon tax money to "subsidise" low wage Labor voters, while the rest of the dough can be squandered on any other idiotic program which only a Labor government could think up. Posted by LEGO, Monday, 13 June 2011 1:15:59 PM
| |
The problem is the whole campaign that we see being waged by either side is irrelevant.
Coal production world wide will peak in around 15 to 20 years time. The US is already having to mine lower quality coal. The cost to extract the high quality coal has priced it out of range. The IPCC has still not (as far as I can tell) rerun its computer models using the Uppsala Uni figures for fossil fuel availability. Our whole society will soon have its political and economic arrangement turned on its head. Growth is slowing already and it is easy to see it happening. US oil use has fallen, the number of cars in the world has decreased for the first time ever. Most governments are having problems with sluggish growth. GDP in many countries is not high enough to enable repayment of debt. Hence the financial problems in Europe. Just in case you think we are absolved from this problem; The Australian Government is auctioning bonds at the rate of $2 to $2.5 billion a week. This is off budget borrowing. And that is just to pay the bills. Production of oil plus all liquids is just keeping our world head above water. There is almost no slack in the system and China & India are still increasing their demand by about 10% every year. You can see what will happen to China's economy when they cannot import an increasing amount of oil. It will suddenly stop growing. They already have major shortages of coal and oil. Electricity is being rationed and diesel is in short supply. So in the longer term all the above is not being taken into account by the powers that be, here and abroad, on their campaign regarding CO2. So Peter McCloy is well justified in his attitude to the whole green campaign. It is totally out of touch with what will happen. Posted by Bazz, Monday, 13 June 2011 2:28:12 PM
| |
Well, no, that isn't why people are called denialists. It is usually because they deny the science.
If people were given the choice of frugal comfort that was sustainable they may well choose this. They so far aren't being offered the choice. Few people only consider money when making decisions. Most people are sane enough to value relationships and such - apart from economists. People in Australia are downshifting. Much that people want can be delivered sustainably. Posted by Evan Hadkins, Monday, 13 June 2011 3:42:51 PM
| |
Bazz, do you have any information on the other side of the equation?
>>The Australian Government is auctioning bonds at the rate of $2 to $2.5 billion a week.<< Your statistic tells us nothing about the net increase in borrowings. The latest information I could find from AOFM was for April, when $8bn were issued, and $7bn redeemed http://www.aofm.gov.au/content/borrowing/commonwealth/Monthly_Changes_CGS/2011/04_april.asp This matches your "$2bn a week" number in terms of new issues. But you do not mention redemptions. Did it just slip your mind? Posted by Pericles, Monday, 13 June 2011 4:25:32 PM
| |
No it did not slip my mind, I just did not know about it.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 13 June 2011 4:38:55 PM
| |
"Why would we want to save it as it is? Like saving an infestation of carp."
Squeers, if you want to abandon the world and retire to a block of land in darkest Tasmania, I have nothing but encouraging words for you. But I happen to like my world the way it is, and I would rather see it kept that way than flushed down the toilet to appease the self-loathing of a small group of environmental cultists. Nobody is stopping you from making your own world any way you like; but please leave ours alone. By the way, how long do you think you will be able to hold on to that block of land when law and order have broken down, and hungry people with shotguns are looking for food and shelter? Posted by Jon J, Monday, 13 June 2011 6:40:04 PM
| |
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, environmental activists proposed the hypothesis that human-caused CO2 emissions were causing global warming. The UN, after conning numerous governments that the politically correct thing to do was to accept the hypothesis, set up the IPCC in 1988 to gather evidence to prove the hypothesis. Despite the IPCC and others failing to come up with the necessary substantiating scientific evidence, it is still politically correct to believe in AGW. So much so, that some governments such as Australia's, are acting dysfunctionally by proposing to damage the economy by implementing a carbon tax or ETS to reduce CO2 emissions so as to control the climate -- which is utterly fanciful thinking.
Posted by Raycom, Monday, 13 June 2011 11:11:06 PM
| |
What a sensible article, it's good to see people thinking beyond the combative AGW catastrofarian way versus the world.
"But the message they are communicating is that it's OK to use as much energy as you like, as long as you pay for it" Once I pay a tax for CO2, I've done my bit .. or, rather, its been done for me, why do I need to do more .. that's the environment looked after surely? The tax is meant to modify behavior, but it won't as it is too small. Companies will pass it on, they are businesses and cannot be forced to lose money. The definition of being in business, is to make money. The rest of us have a minimum comfort level we will pay to maintain, so unless energy is actually withdrawn, will not go beyond that. Withdraw it and we'll vote in anyone who will reinstate it. Those who continue to bark for taxes, will soon change their tune when their constituency turns on them. (getup included) The losers in this, who have not worked it out yet, are the green activist types who will see once the tax goes in, a demolition of donations for green "stuff", because we're paying a tax for it now .. why should we pay them as well? It's like the Flood Levy, never again will Australians put their hands in their pockets in times of disaster, only to find the government then decides to give away our money as well, in future, we'll wait and see. Like this government, the alarmists and eco wackos have not thought this all the way through. Why should anyone now care about clean up Australia day, or recycling, or any other "eco" activities .. we're paying a tax for this, the government will do it. You are ending the role an individual can play by taking it over, and having a monstrous government department run it, who will over bureaucratize environmental activities .. so be it, it's what the people "wanted", another ALP government stuff up. Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 1:00:04 AM
| |
Air travel...a favourite pastime of many women like my mother (bless her) who are desperate for a climate tax, yet can't see the link between CO2 emissions and her overseas holidays.
Posted by floatinglili, Friday, 17 June 2011 12:23:58 AM
| |
When I first read this article, I thought it must be Tony Abbott having a rant, given the authors assertion that jobs in existing industries were much more important than reduction of CO2 emissions. Those emissions would not be reduced by proposals to tax carbon or by reducing export of our lovely clean coal. All that would be achieved would be to deny the poor their right to a better life. The article concludes by claiming that UN development goals such as eradication of hunger and ensuring environmental sustainability have nothing to do with climate change. Well, let us take a closer look at these unsubstantiated claims.
There is no such thing as “clean” coal, or for that matter “clean” any fossil fuel, though some are cleaner than others. Australian coal production and use is destined to decline over time because of two things: the rising cost of using coal to generate electricity and the declining cost of electricity produced from renewable sources such as solar and geothermal. When base load power from renewable sources costs the same or less than that produced from coal, investors and consumers will switch to it and domestic demand for coal will decline. This does not mean, as claimed by the author, that carbon leakage will result in export of industry and jobs to countries with more lax attitudes to CO2 emissions. Some trade-exposed industries will be compensated for the higher cost of electricity arising from a carbon tax. Others, like cement production, can and will adopt new technology enabling on-going production with much reduced or zero emissions. A carbon tax will cause decline in domestic demand for coal. However, until countries importing our coal apply technology for generating electricity from renewable sources at a cost less than that of coal, demand for coal exports is likely to rise over the next decade. Short-term expansion of the coal miming industry is therefore likely but decline after 2020 is likely. By then, electricity generation from renewables is likely to be cheaper than using coal. Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Sunday, 19 June 2011 2:18:28 PM
| |
Continued.
Countries now importing our coal will switch to using the cheapest source of energy and reduce their current dependence on Australian coal. It is true that poorer, less developed nations can’t achieve prosperity and higher living standards unless they generate and widely use electricity. That does not mean they must generate electricity by burning fossil fuels which have to be continually imported at unaffordable cost. What it does mean is that the developed world must assist poorer countries to adopt and use energy which can be and increasingly, is being generated from renewable sources, probably solar. The author claims that hunger has nothing to do with climate change. This is wrong. Hunger arises from lack of affordable food because of inability to produce sufficient food to feed a too rapidly growing global population. That has everything to do with climate change arising from global warming. If warming continues, it will cause increasingly sever climate events (it already is) making it increasingly difficult to produce food. Try growing wheat in drought or heatwave conditions. Try sowing a crop or harvesting it on flooded land. Finally, let us consider a sustainable environment. It is one where flora and fauna has time to adapt to changing climatic conditions. Our present problem is that as a result of anthropogenic global warming, climate is changing so rapidly that flora and fauna have insufficient time to adapt to or withstand increasingly harsh climatic conditions. If we decide on business as usual and do nothing to limit global warming; if we pursue short term profit rather than the longer term gains of climate stability, we shall develop an increasingly hostile environment, with potential to kill rather than sustain us. We still have a choice – though not for much longer. The choice is simple. Do we ignore global warming and its effects or act to limit it? It is not as though we did not know how to limit it. We do know and we can do it. Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Sunday, 19 June 2011 2:19:37 PM
| |
Continued
Those who produce and use fossil fuels, particularly coal, prefer to pursue profit and convince us that global warming is good and nothing to worry about. Rather like those engaged in the tobacco industry who would have us believe that smoking is good. It is, for tobacco profits. The problem is that smoking kills half of those who do it. Global warming will kill us all if we fail to curb it. Most people know it, including those who are loath to be parted from high profits and let there be no doubt, coal is a very lucrative commodity! The author is not connected to the mains so he may not know that over the past 4 years, electricity is Queensland has risen by over 50% and further increases are promised. This has nothing to do with measures to limit global warming or CO2 emissions reduction but, we are asked to believe, because of the need to maintain and extend the grid. Queeslanders know that permanent electricity price increases are not needed to rectify the neglect of the last decade. Answers to some thorny questions from a Royal Commission would seem more appropriate. And, as previously discussed in this forum, the wisdom of State Government increasing its dependence on revenue derived from coal mining should also be questioned. Bad policy made dangerous by failure to plan for eventual decline of the coal industry. Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Sunday, 19 June 2011 2:20:31 PM
| |
Agnostic;
Until the IPCC reruns their computer models using the data for the availability of fossil fuels, then the whole thing is pointless. The Uppsala Universities Global Energy Group last year surveyed all oil, gas and coal fields and found that the data being used by the IPCC is incorrect and the real data is much less fossil fuel available. http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/validity-of-the-fossil-fuel-production-outlooks-in-the-ipcc-emission-scenarios/ Down the page there is a blue link to the published paper itself. I gather that over the last few years others have been trying to tell the IPCC the same but they will not listen. It appears that climate scientists won't listen to the geologists. At present the IPCC's projections are guesswork on duff data. Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 19 June 2011 5:45:50 PM
|
The coal question is a vexing one. According to several authors (e.g. Patzek, Rutledge, Heisenberg) coal is about to get expensive. On top of that the more immediate shortage of liquid fuels may slow demand for coal as factories and steelworks ease up. However there are still trillions of tonnes of coal less cheap to mine that could alter the climate. That's why I think we're not only obliged to carbon tax ourselves but also make it harder for China and India to get all our coal and LNG. Even the USA is getting into the coal export game now China is struggling to dig enough of its own coal. I think carbon tax is the right thing to do even if it appears to make little difference short term.