"Climate change won't be solved with a negative, won't-do attitude. The reality is we cannot afford to put young people's future in the too hard basket."

I agree with the first five words of your title. The question is, how much it will cost us to find out you were right?

All the young people I know will find their future is much better served by keeping control over their own money, rather than handing it over to the Gillard government to pay for dream solutions to imaginary problems.

The first poster justs demonstrates how negative the opposition is by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt - FUD.

Oh, to be young and idealistic, and not an old cynic like me! Heather Bruer's heart is in the right place and it is indeed important that we each try to leave the world a better place. I happen to think that she has got the economics wrong and is overstating the ripple effect we in Australia can have on the rest of the world in regard to climate change.

But the biggest problem with her thesis is that it does not give enough consideration to the full range of potential targets were it really possible to change the world with a kick-start from here. She picks climate change. For my money, the biggest scourges of the world are war and religion. Logically those ought to be the number one priorities for creating a better world by our example. But I'm not holding my breath.

I think Heather Bruer is dreaming. An Australian carbon tax will not change the world climate. To do that every nation across the world would be required to reduce carbon. This wont and can't happen, Europe is in deep financial difficulties and America has its own financial woes and could not even consider putting a carbon tax in place. China, India, Brazil are not looking to reduce carbon because they think that emerging economies should be allowed to run free.
The Government has only agreed to a carbon tax to keep the Greens happy and Julia Gillard in the lodge.
The Government should be looking at ways to reduce carbon scientifically. If the 500? polluters do not reduce their outflow of carbon then fine them $500,000 a time - they will soon get the picture.
Everyone wonts to save the world but in so doing we don't have to kill our economy and turn Australia into a 3rd world country.

This is a bit rich.

For a junior recruit of the mob who have been throwing a negative scare campaign at us for 25 years, to accuse those defending the innocent from the con, of being negative, really is a pot, kettle, black moment.

What is it about studding economics that fills the head with cotton wool? I realise it is one of those arty farty disciplines which leave lots of empty space in a students head. Space that tutors can pack full of BS, but why are they so easily fooled.

Even after months of denigration by the lefties on here, trying to diminish that of which they are frightened, the only thing that really worries me about Abbott, is his economics degree.

Heather
so let this old cynic get this straight. As well as pay the carbon tax you are proposing a voluntary scheme on top of it? Okay, but will this scheme simply shift CO2 emissions elsewhere (a real danger with all of this stuff), or will it result in savings? At what cost?

Perhaps you could bring your economics training to bear and come out with a cost-benefit trade off, particularly given that most of the theoretical climate change effects are expected to occur decades from now (if, indeed, they occur at all). What rediscount rate will you assume - bearing mind that Nicholas Stern had to make quite extreme assumptions to make the figures add up to emission reduction being economic?

You will find you will have to work very hard indeed to make the sums add up. You'd best get busy.

@Tombee: May I ask which source you used as the basis for you statement "she has got the economics wrong"? It can't be the team of economists who were sent out by the MPCCC to review 1000 different policies and recommend the best? Nor could it be the 2/3's of top Australian economists (as reported in the Age) who believe that the CEF policy quite a good one (including the director of ANZ) and the coalition alternative is an economic wash out.

Also, it doesn't matter whether or not Aust has global impact. The global economy is moving towards renewables. This is also @Mareelorraine. Europe has an ETS. Countries like Denmark, Sweeden, Germany, France and Spain have been investing in large-scale renewables in the order of billions of dollars for years. Last year the UK conservative government announced one of the most ambitious carbon reduction packages in the world. Many states in the US have ets'. The US also just invested more than $700 million in a Solar Thermal plant for Nevada. Yes, China is growing more every year. However it is also investing the most in renewables of any country in the world. A little squiz at the holder of all knowledge (wikipedia) shows that it had 197GW of Hydro in 2009 (I believe the whole of Australia uses roughly 180GW), it also had 26GW of wind, and it produces 30% of the world's photovoltaics... need I go on?

Most importantly: The government has agreed to a carbon tax because it is finally listening to the science. Our future is on the line. We need all hands on deck to make sure our clean energy future happens and as citizens of a democracy, we're in one of the best places to make that happen. Further, please look again at the policy. Economists, the MPCCC, the Government etc are all showing how the policy will not compromise our economy. It is frankly ridiculous and uninformed to state that this policy will send our country towards being a third world nation

Well written, yes the youth of today will inherit the legacy of today's decision makers...and I or one, want to do everything I can to leave my children and grandchildren a cleaner prosperous future!

Industrialization and consumerism has seen the world become a place where we measure our success by the money we have and the things we own...now our natural resources are being depleted and our world polluted.

Having said that I am not for a moment insinuating that society should regress, rather I believe our future is about reducing the impact our lives have on our physical environment...a clean energy future must be more than an aspirational target.

Whilst I am the first to admit the proposed climate policy is not everything I would have hoped for, I understand it is further than many people think necessary...thus I believe it is the best way forward for Australia.

As for Australia acting before the rest of the world, we are not breaking new ground here, there are a number of other countries that are ahead of Australia. Some say that we should wait until all countries act together, well that was tried at Copenhagen...and failed

So good on you Heather and AYCC... keep speaking on behalf of the future!

(Hello Ms Bruer, nothing personal intended here but I'm gonna try using bonmot's method of article critique to see if it works.)

<!--start new method-->

So the International Co-director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition believes in some fairy-land notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

No wonder the majority of the Australian population ignore fruit-loops.

<!-- end new method -->

It's a bit rude, but I wonder if it works?

And Yo, bonmot, how do you do?

Many thanks for that link you provided for me the other day. I downloaded it and am working my way through it, very interesting, but at the moment I'm a bit busy and it's a low priority. I'll get back to you about it later.

Cheers all.

I'm not a fan of Bon Mot's method, but decided it was relatively benign in one dose. If it's going to become commonplace I'll start deleting.

GrahamY Moderator

Hello GrahamY,

I'm pleased you see the point. Your comment is welcomed and endorsed. Many thanks.

Cheers.

@ voxUnius

Cuts both ways Vox (you must have noticed, no?) ... but I take Graham's point.

And yes, it is benign.

Glad you are finding the paper interesting. Take your time, 'it' is more complicated than your original post.

Again from the climate club of Canberra the over entitled view of the world "Young people deserve to inherit a world that is yada yada"

no they don't deserve anything

nor do we or anyone else owe you or anyone else anything

you don't owe me anything either, we're all here to do the best we can, if we want to

You seem to have convinced yourselves of your entitlement, like spoiled brats demanding from mummy and daddy, which clearly was successful so it has become habit

Why is it all the articles from the climate club always have almost exactly the same demanding/whining demands based in a sense of entitlement.

What is common in your backgrounds you all sound like this?

"Pricing carbon in Australia will have positive ripple effects internationally and on future generations."

no it won't, no one gives a rat's bottom what a bunch of Australians does or says, never did, never will .. but I guess the message is just to frame to other weak minded Australians, ho hum.

"Climate change won't be solved with a negative attitude"

What is it needs to be "solved"?

You don't like something, you demand and someone fixes ..yes, like at home yes? No, this is the real world.

Climate cannot be changed by the whim of people in Australia.

Climate cannot be adjusted by us at all I suspect.

What a stupid statement, clearly framed for weak little followers

If we have affected the climate is it more probable by land clearing and population than by use of fossil fuels, which will be around for at least another 100 years, regardless of tantrums by eco whackos and unhappy adolescents.

Who funds the climate club, who are the US groups who fund the AYCC and what are their goals, what percentage of AYCC funding comes from overseas?

Why are the AYCC allowing overseas interests to determine and mold Australia lobby groups?

People get upset if skeptics are funded by overseas organizations, but here we find a lobbying group in the same position, accepting money from nefarious sources .. why?

@bonmot - "'it' is more complicated than your original post."

Hardly fair mate, I only got 350 words max. What did you expect?

Anyway, have a good weekend all.

@voxUnius wrt my "'it' is more complicated than your original post."

>> Hardly fair mate, I only got 350 words max. What did you expect? <<

Exactly, you must have missed what I said earlier. Here is an excerpt:

2. b) Not overlooked Vox. But, have you ever tried to explain complex numbers, or the derivation of E = mc^2, to primary schoolers?

Similarly, it is difficult on OLO to explain the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, or Kirchhoff’s Law, or whatever … to those that just don’t understand rudimentary physics or chemistry – as many posters here exhibit. Imho, it is the height of stupidity for some ‘nutters’ to tell experts (in whatever their specialised field) that they don’t understand what they are talking about, or they have got it all wrong.

Vox, many so called climate “sceptics” wouldn’t have a clue about the Boltzmann constant or Planck’s Law – each and of themselves underpinning much of the basic tenets of ‘climate science’ developed over the last century, and found in high school text-books the world over. Yet, we have ‘pseudo-sceptics’ wanting to overturn it all – simply mind-boggling.

Cont’d
Vox, pardon for getting caught out by post limits.

2. b) Cont’d

Yes, the Tropopause can expand and contract as it were the Earth’s lungs, and you’re right – the Earth System is not truly a “closed system”, but the analogy is perfectly ok for OLO ‘primary schoolers’ (metaphorically Vox, I hope you understand that point).

Put simply: the Troposphere is not saturated and the (atmospheric) concentration of CO2 is going up.

Anyway, you have a good weekend too.

Perhaps you can take time to listen to professsor Hans Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a key adviser to the German Government and the European Union on climate change

He gave an interview on the ABC's Radio National program 'The National Interest" this afternoon. He talks about what we are doing/not doing here in OZ.

ps - you can have 4 posts (1400 words) on any one article in a 24 hr period.

Does global-warming brain-washing go under the name of economics these days?

Does the author realise that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1998, which is contrary to what the IPCC and its alarmist supporters predicted?

Does the author really believe that the rest of the world would follow the Labor Govt's crazy carbon-tax implementation with their own crazy versions?

Perhaps the author could explain how Australia would be better off by converting from reliable, cost-efficient coal-fired power to unreliable wind energy at three times the cost, or better still to unreliable solar energy at ten times the cost. She could also explain
how such irrational conversions, which substantially raise power costs to all businesses, would improve Australia's productivity and prosperity.

"Climate change won't be solved with a negative attitude"

Correct. It won't be solved by Labor, or the 'liberals' or the Greens either.

At best each individual and each business entity can do their bit to reduce waste, re-use stuff, recycle and look after their immediate environment.

At worst, we can get caught up with partisan politics based on who can fool most of the people most of the time (67% apparently).

So why are we doing partisan politics? Oh because we exist to hate Labor, or we exist to implement a lame scheme to p1ss off the tories, or because 12% of people voted for us and we'll leverage off that.

Think for yourselves.

"Perhaps the author could explain how Australia would be better off by converting from reliable, cost-efficient coal-fired power to unreliable wind energy at three times the cost, or better still to unreliable solar energy at ten times the cost."

Easy: "Heather Bruer is an Economics student at the University of Adelaide. She is currently the International Co-director at the Australian Youth Climate Coalition."

As a greenie student, reality is not required. Go world peace!

Good article.
The silly old fools have not explained how the alternate is better. Abbott's Plan is so poor if Gillard did call an election on the issue he would go straight into severe and irreversible panic. Abbot really should want for this policy to go through and probably does. He just wants to win some political mileage from opposing it but getting it done and out of the way now will result in a less controversial election. He will not repeal it as that could mean a double dissolution plus a Crikey article has raised the possibility of massive compensation claims if he did. He is playing opposition politics and not election politics. However if he is too successful he will have to explain his policy and the backlash would be career and political suicide. The carbon tax is safe.

@TheMissus: Abbott's Plan is so poor if Gillard did call an election on the issue he would go straight into severe and irreversible panic.

Really? If I thought that was the case I'd give the man more credit. The way I read him now, I'd say his reaction would be to bulldoze public opinion with bs. It's working pretty well against Gillard right now. Why change?

And even if you are right, do have a clue what he would actually do if elected? I don't. I tell myself he couldn't be seriously contemplating implementing some of the policies he champions right now. But what policies would he implement? I don't know. The man is opaque to me.

Climate change won't be solved with a negative attitude.
Neither will it be solved with a positive attitude.
Nature does what nature must do. Our attitudes are not in the equation.
I have no doubt that we contribute to a changing climate but there's sfa we can do about it.
Man has been polluting for millennia so if anyone thinks a tax all of a sudden will somehow prevent a climatic change then they have more rocks in their heads than you can find lying around the planet.
Stop wasting your money on Julia & Wayne's incompetence, Climate change is unavoidable. Even the Incas knew that 500 years ago.

This would'nt be a post by another Unley High Alumnus would it?
It just sounds so familiar.

Individual, Off topic as both sides have accepted climate science by committment to 5% reduction in emission by 2020. I understand many like you do not realise it is a choice between Liberal or Labor policy, not a choice which included no action atm.. So by saying forget Julia and Wayne you may not realise that translates to accepting Liberal policy which is so much more horrific. However, at the moment there is no debate on whether we have climate change or not or if what we do will help, it is about how we reach our obligations of 5% by 2020.

"both sides have accepted climate science by committment to 5% reduction in emission by 2020."

Both sides have been conned into believing that climate science is settled, when it is anything but settled. There is no compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of dangerous global warming. Consequently, there is no scientific nor economic justification for maintaining the 5% reduction target. It was one of the Howard Govt's worst decisions. It would be in the national interest for both major parties to rescind the 5% reduction target.

Advantages (if you can call them that) of the Libs' policy are that, unlike the irrational carbon tax, its implementation would not cause massive damaging restructuring of the Australian economy, and that it can be abandoned simply at little cost.

The science confirming the climate change as being anthropogenic is about as compelling as the science that links smoking to cancer... Lets all stop trying to be a hero, and do everything we can to live on a healthy planet, including polluting less!

Just a moment ago I read a Garnaut Climate Change review by a Dr Donna Green from February 2008, Sydney Uni.
It is exceptionally well written & exceptionally ignorant as only academics can manage. If we were to believe what these people write then we might as well believe in Santa Clause. It is a typical scenario of indigenous people telling ignorant, wide-eyed academics what they want to hear & then it is written down for future brainwashing. And so the saga gets perpetuated & coloured in in the process.
Reading this review made me once & for all realise how far down the tube Australia has already gone at the hand of our academic experts. Yet there are still many out there who're pining for more such ignorance. I really have had enough of this. The next academic who comes near me with any such nonsense will cop a clip behind their green ears.

@ individual:

Charming. Do you make a practice of giving people you disagree with a "clip behind the ears"?

I've just had a quick squizz at the offending paper, and I agree that it is well-written and clearly presented. Beyond your usual generalised spray at academics, what exactly about the report's content is it that drives you to violence?

Don't you think that the health of Indigenous people is worth considering in the context of climate change? I understand that their health stats are already pretty appalling, and it seems to me to be prudent for health service providers to be planning for the effects of AGW on their clients.

Is your problem the fact that they're apparently planning for a future under AGW, or is it because they are listening to their Indigenous clients at all? Since you don't say, it's impossible to tell. If you care to outline what specific aspects of the report so upset you, we might be able to overcome your violent reaction before you're tempted to act on it.

Have a lovely and peaceful day ;)

morganzola,
thank you for confirming my expectations of your replies.
You're way out of order with your standard opportunism kind suggesting that I am not concerned for the wellbeing of Indigenous/Australians. Were you to look at past posting & past your blind opportunism at white bashing you'd find otherwise. You're merely exposing you lack of integrity with such nonsensical rhetoric.
Have a look at the photos in that report, then go there & only then tell me what's right with that report i.e. not deceiving in favour of the hangers on academics who go on these jaunts for not helping the indigenous but only for their own interest.
Are you saying that living below high tide mark qualifies for spending even more taxpayer money ?
Btw. the sand bags on the grave weren't there before the Tv crews announced their planned visit.

@individual:

You should try and calm down and dispense with the angry bluster, if you want people to understand the nature of your complaint.  Other than it's something to do with the photos, it's still not clear.  Did you read the words too?

Are you suggesting that the TSI people deliberately built their villages and food gardens below high water mark?  Coincidentally, on ABC News 24 this morning there was a report about salt water inundation of traditionally fresh water springs on some of the islands that have been fresh for thousands of years.  This seems consistent with AGW predictions and is surely something of major concern to those communities and those responsible for providing infrastructure, health services etc.

Why does the report make you want to commit an act of violence against an "academic"?  Are you saying that the sea level isn't rising in the Torres Strait, that their freshwater supplies aren't being contaminated with seawater, and that the researcher and her informants, not to mention the dozens of references, are all telling lies?

Lastly, I'm not suggesting anything about your concerns about Indigenous health.  Rather, I'm trying to ascertain what it is about that particular report that makes you angry to the point of violence, and what any of it has to do with Heather Bruer's article.  Do you want to bash her too?

Heather,

Here is a small exercise for you. With your higher education you should be able to complete it easily.

Part A.

'Meteorology is the science of the atmosphere: weather is the condition of the atmosphere at any moment, or it's trend over a comparatively short space of time: climate is the mean condition of the atmosphere over thirty years or so.'

(Meteorology for Seamen, Commander C.R. Burgess, OBE., R.N., F.R.Met.S., Navtical Press, Brown, Son and Ferguson Ltd. Glasgow.1982)

This is the Royal Navy's definition of climate. It is underpinned by a body of observation, experience and study from over nearly 600 years.

In 5000 words evaluate the definition and discuss it's supporting body of work.

Part B.

In 500 words define modern Climate Scientists meaning of Climate, detailing the sources underpinning the definition.

Now for my rant.

Some years ago you people started to scare the crap out of everyone with the horrific Global Warming, as the evidence backing that became suspect and people started to move away from that you lot started to move as well, onto Climate Change. Now that that is being seen as a stupid furphy designed to cover your original stupid warming claims you are moving onto what I believe was always the original motive.

Clean Energy Future. Or a clean up of the atmosphere simply for the sake of cleaning up the atmosphere. Which in itself is not a bad ideal or action to undertake. It is one I've always believed we should undertake. But since you have been so deceptive with your tactics in the past it is now more unlikely to be achieved than would have been the case had you lot been straight in the first place.

You've simply peed off too many people now.

Well done.

Those of us who are straight simply wouldn't want to be associated with the deceiptfulness and deceptiveness of your tactics.

Well done again.

Make sure you thank your teachers.

Climate change won't be solved till mandatory restrictions are placed on Women's need to breed and their increasingly enshrined EQUAL right to have as many children as it takes to raise themselves from the obscurity of the 'singles' pile to social power and 4WD prestige.

The very fact that women are mostly the ones carrying the "Stop Climate Change"
placards and writing form pieces is an outrage. They are the unequivocal drivers of climate change and environmental destruction because humans cause climate change and women are preoccupied with making more humans. This iniquity erodes JUSTICE in society.

The whole undebated question of who wants to have the children and who must pay most for them is evidence of a gross injustice perpetrated by economicic GROWTHIST world Governments. This nonsense was started by Bill Clinton as a means to stop Federal expenditure on unmarried mothers by forcing males, whether they were the parent or not to pay for unwed mothers. All world governments have embraced it since setting up unprecedented Gender War that creates spending, ECONOMIC GROWTH .. and INJUSTICE.

This INJUSTICE will lead to WAR as history shows time and again. Only then will climate change be solved because there will be fewer (around 4 billion fewer based on modern warfare techniques) humans left to pollute and deforest and kill nature in the name of HUMANITY, civilisation and WOMEN's RIGHTS.

morganzola,

stop at once with this violence nonsence.
TSI people building deliberately below high tide level ? Absolutely not ? No-one's building there. It's generally the PNG $5/hr labourers to the islanders who are designated to the low lands.
In the 40's the islands were inundated & both the Govt AND the islanders could forsee the problem & moved to the mainland. Foresight 70 years ago, today we don't have that despite the benefit of hindsight. They (Bureucrats) keep providing millions of Dollars worth of infrastructure because quote "rising sea levels aren't going to happen before we retire" un-quote.
Btw who the hell is Heather Bruer ?

@ individual:

It was you who wants to give an academic a good "clip behind the ear", as I recall. Last time I heard striking someone on the head constitutes violent assault. Maybe it was just a turn of phrase, but it's very hard to tell from what you write - like, it only now becomes clear that your beef is one small section of a brief summary report. Like I said, did you read the words? What are you sources - presumably you talked to different Islanders than they did, since you don't refer to any records?

Sounds like a bunch of hearsay to me, combined with a big dose of very "negative attitude". I think I'll believe the report over your anecdotes unless you can provide some actual documentary and/or scientific references, thanks anyway.

Lastly, Helen Bruer is the author of the article that this discussion is supposed to be about. Looks like that's another report you haven't read either. Are you here for a discussion based on issues raised in Bruer's article, or are you just using it as a platform for your own ill-informed rant?

Correction: I meant Heather Bruer, of course.

Unless someone can convince me that Heather speaks of reducing the world's population in this piece, I'm afraid I've lost my appetite for more environmentalistic philosophizing. I don't see a word about it in this review.

Just to address over-population’s worst effect, global warming:

To reverse it, we have to emit less in greenhouse gases than we did in 1999, Al Gore's baseline year.

There are two ways to do it: 1) Reduce per capita emissions (all the energy-saving ideas we read about every day); and/or 2 ) Reduce population (which we virtually never read about).

Here's the danger of putting all eggs in Basket No. 1: If the US met our goal of cutting CO2 emissions in half by 2050; if only half of the Chinese and Indians -- who were emitting essentially nothing in 1999 -- became "industrialized," and matched our per capita emission level; if world population reached the UN's projection of 10.1 billion by 2100 -- the world's yearly total of CO2 emissions would be twice what it was in 1999! (I won't belabor the arithmetic here; suffice to say that anyone can do the calculations by looking up commonly available data. What's important is to think about it!)

Yes, some dream of cutting emissions to zero. Don’t count on it. We ignore the PRIMAL factor -- population -- at our peril.

Julie P
The pro-AGW IPCC has been searching for the scientific evidence linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions with dangerous global warming for over 20 years, but has failed to find it. As the best it can do is assert, there is little point asking you to document that evidence.