In another piece today Julian Cribb asks why the public are cynical towards academics – well here’s a great example. It’s yet another “environmental” article which article fails to recognise basic economic reality, and never questions the morality of an elite dictating how the rest of us must live.

It may come as a surprise to Sharon Beder, but insofar as governments desist from interfering in their businesses, car manufacturers compete for customers in a market. They are not free to set any price and profit level they like, as implied by claims in the article. Instead, they react to the demands of customers – and if they don’t, they go out of business.

The reason certain vehicles sell better and are more profitable is not because of some evil plot to destroy the world through greenhouse gas emissions, but simply because those vehicles are what their customers want.

However, in common with all environmental fundamentalists, Sharon Beder looks at the world through Marxist glasses. She sees nothing wrong with determining what customers want through imposition, not choice, and thinks car manufacturers operate in the same unaccountable way.

All of that aside, this article also reinforces the silly idea that all changes in the environment are bad, and caused by the activities of mankind. How is it that an academic, supposedly well-educated, can hold such a narrow view? Our environment, which incidentally includes us, is subject to far greater forces than man could ever hope to master – forces which we don’t fully understand, and which will continue to change the climate in dramatic ways for millions of years whether we produce greenhouse gases or not.

About the only way we are going to stop a global catastrophy is to change the government of this country away from economic rationalist thinking. It a shame we can't ship people like Winston, and similar ones in government, off to another planet where they can fiddle with their bank statements while Rome burns.

There is no reason to believe that leaving businesses up to their own devices is going to solve these environmental problems. Indeed there are many counter-examples that show that it has not worked to date: salinity, the wretched state of our rivers, dessertification, species extinction, coral bleaching, and of course the devastation that will now ensure with increasing temperatures. Environmental mishaps are increasing in scope and severity.

I hear you Winston.

Reduced emmissions and restrictions as mentioned will mean delaying the race to find alternate sources.

And the race is on. In te years we will be driving using fuel cells, not too efficient mind you though so as to keep us at the servo, as long as there is a sufficient business model with revenue to be made, we will be looked after.

The fuel fad will undergo what the tech age did in the early 90's, and our environment we are not the master of.

A meterite could hit us at any time so know that we are not the almighty conquerers of the planet.

Sharon's on the money. As farm kids we learned to conserve resources carefully. No hardship involved at all really.
Why wouldn't you? Stewardship was a word used with pride.
Cycling or walking to work each day along a suburban thoroughfare, I see hundreds plant the foot at the green light and slam the brakes at the last possible moment before the red, just a few metres down the road.
What peculiar animals we are! This behaviour still amazes me after decades of observation. Reminds me of sheep.
(OK as individuals, but as a group .......)
I see dozens more examples of pointless profligate energy wastefulness each day in my limited urban life. Until there is a change of attitude amongst the masses, resources will be squandered with crazy disregard of future cost.
(24 houses in our street. 17 four-wheel drives, one tow bar.)
It's been fun to imagine my old farmer father as a (Winston-style) Marxist for I'm sure he'd agree with Sharon too.
He'd have used the word "conservative".

Big business is not alone in ‘denying’ global warming. There is so much conflicting argument and contradictory evidence, that the whole thing has become a yawn. Even if there is any truth in global warming, people are fed up with hearing about it.

The greenies have been crying wolf for too long, ensuring total apathy about the whole thing. The CSRIO is cutting back on alternative energy research and concentrating on ‘clean coal’ for industry. The CEO is reported as telling “The Australian” of 31/1/06 that we are heavily dependent on coal, and there would be no change in the foreseeable future.

As for cars, the major manufacturers are in big trouble already, and they are hardly likely to want to add anything to the price of a car. Mitsubishi is likely to be out of manufacturing in SA soon, and GMH is a lame duck.

We need to hear form people who can do something, not social ‘scientists’ who merely criticise and haven’t got the faintest idea of economics, business or what it takes to run a country

Sharon Beder is dead right about government being stupid if they really believe big business will just do the right thing.

But much more alarming are those environmentalists, such as Jonathon Porrit (UK) who was widely reported in Australian media last week. Capitalism is the only show in town, he said and if we can't work with them then the show is over.

If you can't beat them join them, is the usual refrain, but you would have to be at your wits end to believe the capitalist economy will solve the enormous problems it has created - of its own free will.

That's the day when pigs will really fly.

Leigh, you say that "The greenies have been crying wolf for too long, ensuring total apathy about the whole thing."
Another perspective is that the Greenies have been drawing attention to it for so long because it is so important and yet people continue to ignore the situation.

I agree that leaving it to big business to sort it without creating pricing incentives for example is unrealistic.
I imagine it is not naivety however, that leads the Government to this decision however, they may be foolish, but not stupid.

I'm astounded that people are still trying to deny that global warming is happening. The vast majority of climatologists say that it is real and it is caused by human activity, and they have been saying so for quite a few years. In fact, the rate of warming is larger than expected. See the recent Reuters article "Global warming demands urgent solutions: scientists" for example:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-01-30T224240Z_01_MOL760618_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-CLIMATE-SCIENTISTS.xml

gecko,
I think I can see where you are going wrong:

I'll bet you are still working with a couple of 20th century concepts

1. Logic

2. Common sense

Get with the times, Big Business is our friend, we can trust them to self regulate, Big Business.....say it enough and you may convice yourself, which is what some other posters would like...

Regards, Shaun

Sams said: "I'm astounded that people are still trying to deny that global warming is happening."

- Perhaps you need to read more widely: http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html

Winston-
Was that the most convincing response you could come up with?
The link you provided gave access to a site with only 2 statements on it – not convincing!
Particularly when the main statement is made by someone with training in engineering and physics – this hardly qualifies them as a climate change expert! The second statement is followed by a list of unknown signatories, with no qulifications provided.

So that you dont appear so silly in future when espousing views of supposed experts, you may want to look at some of the following sites published by independent scientists(who actually have their qualifications listed):
www.worldwatch.org
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Independent-scientist.php
www.ucsusa.org
www.environs.org.au

For anyone else who follows the link to http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html, it actually contains about 40-odd links to blogs; a further 70 or so to papers by experts and non-experts; 3 to Global Warming Summits; and about 35 to archived pre-2001 papers.

You just need to scroll down the page a little and run your mouse over the sub-headings.

If you carry Winston Smith's argument through to it's logical conclusion, that is what is manufactured and sold should be purely dependent on what consumers want, then we should have manufacturers producing any type of drug, pesticides, ddt, military weapons, flourocarbons, shonky medicines, abestos, even nuclear bombs, if that is what the customer wants. There has to be some sort of intervention, or social engineering as Winston calls it. Lets face it, what customers want to buy and use isn't always in the best interests of the rest of us.

Statements such as "there has to be some sort of intervention" can be very beguiling, particularly if they are preceded with a list of things some of us fear.

However there are several problems with that line of reasoning. One is that the myriad of regulations that each of us face in our daily lives has gone well beyond "some sort of intervention". It’s reached the point where we have lost our freedom. We no longer have the right to manage and control that which we own.

Another is that many of the items listed as examples are produced in any case – the restriction is placed upon who may consume them, not on their production. When it comes to weapons, that creates a serious imbalance of power, every bit as frightening as the concern raised.

Yet another is the question of who gets to decide what is, or is not, in the best interests of the rest of us. Many of us have direct experience of decisions made by the elite in authority over us that are most definitely not in our best interests.

The market-driven model does away with this, and distributes power among all consumers. It may not be a perfect solution, but I believe it is the lesser evil, because it respects freedom.

ABC Report on GAG of scientist

Four corners reported that scientists, especially associated from the CSIRO, were gagged on many issue relating to climate change.

Its report unearthed a past associate of the Liberal party, willing to explain that many representatives of Science through his knowledge of working with ministerial portfolios in Government, were in fear of losing their jobs and study grants if they whistleblew about the real issues of global and climatic change.

The whistleblower also explained the intricate relationship between government and industry group and their relationship with the creation of policy.

The Federal minister for the environment insisted that the Industry lobby did not write the policies but they did consult with them in relation to the writing of policies.

Tape transcripts provided by the Four corners program, highlights conversation of a "Mafia" type influence over government departments and the access of cabinets documents.

It was noted who made up this industry group which consists of the major corporate players who are the large volume emitors of green houses gases.

The conference that has just been held in Australia on the climate and global warming gave light to who was on the guest list.

Protestors were foiled in their attempts to disrupt the conference of corporate representatives.

Thank you to those scientists that have realised it is getting too late for us to make the change necessary.

The answers have already been presented on the fact that all it may take is the rise of 4 degrees suggested by the year 2050, to tip the earth into another iceage.

Known data on the last iceage that the earth experienced has noted that the seas were a lot lower that they are of today, so the impact to our environment and the species that rely on it, is unknown.

Winston Smith criticises those of us who do not believe the market is always right. It is curious that Smith falls back on the tired market rhetoric and then accuses Sharon Beder of fundamentalism.

The market is often wrong because of its in focuses on short term gain. The market is also wrong when it ascribes no value to environmental or social capital.

Jan 2006, Ford announced it will eliminate 30,000 jobs and close 14 plants in North America in a bid to staunch crippling losses in its home market. November 2005, GM announced its plan to cut 30,000 jobs and shut nine plants by the end of 2008 with the same aim.

In Australia sales of small cars are up 34,164 (18.9%), while large car sales are down 28,434 (-15.7%) from 2004.

Unfortunately, Australian producers are not yet providing low emissions alternatives and sales are falling as a result. On Jan 20, Mitsubishi announced it will cut 250 jobs. This the latest in a series of cuts that has reduced the workforce at Mitsubishi Australia from 4,500 to 2,000 people in 8 years. It also follows 1,400 jobs cuts from Holden’s Adelaide plant in August 2005.

There is a huge opportunity for Australia at this early stage of the newly evolving low emission car industry. We can become the market leader in a boom sector if we invest now in the research and development of this new technology.

The Australian car industry will have a future if it offers consumers what they need. Australians and people in markets around the world want comfortable transport that doesn’t cost us our earth.

There is a very good reason for the confusion held by some of you around the climate change debate. A lot of time and money has been spent in an effort to muddy the waters and distract people from the facts.

The fact that the world’s average temperature is warming is not in dispute. At least not by science. The evidence is clear that the globe has been steadily warming over recent decades. Presented with the evidence, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This included several thousand of the most relevant and competent experts in climate science. The IPCC report every five years on the progress of findings. Among the most significant findings to date is the consensus that most of the warming occurring is caused by human activity, such as emissions of Greenhouse gases. They also found that if we don’t stop this pollution the temperature will continue to rise.

In other words, there is strong evidence and no serious doubt that climate change is occurring and is mostly caused by our polluting Greenhouse gases. The only serious doubt in credible science is:
- the ultimate terminal level of temperature change and;
- lack of knowledge about all the complex ways this will disrupt systems of life on the planet.

We know why it happens, we know how it happens, we know it will get worse if we don't stop our GHG polluting.

The first wave of extinction have due to climate change were recorded in 1988, search for "Golden Toad".

For some insight into the power of fissile fuel industry in politics, go to one of the website of one of the non-Murdoch papers, such as New York Times, and type in a search for “Bush” together with “climate”. This gives a very interesting outline and pattern to the story of developments over the last six years.

If the free (to exploit) market had got it right we would be far furthr down the track of clean energy and clean transport. Instead the systems of the free (to plunder) market have led big business to spend many millions trying to delay important action to limit dangerous climate change (both in the US and Australia).

If the market ever values the activists who saved the Great Barrier Reef as much as the industrialists who were destroying it, then it will be closer to earning it's right to freedom.

The market may have some answers to some of our questions, but in it's current form, it is certainly not the answer to all our problems.

Unfortunately the free market rhetoric goes unquestioned in some circles. It is too often viewed with a lens that it too narrow to see the wider context in which it operates (social and ecological). Free market apologists readily point out its superiority to central planning but this is a distraction from the criticism made against it's system of rewarding plunder, exploitation, promoting individualism and externalising of costs. Critics of the current market, such as myself, want more regulated markets which promote genuine competition in safe areas and appropriate conservation in others. We also want market incentives for activity which protects and promotes environmental capital and socal capital. Disincentive for plunder, exploitation and pollution is also essential.

And remember in the current so called free market, the illusion of competition and illusion of choice is passed of as genuine competition and choice.

Some choices are best made as a community, not as divided individuals.