Dear Anna! your youth can be your only defence. Without any blush of embarrassment you said "Despite the “sky is falling in” claims of the polluter lobby," Wow you then followed it with all the rubbish given out by your global warming rentacrowd.
Anna the world started long before you were born and will exist long after you are gone. Check what has happened to the world climate first. 15,000 years ago most of Northern Europe was under 5 kilometres of ice (I kid you not, it was called The Ice Age)then it warmed up a bit then it cooled down a bit now it is warming up again. Look if the sea levels are going to rise why have'nt they risen? All the Artic ice is about gone apparently but no demonsterable rise in sea levels lately.
I keep asking what happened to the hole in the ozone layer problem. No reply, why not, because it is just another scam on how we are all going to die. I have listened to all this before when nuclear weapons were going to be our end in the 1950's. Anna - don't worry, be happy!

JBowyer, with all due respect. The hole in the ozone isn't the issue it could have been because of firm action. In fact there is a trained chemist who went into politics; she saw the data and knew action was needed. Margaret Thatcher take a bow!

Think of it this way.
Threat = rain
Solution = buy umbrella from supermarket for $10
Action = Use umbrella
Result = Dryness
Conclusion = Umbrella successful. Threat averted
Your conclusion = You stayed dry, therefore the umbrella wasn’t required, therefore the supermarket scammed me out of $10.

It's called The Umbrella argument. I'm sure you're better than that.

Garnaut addresses supply side, but what of demand side?

I find some problems in Garnaut’s report, at or news reporting of it, and comments by some experts:

1. That Australia’s response to climate change and reduction in green house gases will make a difference. In the bigger scheme of things it will not, because while we are a big contributor on a per capita basis, we have a small population. China and India have just rejected world targets, so our contribution will be small indeed.

2. Similarly, that Australia’s reducing “green house” gas emissions will help reduce the effects of climate change on Australia, itself. Australia does not live in isolation from the rest of the world’s climate.

3. The focus seems to be on producing cleaner energy (supply), with little attention to reducing energy consumption and/or using energy more efficiently (demand). With growing populations, both the demand and supply side need due attention.

The distinct risk is that, if the media and experts keep telling such stories, people will eventually become disillusioned, because no matter what we do in Australia, climate change effects will continue on.

Hence, it seems to me that we need to have both a global and local view.

As global citizens, Australia should be taking action on climate change, reducing green-house gas emissions and seek cleaner ways of producing energy, even if it has only a minor impact on things, if at all. Personally, I think that governments should already be preparing for the inevitable effects of climate change.

However, on a local basis, it seems to me more realistic to also look at ways of reducing energy consumption and/or using energy more efficiently (demand). I am thinking of a host of things like double-glazing, solar hot water systems, efficient light bulbs, low energy night lights, swimming pool covers, etc., which ordinary people can do.

People have already demonstrated a willingness to respond in the case of restrictions on water usage and encouragement to install rain-water tanks. And therefore, it makes sense to encourage people to respond in other areas as well.

JBoyer your reference to nuclear weapons going to be our end in the 1950's is a pertinent point. You could call it an NTS or a nuclear trading scheme where both sides invested billions in a scheme of mutually assured destruction that thankfully worked. But only just.

A lot of emotion here, but not much common sense.

“no compensation to industry, but assistance to low-income households to reduce energy” stands out as the most naïve on her checklist.

What better way to drive industry off shore or increase the costs of manufacturers who couldn’t go off shore? Either result would impact most severely on the “low-income households” - the only group this author would protect.

“We all know that the government’s promise to reduce Australia’s greenhouse pollution was one of the main reasons for its victory in the election” claims the author.

Was it? I don’t thing that is true but, even if voters did want more action on climate change because they were led to believe it was all down to human behaviour, they certainly were not expecting the boots and all headlong rush to chaos triggered by Professor Garnaut.

And what about these “… hundreds of thousands of new jobs in green industries”?

This one has been touted about for long enough now to have someone tells us what these jobs are; but, no. The claim that the premature actions demanded by zealots that the most vulnerable Australians will slip into new, you-beaut ‘green’ jobs is just another example of the climate change con job.

Having totally ignored the views of scientists who do not place as much, if any, importance on carbon emissions and their role in climate change, the incompetent politicians have now handed the future of Australia over to an economist!

Pig-headed as usual, they will blunder on, believing that little old Australia, with a mere 1.4% of global CO2 is some sort of world leader, while the big emitters will continue on their merry way, only too glad to take over what is left of Australia’s industry and prosperity.

Be afraid, Australians. Be very, very afraid.

The umbrella effect, T.Sett?

More like the Turramurra elephant effect.

Walking the leafy northern suburbs, I noticed a smartly-dressed gent just ahead of me. Every few steps he would tear a sheet of paper from a notebook, and throw it onto the footpath.

"Oi!" I said, "stop littering!"

"I'm not littering" he protested, "I'm keeping the elephants away"

"But there aren't any elephants in Turramurra" said I.

He smiled. "Effective, isn't it?"

You're on the right track with your nuclear analogy, thylacine, but I'm not sure it helps your cause a great deal.

>>...a nuclear trading scheme where both sides invested billions in a scheme of mutually assured destruction that thankfully worked<<

The proposals on the table appear to me to be closer to Unilateral Disarmament than to Mutually Assured Destruction. MAD only worked because both sides had the ability to wipe out the other. UD would have been a bold and noble gesture, but completely negate the balancing effect.

Much akin to our present course on GW, which can be summarised as: "We'll set an honourable example, lower our standard of living, castrate our industry and our economy, and watch the rest of the world grow rich at our expense."

A more intelligent course of action would be to use the wealth we are creating to find permanent, workable solutions, rather than impoverish ourselves to no concrete purpose.

It must be a hangover of the "it is only doing good if it hurts, and if it hurts real bad, it must be doing lots of good" approach to life that my grandmother's generation believed in so strongly.

Something to do with the inner comfort that comes from martyrdom, I suspect

Pericles. I'm not sure who represents whom in your analogy. Does the paper represent the CFCs? Regardless, it must have been damned annoying walking behind that ignorant old fart cleaning up the mess left behind.

Now if we can just get a brownshirt reference we'll be done and dusted

Damnit pericles. Stop writing stuff I agree with!

On July 1st 2008 India released it's Climate Change Plan.

The five key points to emerge from this plan document are -

No firm link between the documented changes and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established;
Need for energy to meet the developmental aspirations of the people;
Promote energy efficiency and development of alternative sources of energy
Every citizen of the planet should have an equal share of the planetary atmospheric space;
Rejection of any national emission target.

The IPCC predicted a possible 50cm sea level rise by 2100 in an extreme. The Australian Meteorology Bureau recently published a paper stating that their research found NO evidence of increased storms and severe weather events. They were telling us 20 years ago the great barrier reef was doomed, it's still there albeit suffering from runoff from cane fields.

Where did Garnaut get all his evidence that such a young mind could believe enough to write an article such as this?

I'm totally baffled.

Yes Pericles, there's a man in my neighborhood who should be thanked by us all for keeping the martians at bay all these years with his daily rituals.

"Up to 9500 heat related deaths in Queensland" in 2100. It's quite a bold prediction.

I wonder if anyone successfully predicted in 1914 that there would be up to 77 AIDS-related deaths in Australia in 2006, 72 heart transplants, 1598 road deaths, and 30 billion pages on the world wide web. Given the events of the 20th century, I'm guessing the world in 2100 won't be like anything we can even imagine. It's doubtful we even know what predictions we should be predicting.

Anna well done. I do not agree with you but I like your youthful idealogy and respect you for your courage in the forthright expression of your views.

I am sincere and do not wish to appear to be condescending.

I am surprised you didn't mention AGW at all. I hope this adoption of the term 'Climate Change' by you and indeed by many others who share your views is not an indication that you are covering your bases.

I think we all accept, or at least cannot disprove, recent research which indicates temperatures are not increasing but are either falling or have stabilised, despite increasing carbon emissions.

What I would disapprove of, seriously, is if the climate change lobby at some point replace claims man-made carbon emissions cause Global Warming with claims those pesky emissions also cause Global Cooling.

sorry, anna, but you're clueless.

1. no one 'must' do anything. the government will do what it perceives is in it's best interest. you will not be consulted.

2. renewables can support human society, but the changeover is expensive and unsettling. it won't happen in a country like australia which is making a good living from mining fossil energy.

3. the garnaut report is surprisingly effective in outlining the situation, it's too bad that the power to actually do anything in a concerted way is in the hands of a few hundred people whose careers depend on not upsetting people.

4. but don't worry: maybe the situation is not as bad as feared. or, maybe it's worse, and everyone dies. or, it is bad but survivable and you can say "i told you so."

5. people in california, when confronted with a situation politicians dare not deal with, act themselves with a 'citizen initiative.' they can do this because they are citizens. you and i can not, because we are merely subjects. i often wonder why ozzies endure this political subjection, but have been forced to conclude that being raised in subjection creates a slave-like submissiveness that is more effective than a steel collar and weekly whipping. invisible chains bind you, if your mother told you the story of the 'emperor's new clothes', you missed the point.

Janama

The Indians have released their climate change strategy as you have described, but you have left out one important nuance.

Mr Pachuri the Chairman of the IPCC has come out and said he agrees with it.

How is that for double standards and hypocrisy.

Prof. Garnaut has described climate change as a diabolical problem. In fact, it is also a pernicious problem.

We have now reached the stage where, every morning, respected Senators and senior members of Government preach gloom and doom and impending disaster and catastrophe UNLESS we do their bidding, starting off with a carbon trading scheme and any other medicine that they prescribe.

What makes it pernicious is that there is never any mention as to when we can expect any dividends! Suppose Australia were to reduce CO2 emissions to zero(!!) and the same for China, India, the United States, Russia etc. will any one of the doom sayers please let us know WHEN will any improvement in climate be expected? Will they tell let us know WHICH catastrophes will be averted?

The doom sayers want a “tails you lose, heads I win” type of bet. They say that ‘doing nothing’ is irresponsible but do not attach any promises to the expected outcome of ‘doing something’. This stance can only be maintained for a few years at best.

Climate change will continue irrespective of what we do or do not do and over time people will adapt to changed conditions. On the way there will be some losers and some winners. Once again, the survival of the fittest will apply.

Ross

There are many on this forum who don't understand the science yet are quite prepared to say the scientists are wrong. While it would be prudent to apply risk management principles to tackle the global problem of AGW, many looking (or engaging) on OLO do not.

You know that government and opposition leaders the world over are trying to tackle this 'climate change' problem - but they are failing to disseminate the urgency to those that they lead.

The science tells us we have a problem and it requires true leadership to overcome the politico-socio and econometric brickwalls that are so much evidenced on such an obscure on-line forum such as this.

How do you think this best can be done when people are inwardly afraid or just want to deny/delay or stick their head in the mud?

Ross Garnaut,

Why have you seemingly allowed your authority to be misused by those who want to hand across to private corporations publicly owned assets such as the Snowy Hydro, as has been reported in the Canberra Times article "Snowy power may go private" of 10 July 08 at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/snowy-power-may-go-private/808115.aspx?

"The possibility of privatising the Snowy scheme and Tasmania's hydroelectricity assets was flagged last week in the draft Garnaut review of climate change.

"The 500-plus-page report stated that ownership of the Snowy scheme by three governments NSW, Victoria and the Commonwealth could restrict future development and competitiveness in the national electricity market."

Surely you are not unaware that Australian publicly are heartily sick of having assets they have paid for many times over handed across to private corporations so that they can profit at their expense? That is why every privatisation that has ever been put to to the electorate in recent years has been overwhelmingly rejected both in opinion polls and at the ballot box.

As local residents have shown, this shows no regard for the role that the Snowy Hydro has in the supply of water for the environment, irrigation and community, so it would appear that your recommendation in this regard was half-baked and most likely driven by an ideological prejudice towards private ownership and market forces.

Whilst many share your stated concern of the threat of global warming, this should be cause to question your free-market prescription to solve global warming.

For more information see "Garnaut to provide cover for privatisation of Snowy Hydro?" http://candobetter.org/node/650

Comments are welcome, both here and there.

quote:There are many on this forum who don't understand the science yet are quite prepared to say the scientists are wrong. endquote:

No - there are many on this forum who read other scientists that say your scientists are wrong.

You've cried wolf for 20 years yet the wolf hasn't appeared. We are still diving the barrier reef 20 years later. They survey two polar bear habitats over 4 years and tell us they will all be gone by 2050 based on computer model projections - the same survey added a footnote that the bears might make it to 2075 if we stopped shooting them!!

We have every reason to be cynical.

What really annoys me is that the work of evangelical rapturist Dr. James E Hansen has dominated this debate, "tipping point" is his concoction, catastrophic change are his cries yet the dissenting views of US Aqua Team Leader Dr Roy E Spencer are either ignored or dismissed.

BTW, if Tim Flannery mentions 20ft sea level rise again, as he did on the ABC Science show recently, I'll damn well sue him. It's not only wrong, it's irresponsible.

yes - I'm cynical Professor, totally cynical and your outrageous statements don't help.

For "such an obscure on-line forum", Q&A, you seem to spend a lot of time slumming it down here. 324 comments and counting. It must be very hard belonging to a group you devote so much of your time to patronizing, in both senses.

Janama,

Perhaps you just contemplate how precarious the basis of any form of life form is, let alone advanced complex intelligent life like our own. It is only possible if there are stable and favourable conditions lasting at least hundreds of millions of years in the midst of a vast void totally inhospitable to life. Even on earth the actual region in which life can thrive is tiny, comprising only a thin skin on its surface.

To tamper with the planet in the way we have by, for example, digging up, so far close to a half of all the carbon that was sequestered by biological and geological processes spanning many tens of millions of years, is unbelievable folly.

Whilst it may be impossible to know beforehand precisely how these changes will impact upon our life support system, no-one can possibly pretend to know that it will not be extremely detrimental.

---

Amongst the most foolhardy out of all the astonishingly shortsighted governments around the world would have to be the Queensland Government of which Judy Spence, who is participating in this forum, is Police Minister.

When our polar ice caps are melting and our athletes are suffocating in Beijing from the pollution that our coal is feeding into, without knowing how to stop the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, as Judy Spence has acknowledged here, the Queensland Government is planning to triple our coal exports coal by 2030.

Judy Spence, I hope you are thinking very carefully now about what you are going to say to your children and grandchildren when they reap the terrible whirlwind that your government is now helping to sow. If you have any concern for their welfare, you will raise your voice loudly within your government against the environmental vandalism it is now committing in return for its thirty pieces of silver.

If they don't listen then I urge you to speak out in public. If you were to do this, your name would be celebrated and revered not just in Australia, but around the whole world and for many generations to come.

quote: Whilst it may be impossible to know beforehand precisely how these changes will impact upon our life support system, no-one can possibly pretend to know that it will not be extremely detrimental.
endquote:

daggett, why should it be detrimental? - we are also animals on this planet under the auspices of Mother Nature, what we do - she does - one could say. Or do you believe we are separate from nature?

Please show us how our actions are impacting upon the stability of this planet. The planets plant output has risen due to the increased temperatures and CO2, great for wheat crops. The biological output has also increased, more food for every living thing. The antarctic is NOT melting, it's at a record size at the moment and has actually been cooling over past years. Life's opportunities have never been better - That's the SCIENCE!!

Oh - the drought I hear you say. The greatest drought Australia has ever recorded occured from 1895 - 1903, 8 years straight and well before CO2 output came into the equation.

I'm sure Judy Spence can answer your other emotional outburst for herself.

Janama, I think you raise an important point. The question of whether man is part of, or outside nature, is more than an idle philosophical question in the context of this debate, yet it is hardly raised. The position one takes, and the assumptions adopted therein, will have a significant affect on the way one views and acts on situations - what we should control or shouldn't, what we can control and what we can't. What bugs me is an inconsistent flipping between the two by many. If the philosophical grounding isn't there you can basically argue anything you like and always 'seem' right. I probably haven't explained this very well.

LATO, liked your point about Dr Pauchari's recent comments. After seven years drafting the latest report with all that stuff about certainty, comprehensive peer reviews and so on, he basically undermines it in a press comment. Was he claiming the Fifth Assessment? The whole process seems to have become quite farcical.

Ross Garnaut rightly points out that global warming is very real. Senator Brown has been
telling us that climate related catastrophes are almost imminent!

And yet our policymakers are pinning their hope for Australia’s future on the introduction of a carbon emission trading scheme, hoping that this ( even if countries like the US, China and India do not participate ) will be able to turn global climate around in a matter of a few years!

This is like hoping to get the Titanic to avoid the iceberg ( if there one! ) just by blowing in the wind!

Our policies should not assume that climate change is going to stop. Rather we should identify as specifically as possible what would be the main events that would likely hit Australia as the impact of climate change worsens and then allocate resources in order to best mitigate the impact of such eventualities should they arise.

For example, long periods of drought plus significantly higher temperatures to me seem to indicate an increased likelihood of major bush fires also threatening our major cities, possibly happening simultaneously during the same season. And yet, our main bush fire fighting forces are just volunteer based, are seriously under funded and generally under equipped to meet major situations. Our aerial fire fighting equipment is hardly worth writing about. At the same time, tens of billions of dollars are spent every year on ‘defence’ and on hugely expensive military equipment which may never be used.