If Senator Milne was to resign from her taxpayer funded super (Gee where can I get this sort of a deal?)which is, like the good Senator, beyond all economic reason or even common sense. If she faced the increased taxation that the rest of us will, she might have a better understanding but I doubt it!
That's right Christine call it "climate change". Now that the Earth has stopped warming you cannot keep calling it "Global warming".
Truly, I am in favour of using less resources but it has to be cheaper. It is that simple. Work out a cost for house solar panel electricity and then put that up against the price. The contractor wants all the savings in his price. If we only paid the real cost,more people would do it. That would be too hard for you Senator as you want us just to pay and pay!

The temptation for me to indulge in an ad-hominem attack is strong in this case. But I won't.

Even if compensation were not paid to existing coal-fired generation investors, there would be exactly no reduction in that generation. This is because the operating costs, even with the carbon tax, are lower than the operating costs for the next higher generation plants, which are gas-fired. The capital costs are much higher, but that money has been spent, and cannot be recovered.

So giving compensation is not causing coal-fired plant to remain in operation longer than it otherwise would. The only effect of compensation is to ensure that people who made investment decisions in good faith years or decades ago don't suffer because the rules are changed after the game has started.

Without compensation, some of the existing owners might be forced into liquidation. The plant it self would be sold to new owners, and would continue operation, but investors (including superannuation funds) would lose money.

The downstream effect would be on decisions to invest in other types of generation plant (in particular, gas). If the government changes the rules today in a way that adversely effects coal-fired generation investors, then it could do so tomorrow affecting gas-fired investors. As a result, that investment would be deterred. At the very least, new investment would incur an risk premium, paid by customers. At worst, the investment wouldn't occur, and we would get power blackouts.

Since the compensation is only to be paid for existing plant, the carbon tax will still shift the balance for new plant towards less polluting systems. Over the course of time, existing coal-fired plant will be retired as it reaches the end of its useful life. Its replacement will not be coal-fired. In the mean time, plant built to meet our ever increasing demand will also not be coal-fired. If CO2 emissions really are a problem, then the carbon tax will in due course result in a reduction compared with what would otherwise have been.

Sylvia,

I don't get it. If compensation to the coal fired generators doesn't change the comparative economics against lower carbon options (as you claim), why is it necessary to pay it to protect sunk investments?

But the idea is to pass on the extra costs of the permits in the price so that the consumer can make the choice without hidden subsidies for pollution. Making the subsidies explicit just shows how broken the so called "business as usual" arguments are.

The Greens are an irritating menace to society. They have never been in government, and they never will be. This particular example of the grim-faced Greens denies that the globe has not warmed since 1998.

Her talk of zero emissions is a complete fairy tale. Like all politicians in opposition parties, she rambles on, knowing full well that she will never have to come up with the goods.

The Greens have no idea of what is possible and what is not. They believe that we can have a land of milk and honey without all of the ‘nasty’ things that provide the profits enabling the life style that they enjoy as much as the rest of us do.

The influence these fruit loops could have in the Senate on the slightly less loopy ALP Government is a worry.

Christine,
Every democracy needs people like you.
However you do go overboard on this subject.
To advocate that we go ahead with high level CO2 reduction regardless
of whether China & India also make similar reductions or not seems
very much like an exercise in making you feel good.
The effect on the rest of us will be dramatic economically.

I have detected a change taking place in scientific opinion and I find
it hard to believe that with your resources you have not also noticed it.
If I was to be uncharitable I could suggest that a change is the cause
of your urgency.

It is time for a scientific reevaluation.

Sylvie Elise at the moment all coal fired power stations in NSW are owned by the people of NSW - not superannuation funds. The coal fired plant at Yallourn in Vic was owned by Texas Utilities but is now owned by a Chinese or Singapore consortium, again no superannuation funds involved. Yes we have to include coal fired electricity generation and petrol in the carbon trading scheme. Its totally stupid to try to ameliorate the rising cost of fuel for motorists, truck drivers yes, but the average Aussie battler is no longer going to be able to play "mum's taxi" and will have to commute by public transport. This will mean that the Victorian practice of hiring nurses and teachers on a "just in time" basis about 30 minutes before the shift starts will become a practice of the past as it takes 3 or 4 times as long to travel by public transport as it does by car.

The money raised should be spent on

1. improving rail access to the outer suburbs and the enlarged coastal communities up and down our eastern seaboard rather than tarting up the Pacific Highway. Ooops I forgot the road construction companies pay a lot more money to lobby Canberra than the state rail authorities.

2. subsidies to install solar electricity plants and insulation in our dwellings.

I noticed that in Victoria a house gets a 5 star energy rating when there is a solar panel on the roof and a 200 litre rainwater tank, there is still no requirement to align the building so it is solar passive and design the dwelling for cross ventilation for those hot summer nights.

I might be frightened that Penny Wong is ignorant of her portfolio but I am totally disgusted with Peter Garrett, former president of Australian Conservation Foundation.

Both Liberal and Labor politicians are unable to whistle up the autumn rains that have failed to fall in Victoria for the past decade which threatens desertification of large areas of the state which now receive a third of their climatic average rainfall

Mr. Right,

I agree with you completely as far as the Greens are concerned. Their modus operandi was invented by a Sudeten German called Konrad Henlein in 1938. He said: "We must make demands which cannot be satisfied". I have never found a statement which sums up the greens better than this.

As far as Rudd's carbon tax proposals, the electorate will be quite happy with them if they do not have any effect on the electorate's hip pocket. In addition, Rudd will be held firmly to his election promise to keep the price of petrol low, which means no higher than when he came to office. I have seen proposals to implement this which could mean that many electors could make a nice profit out of it as well.

All politicians need to remember one of the basic principles of Australian politics, that people are ready to die for their country, but not to pay for it.

'Rudd and Wong are so paralysed by fear that, for all their talk of transformation, they are clinging to the past. '

Rudd and Wong are beginning to realize (albeit slowly)what a hoax all this gw crap is. They know that when people start paying they will want to know what they are paying for. It is hilarious to see the back down of Wong and Rudd on this issue. If they had not been so naive as to get on board with the Greens in the first place they would not have egg all over their face. As more and more of the gw High Priests predictions are shown to be fraudulent more and more people are waking up to the stupidity of this pseudo science being presented by the likes of Gore, Flannery and Garnaut.

I actually find it quite amusing although many won't when they have to pay more and more taxes to the environmentalist to continue to push their faith and morally degenerate world view.

Thanks Christine. It takes courage to stand apart from the sometimes baying mob (see for example some of the vituperative posts here) and with vision try to implement your own version of the future.

As you can see, Christine, OLO has a number of posters who have all the vision of Mr Magoo (to steal a line from Paul Keating.) The battle to educate them is going to be difficult, especially when that involves challenging entrenched and very powerful capitalist interests.

The eleven lost years under Howard are apparently going to be replicated under Rudd. The Government's green paper is a pathetic joke. We voted for the fire of change and have got the damp squib of conservatism.

The ALP is not prepapred to challenge the rule of capital. A society based on democratically satisfying human need rather than the present mad drive for profit would invest in alternative green energy supplies on a massive scale. The profit system holds us back from doing that.

Now I know this is not the Greens' position, but at least there is one Parliamentary Party raising the issues about anthropogenic global warming in Australia. Thanks for that, Christine and other Greens.

I laughed this morning hearing of a poll which showed that 77% (or similar number) of people polled would be prepared to pay more to help solve GW.

I did not see the poll question but would bet that it did not have "would you be prepared to pay $X extra per week to help solve GW"

Given the howls of outrage over a small increase in petrol over the last few months, I find it hard to believe that three quarters of the population will wear paying money to solve a problem upon which we could throw away our entire nataional income without making any difference.

I predict the political party which goes to the next election with "We will not implement any penalties on the Australian economy without action from the rest of the world including developing nations" will win.

No matter how the chattering classes berate them for doing otherwise, the vast majority of voters will continue to steer clear of extreme responses, and instead go for at best small incremental changes.

Greens, the coal industry upon which this nations prosperity was and is built is here to stay, no government will kill the largest contributer to our national income.

mvs,

I'm not saying that the carbon tax doesn't change the economics overall, just that it doesn't change the economics OF OPERATION in a way that would reduce the amount of time that existing coal-fired generators are operated.

There are two distinct types of decision a power generation company has to make. First is the decision to build the generator, and then there are the individual decisions about whether to run the generator at any given time.

Clearly, no one decides to build a generator if they don't expect to operate it, and they won't build it unless the revenue produced in operation is anticipated to be sufficient to cover the cost of building, plus a bit extra as profit.

But once the generator has been built, that decision cannot be undone. The decisions on whether to run the generator or not depend only on whether the generator produces more income than it costs to run. Gas fired generators cannot push the price of electricity down below the break even point for coal-fired generators, because their own running costs are higher, even after the carbon tax has been included. Thus existing coal-fired generators will continue to be run to their maximum extent until they are worn out.... or until the carbon tax is raised high enough to give gas fired generators (with their lower CO2 emissions) the economic advantage.

Enviromentalists Metamorphisis:

Clobal Warming is caused by CO2 Emissions ....
Climate Change is caused by CO2 Emissions ...
Global Cooling is caused by CO2 Emissions ...

Next stage?

The likes of Milne are content to think the mob will swallow this crap indefinately.

Passy hey wake up ... global warming isn't in vogue with the lefties and greens any more ... they've woken up to the fact CO2 emissions are rising while global temperatures are falling.

And hey socialism and communism lost the cold war a couple of decades ago. Everybody recognises that... well nearly everybody.

What is it with all the right wing frootloops infesting this site. We have more ad-hominem than a star chamber, and any accompanying argument is trite or beside the point.

Christine is supporting the approach that Garnaut called for and being critical of Labor for wimping out. You can make the argument that caving in to rent-seekers now will just make the political problems worse later on, as well as making it slower to get started.

China and India are important, but we happy little 2% of global emissions vegemites generate heaps more pollution per head than they do. Is that something to be proud of? How could anyone reasonably expect them to cut back because we choose not to?

And in case Andrew Bolt is listening, the fact that 1998 was an abnormally hot year doesn't mean that the world is now cooling. Have a look at the temperature trend, the melting arctic _and_ antarctic ice, the disappearing glaciers, the droughts etc, and tell me if you're willing to bet your kids future on 1998 being the peak instead of a statistical blip on an increasing trend? See the graph soon at http://convenientsolutions.blogspot.com/

I wonder what some commenters think they are achieving by their nasty spoil sport approach to issues.
JBowyer seems more concerned with envy rather the issue at hand.
Mr. Right and Runner always seem only to attack the author. One wonders if this is because they have no real insightful alternative.
Mrs Milne is entitled to a civilized discussion of her issue, after all she is in parliament and the above aren’t. Discussion/debate might, where personal attack and intolerance won’t. So why bother? Zealotry of either side proves more about the participants than the issue.

Actually I don’t support the Green’s fixation on or as a single issue party. As I’ve said before The Greens are a poor second choice for ‘balance’ in the Senate, a limit on the excesses of the majors. But any balance is better than none.

The causes of “Climate Change” are complex and the relationships between various elements are not locked into absolute agreement or comprehension least of all by the [in]articulate unknowing (i.e. Journalists and the untrained).

Offerings based largely on political, self-interested or denial are doomed. The environment was but one of the issues that moved Labor to power.

Mrs Milne Why aren’t the Greens also concentrating on defensive strategies (harm mitigation) too?
Imagine a New Orleans here Brisbane or Sydney etc. The scale of which would be beyond a state resources. Too dramatic? Not really, if the ice in the Artic continues to melt as undisputed evidence shows and we match that to Paleo-Oceanographical history the Atlantic Current will stop causing world wide CC.
Either way would the resources be wasted in a country of extremes? Hardly.

In truth Mrs Milne, their absence leaves me with two possible conclusions.
• Either the greens aren’t up to the task. Are the politics too tough or is in-house ability inadequate?
• The Greens are just another wannabe political party.
The greens need to be credible beyond a movement of well meaning genies. Either way we need leadership not politics.

Why do we look at this article without consideration of the false premises on which the whole discussion is based?

The cynical exercise targets emissions of carbon dioxide, the proportion of which in our atmosphere is 388 parts per million.

Considering the observable benefits from CO2, the last thing we should do is reduce the proportion of this benevolent gas in our atmosphere.

The reason given for wishing to reduce it is that it causes global warming. As we have observed cooling during periods of increased human emissions, and there has been no warming for the last 10 years, despite the impassioned warnings of those of the warming faith, it is ridiculous to call for economic strictures on our community aimed at reducing this benign element in our atmosphere.

An examination of the spurious evidence put forward by the UN at the Bali fest shows that there is no justification whatsoever. Ban Ki Moon's impassioned performance was based on predictions made by the UN in its scurrilous Summary of 2003. The predictions had already been shown to be incorrect at the time of the talk fest, of the 12,500 ignorant freeloaders. No current science was permitted, and any genuine scientists were refused invitations.

The argument that despite the recent cooling we still have a warming trend, is another sideshow trick. A trend over a reasonable period, not commenced from a time when we are coming out of a mini ice age, shows a cooling trend, which is frightening.

If CO2 causes warming, which is doubtful, despite the many people who are prepared to believe it, we should encourage emissions.

If it does not cause warming, we should encourage any increase in CO2 in our atmosphere, for the many benefits it brings to our life.

It is interesting to not that the last 4 Newpoll voting intention polls put the Green consistently between 10% and 12% federally, and even 10% in the last QLD poll - that pretty amazing for QLD. Given that they usually pick up just before an election, I wouldn't count them out of some major gains at the next election.

Leo Lane wrote: "The cynical exercise targets emissions of carbon dioxide, the proportion of which in our atmosphere is 388 parts per million.

Absolute percentage is meaningless. Would you get off a drink driving charge because you only has a fraction of a percentage of alcohol in your blood? CO2 starts to become directly toxic to animal life at just 0.5% concentrations (5000ppm) - does that sound "benevolent" to you?

Leo Lane wrote: "If CO2 causes warming, which is doubtful" ...

Go and look at a peer-reviewed science journal such as "Climatic Change":

http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/

All of the climate scientists there think human are causing climate change due to CO2 emissions. Frankly, I'll take their word over yours any day.

keith wrote: "they've woken up to the fact CO2 emissions are rising while global temperatures are falling"

Not according to NASA:

"'Global warming stopped in 1998,' has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

@ Sams
I dunno but I think this whole MMGW crock is just that, a huge crockabaloney designed to swindle more money from the unsuspecting public.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

@Sams and everyone.

Please read the following article titled "Recent Cooling and the Serious Data Integrity Issue" and PLEASE!! address the science (It's all referenced) and refrain from attacking the author as you typically do.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Recent_Coolingand_the_Serious_Data_Integrity_issue.pdf

I take serious issue with the constant reference to anyone who is a GW sceptic being right wing! I have voted left all my life, I even voted green at the last election. I would love to see Australia invest in renewable energy etc but I will not be hoodwinked into approving such action by the deceit of the Church of Global Warming.

Jaanama wrote: "Please read the following article titled 'Recent Cooling and the Serious Data Integrity Issue' " ... "address the science".

Please spare us the ramblings of a ex weather reporter who publishes for the DCI Group (a Republican public affairs consulting and lobbying firm).

Address the science? By all means: show me his articles in peer-reviewed climate journals, or indeed the articles of any climate scientist in such a journal that supports him. If you keep avoiding answering this challenge, what should we conclude?

Either leave the scientific analysis to climate scientists, or become one yourself and publish in an appropriate journal. That is how you "address the science", not by throwing up a smoke screen of pretty graphics and bland assertions and expecting non-scientific people to believe its all nice and scientific. I think I'd rather believe the thousands of climate scientists behind the IPCC effort, and NASA, whose technological feats are probably a little more than that of Mr. Cable TV Weather.

RawMustard: "I dunno but I think this whole MMGW crock is just that, a huge crockabaloney designed to swindle more money from the unsuspecting public." + link to APS

Please, do your research properly: that opinion piece by Monckton (who is not a scientist but a journalist) lead to a statement on the APS home page:

"Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum. This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."

See http://www.aps.org/ under "The APS Position Remains Unchanged"

The American Physical Society fully supports human-caused climate change: "The evidence is incontrovertible"

See http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

You can find more about Monckton here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/2828

and here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/viscount-monckton-at-ease-lying-for-money

Ha ha good on you Sams - true to form.

OK here are 3 peer reviewed articles relating to temperature measurements that were ignored by the IPCC.

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/15/recent-ignored-scientific-findings-an-illustration-of-a-broken-scientific-method/

to quote the site: "These are just three examples of the level to which the scientific method has sunk to in climate science."

"In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14°C per decade; still a warming, but not as large as indicated "

Before you attack Dr Roger Pielke Sr. here is wiki's page on his credentials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke

Yes - it does suggest that he supports CO2 and global warming but the article they quote he contributed to in 2002, things have altered considerably since then.

for readers unfamiliar with Joseph D’Aleo of ICECAP here are his credentials.

Joseph D’Aleo is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin BS, MS and was in the doctoral program at NYU.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts

He is supported at ICECAP by the scientists listed on the same page.

Icecaps's funding comes from here:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us

Sams, you keep pointing me to springerlink.com knowing full well I am not about to outlay $32 for every article I wish to read.

Why has this thread been hijacked by the anti-greenhouse gas effect brigade?

Regardless of whether one believes CO2 emissions matter or not, it should still be possible to discuss whether the Government's approach will reduce said emissions. Discussion of whether there is an anthropogenic climate change in progress belong in a different thread.

Sylvia Else: << Why has this thread been hijacked by the anti-greenhouse gas effect brigade? >>

Short answer: because it's on OLO, which has latterly joined such cerebral blogs as those hosted by Tim Blair, Andrew Bolt, Jennifer Marohasy et al as the last bastions of climate change denialism.

Sylvia Else: << Why has this thread been hijacked by the anti-greenhouse gas effect brigade? >

Because the true believers are gullible! The other believers are naive or deceitful and more and more are waking up to the fraudulent science being used to scare people.

It seems to me that those who keep raising the information that
Australians are one of the world's worse CO2 polluters and the
developing countries per capita CO2 is so low that they should not
have the same rules as the developed countries have missed the point.

If AGW is true it doesn't really matter which country generates the CO2.
The co2 rules are being applied country by country. If those that
produce the most don't engage then what is the point of the rest of us
going broke trying to do the job for them ?

It can be argued that those with the largest populations should do the
most as it it those countries that are generating the most co2.
They should have thought of that when they let their populations get out of control.

Bazz,

It's about going after the easier targets as much as about any moral imperative. The rich nations have more advanced technology and more capital available to them to drive efficiency increases and new low carbon energy systems, so it seems reasonable that they should be expected to lead the world in those areas. Australia is one of those countries, and although the self-dubbed "realists" say we're just 2% of global emissions, then what about the good-ol USA?

Al Gore has recently been pointing out that reducing carbon fuel dependency in the US makes geopolitical sense as much as it may be necessary for the survival of our civilization.

Examinator: Carbon emissions were about Global Warming not climate change. Why your change of emphasis?

MVS: In relation to Gore here is some advice from Sams

'Either leave the scientific analysis to climate scientists, or become one yourself and publish in an appropriate journal. That is how you "address the science", not by throwing up a smoke screen of pretty graphics and bland assertions and expecting non-scientific people to believe its all nice and scientific.

I was going to respond with a lucid, intelligent post discussing the science, economics and ethics of climate change, but with closer examination I realise that a lot of the people posting to this forum are living in a fantasy land.

Honestly I did not think there were climate deniers who could write left in the world? Tobacco companies still find scientists who will refute the link between smoking and premature death. Do you really think the majority of the world's scientists have changed their minds? How plausible is it that the tiny minority still refuting human induced climate change are right?

I saw a climate scientist from the IPCC speak days ago about how terrifying the science is, how close we are to huge climatic catastrophe and how every time the figures are examined we are at the worst end of the projections. Healthy debate is good, but a handful of scientists are yet to convince me that thousands of others are wrong. Just tell me how losing the Arctic Ice sheet is explained without human induced climate change and I'll consider changing my mind.

And I am sorry but when did the desire for preservation of the environment become cause for vilification? How naive are you people? Buying into right wing spin doctoring that portrays environmentalists to be unreasonable, morally degenerate (that is particularly hilarious!) is quite sad, really wanting to preserve biodiversity and protect our earth is good economics.

Don't you get it? The cost of ignoring climate change is everything, our way of life, our beach side homes, our luxury, our rain, our climate, our biodiversity. It is up to the government to defend us, whether from external threats, other countries or our own lifestyles it does not matter. If it costs people money to reduce carbon, too bad, market forces got us into this mess, it will take legislation to get us out of it. The Government is elected to protect us, its time they showed some bravery and lived up their rhetoric, we need them to lead, not to bend.

Good to see you are here and resilient, Christine.

People of goodwill must make sure that Penny Wong's scheme gains a backbone, rather than flipflopping and pandering to the polluters on such a make or break issue.

Like "HELLO"! you can't lose weight unless you stop overeating!! I find all these 'softener' subsidies gross- there is a problem with our carbon gluttony. It's disgusting that those polluters get away with this.

Side note: It must be embarrassing for 'Online Opinion' that all those climate deniers vent here!

I have heard of at least one writer who doesn't publish here any longer due to frustrations at the gwd spammers.

Potentialism,

hope you include yourself as a disgusting polluter. That is if you use any electricity, you use any metal object, buy any product from any shop, do not walk everywhere (yes, using a metal bicycle also comes from those disgusting polluters).

Also it is hard to see how you reconcile your use of the internet (which is thought to require over 5% of the world's electricity) with not being a disgusting polluter.

Pollution is required for modern life.

There are easy solutions to the responses people are giving here:

1) If you believe that human-made climate change is a hoax and that the science is changing, let scientists create the emissions trading scheme, not politicians. Given that no peer-reviewed journal has published a climate skeptic article in the past ten years, this solution should produce responsible targets towards zero-emissions, rather than the weak targets proposed by the government and fossil fuels lobby. If you believe that the science is changing on climate change, then you should find this solution acceptable too.

2) If you believe we should find some compromise between the science and the economics, try calculating the cost of not doing enough about climate change. Try to find a universe where you can negotiate with the laws of physics and chemistry and win.

A little bit of logic works well here:
* We are already seeing the results of 1980 emissions today (multiplication of extreme weather events, submerged islands, rapid melting of the Arctic, desertification, food crisis etc.)
* Even with our current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we risk runaway climate change and a mass extinction event (a low risk according to the IPCC, but a risk nonetheless)
* The scientific community considers the targets pursued by the Australian government (450ppm and 550ppm) to have an extremely high risk of runaway climate change

Therefore: There is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere! It is not a question of how much we need to reduce CO2 emissions, but how to stop polluting and get CO2 and other GHG out of the atmosphere (I've heard old-growth forests work well).

If you are still unconvinced about climate change, consider what effect cutting out our emissions will do, given that production is infinitely increasing on a finite planet: less resource exploitation, cleaner airs and rivers, better health, more time, simpler and happier lives. God help us!

The ignorance on display in some of these postings is truly astonishing. Hey, who cares about the facts and the truth?

According to NASA, the global warming rate from the 1980s to 1990s was +0.141C per decade and increased to +0.223C per decade since this century. Further to this, the World Meteorological Organization recently announced that the 11 hottest years on record have all occurred in the last 13 years, based on the UK’s Hadley Centre data.

Meanwhile, temperatures on the Antarctic peninsula have risen by 3C over the past 50 years to an average of -14.7C and rain is now far more common than snow. Scientists believe the numbers of Adelie penguins may have fallen by as much as 80 per cent – and, if the rain continues the species will be extinct within ten years...glaciers are calving into the oceans at both poles 100 years ahead of the worst predictions, while greenhouse gas emissions soar.

Don't believe me that climate change is happening, I'm just a blogger. Check all the above facts for yourself.

We are in big, big trouble but we do have energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies available to dramatically cut the emissions responsible for global warming – and the countries producing them have booming economies - but a small section of the Australian community is hell bent on distracting the rest of us with nonsense arguments like some the ones in this forum - which are mostly just nasty. It seems to me this group is threatened - in fact I believe this site has been hijacked by a few lobbyists from the front groups and think tanks responsible for 'La Carbo Nostra' - yes, the Greenhouse Mafia is having its last gasp.

Finally, thank you Christine for being the hard working Senator and highly respected voice of reason that you are.

I am fully supportive of an active dialogue about the existence and means of dealing with global warming. However I think this discussion has been distracted excessively by the “existence” question, and not dealt enough with the “means” dimension.
Climate change science is not exact. As I understand the current probabilities, it is something like 1% (maybe 0.1%) likelihood that climate change is not happening or if it is it is not due to our greenhouse gas emissions. The other 99% (or 99.9%) probability is attributable to dangerous, human induced climate change.
I suggest the 1% (0.1%) lobby, if they wish to stay in the debate, need to come up with factual argument. To avoid a few percent impact on our economy, and risk major disruption to it, does not make sense at these probabilities.
There is a risk of about 80% probability of catastrophic climate change. That is, the science is telling us that there is something like an 80% chance that the current trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to truly catastrophic impacts on the world, including but not limited to the human population. The most obvious mechanism is a sea level rise of the order of 13 metres or more. Anyone who doubts this should have a look at the book Climate Code Red. Actually the 80% figure is something that I have added with little or no basis. The data in Climate Code Red would put it much higher than that.
This more catastrophic scenario was not taken on board by the Garnaut review. It just increases the importance of getting this debate to the right conclusion.

part 2
Turning to the “means” dimension, I think this dialogue has seen too little input on that.
An introduction in 2010 with free permits to the coal and gas fired electricity industry until 2013 is the equivalent of an introduction in 2013.
It seems that the current Rudd and Nelson strategies are essentially the same, just dressed in different clothes – “glass half full” vs “glass half empty” sort of difference.
Australia’s interaction with other countries is more interesting.
A point not often quoted is a statement recently made by a representative of the government of India, to the effect that they would constrain their per-capita CO2 emissions below the industrialised world. If China made the same commitment (and they probably have, or will) we have a basis for a global solution, in line with the positions being advocated by many experts.
To finish, I have a few comments on the shape of our future carbon-constrained world.
A carbon constrained world does NOT equate to a low technology world, back to the horse and buggy era.
The price of energy in the form of electricity will not rise to astronomical levels. There is plenty of renewable energy that can be tapped at a cost marginally above current coal powered price levels. We certainly do have a transition process to go through, but the end point is little different from where we are now. The sooner we start, the more gradual we can make the change and the lower the disruption will be.
The price of oil will inevitably keep on rising, and will eventually make burning it as a fuel not viable. There are plenty of alternatives for ground transportation (eg buses, rail, battery electric and compressed air private vehicles) – these all involve investment and will involve more behaviour change.
Air transport is more difficult, and we can expect to see a major reduction in air travel for non-essential purposes.
Cement and metals production are also more problematic. Expert opinions about how to de-carbonise these industries needs to be made public

How many climate denialists does it take to change a light globe :) hehehe

What a bunch of tools.

History records these blogs of course, and it is with wry amusement that I think of the future inhabitants of this planet looking back at the early 21st century.

Either we don't stop runaway climate change, in which case who knows how long the records may last and by whom they may be retrieved. But imagine their horror upon realising that attempts to stop runaway climate change were actually very vocally argued against by a small section of the species. Some of whom were fossil fuel company spin doctors, and some of whom were just smarmy bloody idiots.

The other option- and I am confident this will be the case- is that following a tense few decades rolling out and deepening the sustainability revolution we will be able to sit back at the edges of the massive new forests, and, with farms of giant wind turbines on the horizon, sit on the decks of our LED lit zero emission homes reading from the hilarious seam of blog sediment aged around 2005-2008. We can enjoy our organic locally grown food and wine and have a chuckle at some of the steaming pearls of wisdom that the flat earth society produced in 2008.

->MCDF

P.S. Maybe China should just split itself up into 60 or 70 nations which each have a population the size of Australia's- 20 million or so. Each of these nations would have about half the carbon footprint of Australia and presumably none of them would therefore be responsible for doing anything about climate change.

Perhaps the whack redneck climate skeptic bloggers are right and we should wait for the Chinese climate activists to take on the Hu-reaucracy and 'eco-pimp' the world's manufacturing hub before we try and do anything here. Climate change isn't real, but even if it was it should be China that takes real action first. Aint that right, contrarian blog hacks?

well - why don't all you "holier than thous" read this report presented to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
yesterday. If you can't follow the science just read the opening and the summary at the end.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3

as Spike Milligan would say - it speaks for itself, listen!

MVS; It has been suggested that the Chinese, Indians & Africans not
be restricted in CO2 emissions until they reach whatever level we
achieve. This would be above the GW risk level would it not ?

I do not know what the truth is in all this, I am just confused by the
absolutism of the pro AGW proponents.

The one thing that Q&A tried to assist me with is the logarithmetic
nature of the effect of CO2. The one graph I have seen shows that
the curve rolled over at a considerably lower than current CO2 level.
It is almost horizontal now so that doubling the CO2 level will have
negligible effect on temperature.
This is so fundermental that it is surprising that it is not at the
centre of the discussion.

Janama: "Sams, you keep pointing me to springerlink.com knowing full well I am not about to outlay $32 for every article I wish to read."

Referring to:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/ ("Climatic Change")

It should be sufficient for our purposes to read the abstracts, which are free.

You see, there is no dissent amongst the real practising climate scientists taken from a large sample in a peer-reviewed climate science journal --- according to them, human-caused climate change is accepted and they've moved on to analyse the impacts and means of dealing with it.

There are possibly a handful climate scientists in the world who dissent, but the ones that have been mentioned so far on OLO are either:

1. Linked to funding from big fossil fuel companies - this is by far the commonest scenario; or

2. have had errors discovered in their analysis by more than one independent study, yet refuse to budge on their conclusions based on their flawed analysis.

Links to political posts on EPW public blogs, blogs pretending to be science journals, ex TV weather reporters, retired 86 year old coal chemists, etc. etc. are a poor substitutes for the research of active climate scientists.

I'm afraid, if you accept the jury to be the set of all active qualified climate scientists, then the jury is clearly decided and humans are guilty of causing the current regime of climate change.

oh really Sams - well this qualified practicing climate scientist disagrees with you.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3

positive feedback means runaway warming as predicted by Hansen and Gore - negative feedback means the earth compensates through it's own systems and maintains a regular life supporting system.

Dr Roy Spencer's recent research, which has been peer reviewed and is about to be published, presents evidence that the earth operates with a negative feedback system.

Now that's good news isn't it? - well for me it is, maybe not for you.

Janama: "oh really Sams - well this qualified practicing climate scientist disagrees with you"

Yes, really. And you prove my point in fact.

You keep pasting up the same old names and I'll keep knocking them down. Roy Spencer is one of those handful of dissenters I mentioned. He is:

1. part of an organisation that claims it is "bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

2. linked to organisations that have received millions of dollars of private funding by ExxonMobil, and also organisations that " make the claim that 'anti-smoking advocates' are exaggerating the health threats of smoking"

3. His research about cooling in certain parts of the atmosphere was shown to be wrong by independent science teams. He now admits it was wrong but seemingly is too proud to retract the theories that he based on it.

Yoo-hoo KEITH. Sorry I took so long to reply.
You asked “why the change of emphasis?”

This is a distinction I have consistently made because my reading of knowledgeable and/or scientific literature. The climate Scientists I have talked with tell me that is and always has been THE Issue.

Like the hole in the ozone layer it was a fact not the end conclusion. ‘Global warming’ was intended as a possibility; it is the media who set it in public impression as the ultimate event context, the catchy brand name if you like. Some have used this brand to make the point for change.
Hence my point of the “[in]articulate unknowing”. Science is never cut and dried the devil is always in the caveats and terminology.

As the subject developed the scientist tell me that “Global warming” became either an advanced symptom or one of many vectors in the scientific discussion of the ultimate consequence ‘Catastrophic Climate Change’.

Ask yourself is Global warming the end result or is there more beyond? Are there undeniable events that will in all probability change the climate? Are these events may independent of “GLOBAL warming “?
- ocean acidification
- The melting of land locked glaciers
- The movement of Flora and Fauna to higher altitudes including species related extinctions.
- Rising Green house gasses other than CO2
To mention a few. The list goes on and on.

If these are spontaneous events then what is the cause and what will be the consequences? Probable Global CLIMATE change! (Not necessarily GW).
Is it man made or natural? Hence my point of defensive planing e.g. if we’re being killed by rising or super angry oceans the root cause is moot at that point!

A cursory look around to day demonstrates our polluted World one can reasonably ask how long before we choke in the stuff. Polluted water, inappropriate agriculture, salientian, desertification etc.
Science/life is not all about the seeming big ticket items it’s about the billions of prosaic issues and events. We need to stop squabbling over profit and focus on the real game…Survival.

While the whole World is whacked out of fear of Climate apocalypse, it seems Apple Isle Senator and gamine, Christine Milne is indeed living her own nightmare of waking up in lots of strange places. Masquerading as a green warrior, like her mentor Bob Brown, she lampoons tiresome Rudd/Wong/Garett as " paralysed with fear ", clinging to the past ? Some Pollies have short memories - most suffer chronic selective amnesia.

Painting the kettle black, the Greenies minority Party are no better at posturing and pandering to populism as any other. After all, where else would they find the lucrative lurks and perks of Office except in Oz's chimerical Parliament ?

Synergistic no less, CM whinges her constituents complain of the lack of action in providing freebie solar water heating appliances, insulation etc, fact is our welfare-gravy train mind-set is on notice. The true irony - they should opt for another Party that provides taxpayer largess quick smart. Apart from the tokenism, the Greenies are as irrevelant as the defunct keep-the-bastards-honest Democrats.Sayonara !

Fearless Green Leader Brown's call to shift Carbon Emission Agenda from Politicians to Scientist is perplexing. There is no concensus in the scientific world over Global warming. Camps are equally divided. Proponents accepting .4 degrees F to .8 F are squabbling at the uncertainty of a 200 years time span ? Laboratory modelling is iffy science at best. Evidence based theories and Phd hypotheses are just as ambivalent.

Wong's Green paper should have been shredded and pulped. Impromptu hairy-fairy 2007 Kyoto Protocol promises made on the run, conflict with Ross Garnaut's 500 page manifesto - which favours Corporate sponsership.The secrecy and clandestine venues between Govt, power brokers,lobbyist, vested interest ultimately determined it's belated outcome. The implausible 25,000 tonnes shared by 1000 company stakeholders are the obvious beneficiaries of Govt's scheme.

Latest OECD's Climate Emission Report on Aust, definitely rules out compensation of any kind to polluters, plus elemination of environmental harmful subsidies e.g. Argricultural, transport, and Building construction. Sustainable development is high priority. The Sink or swim dilemma. The focus here is not blinkered - like the

the present crop of egocentric opportunist who have climbed on board climate band wagon, painted themselves green and joined the greenhouse mafia, replete with wrist-bands and grotesque tee shirts. Bunny ear's anyone ?

The abject paucity of ideas coming from Rudd & Co, despite the much publicised 2020 blab-fest of eminently brilliant minds, and Kate Blanchette/ Hugh Jackman, consistes mainly of making plastic shopping bags a cost item,replacing light bulbs with one's 3 times it's value, planting shrubs, diverting the Murray-Darling rivers, erecting solar panels, water tanks etc, all of which involve a cost burden on the consumer's hip-pocket. Electricity charges have increased and despite air-conditioner's galore, for every 10.5 kwh we consume, one metric tonne of GHG is generated. The average Oz household chews 60-90 kwh per month.CSIO maintains each aussie-bleeder generates 27.54 mt/y. All at a time when the economy is spiralling out of control, inflation, petrol,food,rents,mortgage defaults etc.

What of our carbon foot print ? Like Blind Freddy, we grope for intelligent ideas - with Political overtones. To make things palatable to the electorate - token tax incentives, maternity leave, child care subsidies, carer's bonuses, a raft of other allowances, to placate the dissidents.

Here,we are addicted to the motor vehicle like no other Nation.After home ownership, the automobile is King.Many will attest to the pride, utmost care, and devotion aficionados heap on # Uno. Partners, family play second-fiddle.

ABS - Bureau of Statistics reveal 507,627 vehicles in 2007, and 518,873 in 2008. Annually we expect 6 million adding to traffic snarls and congestion. Significantly, GHE is horrendous. Importantly, NO Govt is prepared to crack down on the user pays syndrome.In context,Motor Sport is the most highly publicied event, bar none.Revenues are astronomical. State'svie for the privilege to stage Formula 1 & 3,V8 Supercar's,Rally's, Motorcycle, ans Marine speedboat events.All use high octane formulated inhibiters to enhance performance. Without exception, all are gas-guzzlers.Indy 300,Bathust Panorama, Melbourne Grand Prix, Adelaide Supercar series. Endless adrenalin charging spectaculars. Thousands drive to these events.

Not be be outdone, the Army Chinooks,Blackhawk, and Iroquois choppers stage their own brand of entertainment.

Seriously ?

dalma : "Painting the kettle black, the Greenies minority Party are no better at posturing and pandering to populism as any other. After all, where else would they find the lucrative lurks and perks of Office except in Oz's chimerical Parliament ?"

The Greens senators were the ones lobbying against their own pay rise weren't they?

They have also been campaigning against climate change for many years before it became a headline issue. It a shame there are too polite to say "I told you so." It can hardly be called populism.

Janama, I am interested in understanding your position more clearly. I hope you can bear with me to answer some questions.
In my first post (see page 6 on 22 July) I made a statement about probabilities. Do you agree with that concept but disagree with the numbers - and if so what numbers would you put in?

Christine Milne is Anti-Green when she regards CO2 as a very dangerous pollutant. If there is any one thing that is known about carbon dioxide and global change with any certainty it is that more CO2 in the air substantially enhances the growth of plants as well as the efficiency with which they utilize water. i.e. When we think of all the extra and free fertiliser we should be out there working with the goods.

Her penance should include repeating this most important assumption out aloud 100 times:
"CO2 release is good for people, the very reason for our existence and enhances the biosphere/environment."

Kieran: "Christine Milne is Anti-Green when she regards CO2 as a very dangerous pollutant. If there is any one thing that is known about carbon dioxide and global change with any certainty it is that more CO2 in the air substantially enhances the growth of plants as well as the efficiency with which they utilize water. i.e. When we think of all the extra and free fertiliser we should be out there working with the goods."

This is ignorant of the facts that:

(a) CO2 a greenhouse gas

"MELBOURNE, Adelaide and Sydney will blister in temperatures of more than 50C by 2050"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24068155-11949,00.html
(original source: University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre in Sydney. )

(b) the U.S. EPA recommends against long term exposure f humans to CO2 at concentrations exceeding 1000ppm (0.1%); nobody yet knows what smaller concentrations might do in the long term for other animal species.

(c) more CO2 doesn't equate to more plant growth
"High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm
(original source: Stanford University / Biology Dept.)

(d) CO2 causes ocean acidification affects, and other forms of indirect damage

Sams, i must confess i should do my best to disinfect the poor sods who suffer from this all twisted up Al-AGW mind virus.

What is an appropriate treatment is debatable but a good starting point is to somehow look at the bigger picture experience outside your cosy confined playpen. When we speak of "experience," the "ex" refers to "external" or "outside," which is what science is best at. Scientists define truth as to how well an idea survives under an interaction with what you would only understand as the "outside world" . From my perspective my mind is connected to my biology and the infinite environment so there is in fact no "outside world" but a unified whole. It is a peculiar fact that cleverly designed mind viruses always operate to separate mind from body, mind from environment, mind from the material universe, producing damaged goods rather than the true achievement of human potential.

a) Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but not really anything much of a greenhouse gas for planet earth once it gets the early work done and above 0 degrees Celsius. The "'extreme' extremes" referred to in that link are opportunistic bits of cherry picking using regional variations to deviously slot in human CO2 emissions as the culprit. .... i.e. pseudo-science chasing funding

b) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations exceeding 1000ppm will take a monstrous amount of fossil burning but when looking at the historically bigger picture we see that life will simply thrive with greater diversity.

c) More CO2 fertiliser doesn't always equate to more plant growth if you have dry seasons but in better seasons and with built up soil nutrients you will always get better growth. Any veritable, down to earth good gardener would see this as common knowledge because it is feed the soil first not the plant.

d) This "CO2 causes ocean acidification" is simply an ocean of frothing delusion, Sams. It has been discussed on OLO just recently but it also points to a need for much greater scientific understanding and research ......... not emotional pseudo-scientific alarm.
e.g.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm