The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rudd and Wong’s emissions trading choice > Comments

Rudd and Wong’s emissions trading choice : Comments

By Christine Milne, published 21/7/2008

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

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
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.
Posted by Informed, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:05:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by KeithH, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:49:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by KeithH, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:56:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by z man, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 4:55:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Janama, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 8:19:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 8:23:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy