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 > Good ideas beat ideological divide > Comments

Good ideas beat ideological divide : Comments

By Craig Emerson, published 10/9/2008

The Government's climate change green paper proposals are based on evidence, not dogma, and were developed for public comment.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
"If the evidence changes, the policy is flexible enough to cope with emerging realities." I'd like to believe that, but when PM Rudd is insistent that if it was an election promise, then come what may that's what he will do.

He has not shown, nor has the Labor party in government, that there is any flexibility in their behavior. There seems to be an abhorance to admitting they were wrong about anything, owning up, changing and moving on - we all make mistakes and try to learn and move on - why the terrible fear of actually admitting it, seems quite egocentric.

I'd like to see the blame game end, not just repeating that statement - but do it, stop blaming the previous government, or the states, or the rest of the world - you wanted to govern, to lead, it seems not to fit too well now. The ALP certainly does not govern with the confidance of the Howard government, you cringe, pick, blame and argue too much. The only actions seem to be harmless, so far, empty gestures that have changed nothing more than shallow perceptions.

Stop the navel gazing and get on with it.
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 8:59:38 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
The author: "Both extremes embody the lament of Yeats: the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity." ... "Whatever their voting behaviour, the free thinkers of the world prove Yeats wrong: the best are full of passionate intensity."

I (like the author) don't agree with Yeats. Look at Einstein for example - although despite his successes in relativity, he had great difficulty with accepting aspects of quantum mechanics. He went about trying to disprove quantum mechanics in the right way - through scientific argument, but never could, and in effect strengthened our surety in quantum mechanical theory.
Posted by Sams, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 9:16:47 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
Save us from politicians! Not satisfied with power out of all proportion to their abilities, and totally ignoring the fact that they have long forgotten that they are servants, not masters, they still want to browbeat us on public forums.

They should be ignored. Better still, they should be banned from windbagging on OLO.

Australian politicians have proved that they are not to be believed, and I find it insulting that they are given space here.

Sorry, Graham, but we don't need them.
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 9:20:46 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
Emerson makes one good point about Left-Right wing dogma which could obstruct good pragmatic policy making ie. what works, what is fair and what is sustainable? If we are to talk 'sides' of politics both are guilty of trying to maintain the high moral ground.

The term 'competition' is meaningless. If we live in a nation that prides itself on egalitarianism, fair wages and a reasonable standard of living how can we hope to sustain those values if we are to compete in a market of lower wages and poor living standards? Looking domestically are our banks and supermarkets competitive?

Both the ALP and the Coalition have ignored the disadvantages experienced by small business against the big end of town.

As for evidence-based man-made climate change - as a layman, both sides of the argument are presenting 'evidence' and the rest of us just muddle on the best we can. If Australians only produce 1-1.5% of man-made emissions then an emissions trading scheme would appear to be the mallet hitting the amoebae on the head approach.

The ALP is in danger of hanging its environmental credentials purely on climate change while it diverts attention from other important environmental issues such as the Gunn's Pulp Mill, car congestion (pollution) and the logging of old growth forests. And making tough decisions on water allocations to high water users such as cotton and rice growers.

We are all easily manipulated. Sometimes it is hard to see through the rhetoric to what is really happening.

Many years ago even Conservative parties were Social Democrats - acknowledging the place of small business, 'real competition' and publicly owned assets. We talk about a fair go but we don't practice it. Lack of sufficient assistance to pensioners (aged, disabled and carers) in the Budget is just one example.

In modern times we have been conditioned and manipulated into thinking that those who support publicy owned assests (even essential utilities) are labelled a Commie or a radical Leftie quicker than a politician can sprint towards a media opportunity. Labels are counter-productive.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 10:10:28 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
It is hard to take anyone seriously who uses such cliched language, especially when pretending to criticise "extremists"

Everything is reduced to a set of binary exclusions, the purpose of which is to shut down even the possibility of intelligent consideration---consideration of all the evidence including the historical and cultural origins that helped create the current situation.

And like all of those on the "right" of the culture wars is incapable of seeing that his position is just as much ideologically driven and formed as that of anyone else---while pretending other wise.

Where and who are the "hard"-left in Australia?

And besides which the left has no real power to decide who is going to live and die. Those decsions are made by the interests described in The Shock Doctrine brought to its hapless victims by Craigs friends at the CIS and IPA which seems to where Craig has hitched his allegiance.

The outfits which,in my opinion are full of passionate intensity re the "rightness" of their "world"-view. And who, as The Shock Doctrine describes, are more than willing to use whatever it takes to impose their restructuring experiments on any and everyone---all in the name of "freedom".

Craig refers to the great poet W B Yeats, yet there is not a hint of a subtle poetic sensibility in any of his rantings.
On the contary his rantings are full of dismal techo-speak---the kind of tcho-speak that considers poetry, and the artistic imagination altogether, as a form of self-indulgence with no relevance to "real" life.
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 10:42:30 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
I'm happy to have Ministers writing for OLO, and have enjoyed earlier essays from Craig Emerson. Can I suggest some carefulness in language, nonetheless?

In this field I know of no one who is a 'climate change denier'. Climate change has been a fact of human existence from the beginning. I do know that many people are sceptical that human beings are influencing climate change in any significant way. They do not take this position as 'an article of faith', but because the evidence is unclear and the argument less than forceful.

'The science of climate change' hardly exists as a discipline: it is multi-disciplinary. In consequence it naturally produces different approaches and results. There is certainly voluminous stuff about climate change, but, as argued already, it does not point unequivocally to anthropogenic global warming.

Like another who has commented, I would be happier with the Government's green paper if I was sure that evidence would cause the Government to change its mind and, in my case, if the green paper did not have such a clanger in its title: 'carbon pollution'. Sorry, that looks like 'dogma' to me. I don't want to live in a carbon-free world. Indeed, I couldn't, and nor could anyone else. It seems pretty likely that the increase in carbon dioxide has contributed to the world's increasing food production,and that is just what the science says should happen, other things being equal.

What 'evidence' would the Government need to change its position on human-induced climate change?
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 10:49:34 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
Craig, it’s nice to see that you took some notice to the comments last time you wrote to OLO but as RPG says actions speak louder than words.

Your theory says ‘objectivity’ but in practice your starting point lets you down.
On one hand you say that CIS is not a right wing think tank because of the individuals who contribute. The problem with that logic is that your argument is based on a false assumption. That is that individuals are ‘left or right’ this was one of your logic failings in your last outing on OLO.

ISSUES MAYBE on a left to right continuum but People generally aren’t.
People tend to change their left-right allegiances to issues based on their circumstances.
e.g. I have some ‘left’ opinions yet I also maintain some ‘right’ opinions. By your reasoning there is a disconnect but I decide issue by issue hence Liberal/Labor, Left/Right are meaningless terms when applied to individuals.
Left /right ideologies are creations of political expedience not of the people.

Therefore it is irrelevant who contributes to what ‘think tank’ what counts is what comes out for the PEOPLE that matters. In almost every occasions the hatchings from CIS are based on financial/business principles first and what the people actually want/need often a poor 5th or 6th. Need and want (not wish list) are often inseparable and if divided give rise to dissatisfaction/failure.

Again I point out that Labor didn’t win the last election *Liberals lost it* they voted for CHANGE. The previous Lib senate was aberration and had more to do with the demise of the Dems. Simply put the people don’t trust either side they want BETTER Government. This is evidenced by the deliberate almost continually Hung Senates. Finding a better way is YOUR JOB.

If your current rationale (OLO and Q&A) is indicative then what we’re going to get is much the same only with Red frilly bits.

Craig, the 1980/90’s take on Economics (dry rationalism) isn’t what the people want. As Mr Right put it politicians (and I would suggest Business) are servants not masters.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 10:53:10 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
I think Pollies should be allowed to contribute to OLO. We are usually exposed to them in brief doorstops, press releases, and for the real diehards (or masochists) listening to Parliament or sitting through a Press Club lunch. Having them write an article gives more a measure to them than a few catch phrases.

Other than the name I hadn't been exposed to Craig Emerson till he wrote an article on OLO. Since his previous article, I've been a total fan, though not for reasons he would probably appreciate. The dark satanic mills thing was a ripper and I now look forward to all his work. For Emerson, I might be prepared to brave the Press Club.
Posted by JL Deland, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 11:54:42 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
If we have to have them on, then I'm glad to see that Don Aitkin has held his nose long enough to read what this one says and put him right on a few things about climate change and the habit of calling people who question the human cause theory climate change 'deniers'.

I, of course, did not read Mr. Emerson's piece, but judging from comments made about left/right labels and the heading "Good ideas beat ideological divide", Mr. Emerson seems to trying to distance himself from labels and ideology.

Why, then, is he a member of a party? All parties are loaded with ideology. The only politicians I now trust are independents who can prove that they will work for their electorates - not spruik party ideology.
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 12:47:23 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
It's good to hear the voice of reason again in the form of Don Aitkin question the government's willingness to accept new evidence regarding climate change. When questioned,Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong only seem to be able to quote IPCC dogma which now has many question marks over its credibility. And they even manage to misquote that dogma, such as Penny Wong's totally untrue statement that 12 of the last 13 years have been the hottest on record. Try as they may, the climate researchers have still found no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is affecting temperature on a global scale; indeed temperatures stubbornly refuse the follow both the CO2 lead and the predictions of the climate modellers. Don is right to ask how much evidence does the government need before it will question the science more closely.

If the predicted temperature rises do occur, we are told categorically that catastrophe will follow with species extinctions of 50% or more, the end of the Great Barrier Reef and the collapse of the farming industry. The fact that there are researchers, including at James Cook university in Townsville, who do not believe that the reef is under threat, seems to be totally unknown to the government or to Ross Garnaut. And so does the fact that the Bureau of Meteorology's own figures show no reduction in rainfall in the Murray-Darling basin during the last century. Don is also correct to raise the potential benefits of higher atmospheric CO2 in respect of agriculture and food production. Forest growth has increased by 40% in North America during the last 50 years because of increased CO2. Commercial greenhouse growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses, up to 1000ppm; they get 50% more growth and less water consumption due to more efficient evapotranspiration.

Unfounded statements coming from the government and its specially chosen group of advisors serve only to instil unnecessary fear into the minds of the majority and, ultimately will lead to policy decisions which are futile and potentially disastrous.
Posted by malrob, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 1:16:45 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'm not going to bother reading this article after his last one which was disgraceful (to put it simply a representative of our current government, representing Rudd, was talking about "Enlightenment" even as they implement a Chinese censorship scheme for the internet). I think our present situation with its bureacratic class and follower-populists proves that the title of the article at least is nonsense and untrue.
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 1:35:49 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
Mr Emerson's rather slight contribution to the greenhouse debate emphasises the bizarre nature of that debate.

For after repeated assertions about overwhelming scientific evidence and that its too late, and we are all hurtling towards a warming world, the greenhouse proponents then insist on policy responses that clearly contradict their own statements.

Let us brush aside the minor problem that temperatures have actually been falling - not rising - in the past few years, and that the latest forecasts are for not much change until 2014-2015, and accept the greenhouse case. What then is the point of trying to cut carbon emissions in the short term? If we are to spend the money, then it should be spent on adapting to the change, rahter than trying to prevent it. As even the early signers of Kyoto have show no interest in sticking to its requirements, Australia efforts will make not the slighest difference.

A better set of responses would, say, include devising wheat strains suitable for higher temperatures, or building barriers around Sydney harbour, or investing more money in reducing emissions on coal plants. Instead, we are being stuck with a bizarre policy that is both horribly expensive and pointless. To add insult to injury a Federal Minister then tells us what a good idea it is.. what a mess
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 2:02:15 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
malrob: "the voice of reason again in the form of Don Aitkin"

Don Aitkin has, like Ian Castles, backed himself so far into a corner that he has nowhere to go but blind denial. Don Aitkin and Ian Castles are both like someone that turns up to an astronomy conference and says "so, was this lunar landing thing so fake or what". And they wonder why the science community doesn't respond to them with much more than silence punctuated by an embarrassed cough or two.

There is nothing wrong with the IPCCs credibility, and even if you accept such unsubstantiated quips on face value, you can't ignore that the list of the world's top-level science organisations, including the overarching science academies of the entire developed world, that endorse the theory that the current regime of climate change is human-caused (primarily by CO2 emissions):

The IPCC, NASA, CSIRO, The InterAcademy Council, the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States, National Research Council (US), European Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, International Union for Quaternary Research, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Geological Sciences, European Geosciences Union, Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Engineers Australia, Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), American Statistical Association, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, American Association of State Climatologists, The Network of African Science Academies, FASTS

Aitkin: "There is certainly voluminous stuff about climate change, but, as argued already, it does not point unequivocally to anthropogenic global warming."

It certainly does, unless you have abandoned modern science altogether. Go and look at climate science journals. There is no great debate raging over this at all.
Posted by Sams, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 2:07:10 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
Perhaps Yeats's words relate to Mark Twain's definition of education: "that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge." The best and the wise tolerate uncertainty and proceed with considered caution.
Posted by fungochumley, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 3:26:32 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
Sams can usually be relied upon to emerge with his bigoted and offensive ad hominem attacks when it comes to climate change.

Yes Sams, I was a believer in AGW until a year or so ago when I started to read the scientific journals. And I have failed to find any paper providing unequivocal observed evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is having a significant effect on global temperatures. On the contrary, even the influence of CO2 itself, whether anthropogenic or not, is suspect as a significant driver of temperature once concentrations exceed about 50ppm. It was thought there was such evidence prior to 2003 from work on the Vostok ice cores which indicated CO2 rising in step with temperature over an extended Pleistocene and Holocene time interval. But more detailed testing of the same ice cores since then has shown that the temperature increases preceded CO2 increases by 800-1000 years. And isn't it interesting that today is 800-1000 years after the Medieval Warm Period?

Sams, you are clearly unable to provide a specific journal reference implicating anthropogenic CO2 either, otherwise you would surely have done so to the various OLO contributors to whom you have directed comments. Instead you just regurgitate your list of scientific organisations with supposedly relevant expertise. If anyone wants to check the credibility of your list maybe they can start by googling 'American Federation of Scientists' and see what they get.
Posted by malrob, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 4:53:23 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
First we had Von Daniken with Chariot of the Gods.
Then Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code.

Now we have Don Aitkin with “It seems pretty likely that the increase in carbon dioxide has contributed to the world's increasing food production, and that is just what the science says should happen, other things being equal.”

His comment is in marked contrast to Dr Mark Howden at the ATSE Crawford Conference of a week ago, who said that cropping yield rates have been increasing over the past 40 years, but the rate itself is declining. And that the decline has dropped since 1970 to a present zero increase. Asia has been declining from a rate of 3% increase to a present rate of 1%.

Don’s take on science is also at odds with another speaker at that conference, Dr Trevor Nicholls, who stated that elevated CO2 levels have differing impacts under differing conditions. Some are positive, but overall they are negative: In temperate zones increased crop yields are possible for limited elevations of CO2 , but decreased yields will occur beyond that limit. Any increase in other zones will decrease crop yields
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 5:45:03 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
ideas can come from anywhere, but only ideas of use to politicians are developed in a parliamentary society.

that is the great advantage of democracy: citizens with a good idea can put the idea to the electorate and if accepted by a majority cause that idea to be realized.

the labor party once knew this and supported the principle of citizen initiative. but about the time the party was taken over by professional politicians, this principle disappeared. thereafter, their policy has been: "no salvation without putting us in power."

so i don't pay any attention to labor pollies anymore, like whores, they do it for money. but unlike honest sex workers, we are unlikely to be pleased with politicians efforts.

ozzies don't understand democracy, never having had any. but it's not rocket science. it just needs a realization that leaving the nation in the hands of politicians is the cause of most of our problems, and the environmental aspect might literally kill us.

once you get that, the will for democracy may appear.
Posted by DEMOS, Thursday, 11 September 2008 7:14:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm happy to have politicians post on OLO. They're saner than some of the loons we've had.

I disagree with Don Aitkens remarks regarding crop output. Sure plants require CO2, they require a lot of other things too, like water for example.
Without adequate water plants eject CO2 (Liddel & Turton).
So it doesn't matter how much CO2 you give a plant, wihtout adequate water it won't use it.

I'd like to believe that Don has an abjective eye and isn't kneeling at the alter of denialism.
Posted by T.Sett, Thursday, 11 September 2008 7:37:29 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
malrob: "If anyone wants to check the credibility of your list maybe they can start by googling 'American Federation of Scientists' and see what they get"

I got this:

http://www.fas.org/about/index.html

FAS: "With 69 Nobel Laureates on its Board of Sponsors, FAS provides timely, nonpartisan technical analysis on complex global issues that hinge on science and technology"

http://www.fas.org/programs/energy/index.html

FAS: "There is no serious doubt that human activity is altering the earth's climate in potentially catastrophic ways."

Trying to cherry pick are we? You seemed to have skipped all of those the national science academies, not to mention the overarching juggernaut The InterAcademy Council. Any reason for that? Seems your attempt backfired anyway.

malrob: "And I have failed to find any paper providing unequivocal observed evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is having a significant effect on global temperatures."

And you'll be looking for a long time. Why on Earth would you think all of the evidence would be in one paper!? Take a look at the discovery of quantum mechanics for example - that didn't occur in one paper that's for sure. That would be like a judge saying "sure, you have 100 witnesses with contributing evidence, but not one of them has *all* of the evidence that proves the case". I think you are mistaking the term "paper" for a more general report. Here is a recent paper in the August 2008 edition of Theoretical and Applied Climatology: "Eddy covariance CO2 flux above a Gmelin larch forest on continuous permafrost in Central Siberia during a growing season".

"On the contrary, even the influence of CO2 itself, whether anthropogenic or not, is suspect as a significant driver of temperature once concentrations exceed about 50ppm."

Yeah right. Got that off a Weeties packet did you?
Posted by Sams, Thursday, 11 September 2008 9:27:10 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
An idea that all political parties can accept.

Another strategy to reduce greenhouse emissions than putting a price on carbon is to use zero interest loans to construct emissions reducing infrastructure.

Let the Reserve Bank create some money called Energy Rewards that must be used to build renewable energy plants or reduce energy consumption through things like insulation. Let us give this money to people as Rewards in inverse proportion to the amount of energy they purchase so they have an incentive not to use energy.

The money created would not increase inflation because the money will be used to produce a productive asset and that means that over time the loan will be paid off and return more money to society. Inflation occurs when we create money which is spent for consumption without gain in productive output from the expenditure.

Rewards will encourage behavioural change to reduce energy consumption which in turn will increase the efficiency of our energy infrastructure which will reduce inflation because we will get the same value from a lower amount of energy consumed or put another way we get an increase in energy productivity.

Rewards must be spent in the infrastructure market place so it will be spent efficiently.

The price of energy can remain the same - or decrease if we want to cause fossil fuel power stations to close down because they will become uneconomic as the running costs of fossil fuel plants are at least twice the cost of renewable energy plants.

The running costs of renewable energy plants is 1 cent per kwh which is half or less than the cost of fossil burning plants. A renewable solar thermal or hot rock geothermal energy plant should have a life of at least 100 years and will produce enough energy within a few years to pay back the money loaned. We know that there are enough renewable energy sites to produce several thousand times current energy consumption and we know that no matter how much energy we produce it will always find a market if the running costs are low
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Saturday, 13 September 2008 3:30:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fickle Pickle

I second your proposal. We do eventually have to make the transition from nonrenewable to sustainable forms of energy and this way everyone wins.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 13 September 2008 6:20:12 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
Fickle Pickle you are in danger of being shot for treasonable thoughts in regard to the current running of our economic system.

The Reserve Bank presently is no more than the coachman in our ancient horse-and-buggy fiscal system. The horses creating the momentum of money supply are our private banks.

The banks provide the capital, and the money supply escalates with the interest charged on the loan.

Your suggestion will interfere with this sacred system, and buggar it altogether.
Posted by colinsett, Saturday, 13 September 2008 6:52:36 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. All

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