If you include coal exports I think you will find that Australia is guilty of 6% of global emissions despite 0.3% of world population. Therein lies a key; start denying coal to other countries. If Rudd was fair dinkum he could start a no frills ETS next year. Make the top 1000 emitters pay a flat rate of say $20 a tonne of CO2 and an equivalent export levy of $50 a tonne on coal. The big question of course is whether a global economic slowdown will cause carbon cuts anyway. That throws back to the auction concept rather than fixed pricing; if demand for carbon is weak the cap may not be binding and the carbon price will be low. Provided there aren't too many giveaways the carbon price will still be positive even in a recession.

The other reason to go ahead with the ETS slowdown or not is that the revenue will kickstart the green economy. There are potentially thousands of jobs installing insulation and solar water heaters. Instead of home owners putting up solar electricity panels some of the ETS revenue could fund power companies to 'rent' roof space on private homes. Without an ETS that money would be hard to find. The figure of $8bn has been suggested for the ETS in the first year and a coal export levy would raise even more.

Australia should respond to climate change by adapting to it. There is nothing else we can do - certainly nothing we can do to influence developing countries.

We are not supreme beings who can influence nature; ETS is a expensive joke.

Adapt, and get on with life!

Perhaps, before demanding that the Government does anything - and it's not likely to do much in the face of a global recession - we should take note of the conclusion reached by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has now entered a cooling phase, at almost the exact time geologists have expected. The North Atlantic Oscillation has similarly entered a cooling phase. If the history of these oscillations is anything to go by, - and they were closely corrrelated with climate variation during the 20th century - we are at least as likely to have entered a 25 year period of global cooling as to be facing further warming.

This is not an argument against reducing air pollution, but we should at least not allow ourselves to be rushed into an ETS or something equally economically disastrous.

By 2020 Australia's CO2 production should be at least 20% down if not more due to our own dwindling oil production and the very high price of oil on the export market. The Greater Depression we are now entering may have a few minor upturns but when we try to recover we will bump into a ceiling set by a world plateau and then decline in oil production. Read more about it here:

http://postcarbon.org/say_goodbye_peak_oil

How's your garden Bernie? Try potatoes - they are easy to grow and productive.

Dear Senior Vic,
you forgot to post some other relevant copmments by NASA on the same issue: a la the following:

Says NASA: "Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, ‘These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.'"

Indeed, despite the natural cooling effect of the PDO, it is unable to explain the warming of the planet over the last century. We know now that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are at an historical maximum ( according to ice-core data records and latest measurements)and that the last decade has produced the hottest years in a century (at least four major temperature measurements agree). So to say cooling is apparent is disingenuous at best.

Another very important point to remember about total energy savings is that keeping "older" cars on the road means that new replacement cars do not have to be made, transported to Australia, etc. Not great news for the new car salesmen I know but good news for the environment. I drive older cars as I prefer their character as well as knowing that I am not responsible for new ones being produced in their stead. It is no coincidence that Cuba is the greenest country on the planet - and they drive '56 Chevies.

Sillyfilly, if the recent negative ENSO can "hide" global warming, why is the mostly positive ENSO index from 1900-2002 ignored? Of course the recent La Nina has had a cooling effect, and no one more than passingly familiar with the subject denies that. It does however raise the question - why, if the 1900-present temperature record tracks the ENSO index, are GHG emissions being blamed for "most" of the warming during this period?

More and more the evidence is stacking up to support a drastically lower climate sensitivity to CO2 than estimated by the IPCC. Remember the mid century cooling that is attributed to "pollution" and "nuclear testing"? Whats that? ENSO was briefly strongly negative at the time, before turning positive again? ;)

If this current negative ENSO lasts until the 20s things are going to get very, very interesting for those that frequently take the actual scientific consensus on AGW (90% sure that >50% == anthropogenic) and distort it to fit their fringe sociopolitical agenda (AGW WILL KILL US ALL! DOWN WITH CAPITALISM! DOWN WITH INDUSTRY!). The sooner the latter is once again associated by the media with whacko activism rather than respectable "press releases", the better.

Not unexpectedly, Mr Masters repeats the Liberal Party view that Australia is such an insignificant polluter that we can and should effectively defer introduction of an ETS for three years in the interests of first and foremost protecting our economy, ‘getting it right’.

The article correctly identifying the scope and need to reduce consumption of electricity, but fails to recognise that pricing carbon would stimulate R&D into clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels. It is also likely to have a positive effect on ensuring use of more efficient, less polluting ways of transporting goods.

Surprisingly, Mr Masters does not see an international leadership role for Australia by significantly and as rapidly as possible reducing its pollution levels – the highest per capita levels in the world – even though we are well placed to do so.

We can and should replace coal fired power generation by accelerating geothermal energy development which, on a level playing field, is able to compete with coal without producing pollution.

More rapid development of wind-power to provide supplementary power would surely be preferable to covering domestic roofs with arrays of photovoltaic cells, inefficiently converting only 15% of sunlight to electricity.

Instead we are opening new coal mines - three in Queensland alone this year, increasing coal use for both domestic purposes and export and increasing Government dependence on revenue derived from coal mining.

Little wonder that we are failing to meet our emission reduction targets set by the Kyoto Protocol or that the public sector pointedly refuses to act in ways which would reduce domestic coal consumption.

With political will, not evident in the Liberal Party and timid on the part of Government, Australia could be a pollution-free country within 20 years and help develop the technology needed to enable major polluters such as China, USA and India reduce their emissions without extensive weakening of their economies.

First and foremost, Mr Masters seems concerned with economic protection rather than taking action which would prevent global warming producing an environment with potential to seriously damage, rather than enhance the economy

Agnostic of M, why is it when someone has a different point of view, the truly religious immediately accuse them of "being in the pay of fossil fuel industry" or part of the evil "liberal party view", or am I missing the point and that's some secret signal to other true believers to attack the person. It's a common sense view - and that doesn't have to have a sponser.

Your statement "fails to recognize that pricing carbon would stimulate R&D into clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels", where on earth do you get such religion, that seems to be the big hope doesn't it, to find a messiah, sorry to find a new technology solution to nasty carbon pollution. You're all hoping it's Australia who discovers the wonder technology and we all can thus get rich importing it and not endanger our fruitful lives.

I'm waiting to see how long it is till it's called Carbon Poison. (Stephen Mayne called it that in an article in Crikey.com.au recently, thankfully it has not caught on quite yet, but I will never bother with him again)

Carbon is not pollution; it is the basis of life on this planet.

Taswegian,

Aus contributes slightly over 1% to global emmissions, the exports of coal are only a fraction of what is used locally, so if you added all the coal exports you probably would not even reach 1.5% of global emmissions.

Putting a tax of $50 on exports would simply stop them.

The problem isn't with the emmitters, it is with the consumers. Climate change is for someone else to fix. The moment that electricity goes up and the std of living drops, the sentiment will change quickly.

Try nuclear not hot air.

Jai,
Like many in the 'deny-n-delay brigade', some people intentionally distort and misrepresent the science.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

You come across as no different.

sillyfilly
Too many people (from both sides) fall behind their socio-politico-econometric leanings to attack or deny something they really do not understand (the science) and go on to proclaim it in populist media and the blogosphere - as Jai SHOUTED above.

Why don't they strut their stuff in the corridors of the science community, at conferences and workshops or publish in reputable journals? They can't. But they will denigrate the scientists as dumb-nuts, have got it all wrong, should be hung, drawn and quartered and their entrails spread across the land.

There is much research happening regarding climate sensitivity and attribution. Until robust and rigorous studies show that GHG-e are not a major driver to this current bout of GW, it would be prudent to tread with caution - we have only one test tube to experiment with.

I can only agree with Shadow Minister about Taswegian's insane proposals. Why is it so hard for people to realise that if we export coal to others, and THEY burn it, THEY are responsible for the emissions, not us. According to the latest 2006 figures total world coal production was 6793 million tons, of which we produced 420 million, or 6%. If Rudd imposes an export levy on coal, no-one will buy it, and they will then buy it from one of the other major overseas producers instead. If the levy is imposed on Australian coal used in power stations, the owners, if they have any sense, will just stop buying Australian coal and burn tax free imported coal. If a protective tariff is then placed on imported coal, the country concerned will simply place a corresponding tariff on out exports to them, as they would be entitled to do under trade treaties. This would then lead to a downward spiral in world trade, and help to make the coming downturn a real depression.

All we would achieve from Taswegian's proposal would be to increase unemployment, ruin our terms of trade, and destroy massive capital investment, without saving one molecule of carbon.

There is nothing wrong with carbon taxes, as we need to reduce our standard of living. The best way to do this would be to:

1. Set the Reserve Bank interest rate to 5% above inflation.

2. Increase petrol taxes to the european level.

3. Treble public transport fares and electricity charges, so they give a sound return on capital.

4. Use the income from the items above to rebuild our infrastructure.


If you must have a carbon tax, it needs to be imposed on the consumer, not the producer, so that coal from all sources is treated equally.

Like the climate the debate is hotting up. For the sake of balance perhaps it's also cooling down. In 2006 Australia's net emissions were 565 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent, after a controversial increased land use deduction. But Australia's annual black coal exports of 250 Mt produce at least 600 Mt of CO2. We are complicit in the sense that a drug pusher is criminally liable under the law. Exported black coal is about four times that used domestically and a comparable amount of brown coal is also consumed in local power and cement making. Coal exporters South Africa, Indonesia and Vietnam are running out so coal importers will be hard pressed to find an alternative to Australia. Sure we'll ruin the balance of trade but we might slow down global cooling or warming or something. If we have so much coal how come the export price went up 70% in 2007? Moreover by reducing exports we will get other countries used to the idea of cutting back sooner than later.

As for nuclear power and nonvolcanic geothermal I could point out one demonstrably works and the other doesn't.

Taswegian,

In your last post you referred to nuclear and geothermal power. Don't you realise that geothermal is also nuclear power? Where do you think the energy comes from? There are very serious issues with geothermal radioactive residue, in the form of radon gas, which comes up with the steam, and is released into the atmosphere. If you don't know about radon pollution ask the good people of Hunters Hill. For heavens sake get away from the idological positions and suggest something practical.

plerdsus
You obviously don't know about geothermal, do your homework.
IMHO, get away from your ideological position.

Dear Bernie,
I tend to rely upon your last paragraph.
It becomes time to come up to speed for us all about 'climate change' and putting the piffle into context with history.

The 'carbon' bubble has already burst even before exploiters of the latest issue of snake oil, those mirroring the past; those attempting gaining a grip on the game of 'carbon manipulation'. (That's "Carbon Manipulation is us" (TM), Prior Copyright, PRSDefence Australia.)

Tulip Bulb futures (a burst bubble), the benefits of investing in and exploiting the Great South Sea Civilisations (another, later, burst bubble), or whatever tissue thin games the crop of "Liars, cheats and thieves" (Joan Baez, forsooth) may ever have offered - have proven to be 'irredeemably' false.

Your humble servant, A NON FARMER, simply tries to draw your collective attention towards truth and chooses at this time to indicate the 'irredeemable'.
Relying upon European history I draw attention to a couple of burst bubbles following a couple of centuries of merchant bankers dabbling with war in old Europe.
Let's not mention the Fuggers.

Their attentions financed constant conflict, empoverished Europe, and led to the age of Exploration.
More to the point - the Age of Exploitation.
Australia is a by-blow of the failed, that burst - 'South Pacific Bubble'.
Any historian worth their salt would know what I mean,
I await their response.
PS - I mention sound historical fact. let's hear a response from an historian.

To reduce emissions we need investment in renewable energy sources. What sort of renewables doesn't matter and we should let the market decide.

To get investment we can charge for emissions and so make fossil energy expensive and make renewables more attractive.

A simpler, less costly, method that will work immediately is to provide finance to renewable energy projects for zero interest.

These plants no matter how much they cost to build will produce energy at a cheaper running cost than fossil fuel plants because there is no cost of fuel.

As we build more renewable energy sources the capital cost will come down and we will soon find the cost of building renewables energy plants is less than the cost of building even gas fired power stations.

What is the cost? The cost is the financial cost of lost interest on not spending on something else. As we spend most of our excess money on consumables including wars I would submit that a bit of lost interest is a small price to pay for stopping climate change.

No need to impose an export tax on coal. It has already been done by state governments which impose a levy varying between 5%-10% on the value of all coal produced, whether for export or domestic use. This has certainly produced cries of outrage from coal mine owners - most recently in Queensland – but it has done nothing to discourage the opening of new coal mines. There is high demand for our coal because it emits such low levels of sulphur products when burned to produce steam for generating electricity.

Of course there are those who believe that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming (do they also believe the earth is flat?) while realists know that it does but contend that the problem is one which we can not do much to change, let alone control. For them we have to learn to live with inevitable climate change. On this latter point, they are quite right.

Yet others believe that we should hasten slowly and act with caution so as not to bring upon ourselves any reduction in living standards, let alone risk damaging the economy. But what if we do too little for too long and thereby create an environment which is so damaging to the economy that our living standards collapse?

Some feel Australian CO2-e emissions are so low that nothing we do will have an effect on the level of global emissions or the climate change which they cause. We should all lie back, enjoy life and let it all happen, rather like the frog in tepid water which is heated to boiling point.

When they sit down and think about it, informed people reject these views. They know that we can reduce CO2 pollution and that we need to do so pdq. Sure we need electricity but there are better and cleaner ways of producing it than burning fossil fuels.

So, dear reader, we know what they are. We should get on with exploring, developing and using them rather than pretending we are a frog passively waiting until the water gets hotter.

In spite on increasing scientific evidence that the climate is NOT driven by CO2, that the earth is entering a cooling phase,that current climatic trends are no different than they've ever been, and that most of the scientific papers supporting the theory used fabricated evidence (Mann et al), Al Gore's Chicken Little act still enthralls the gullible who quickly dismiss any 'deniers' of being in the pay of 'Big Oil', in spite of the fact that 'Big Oil' will be one of the major benefactors of any cap and trade scheme due to their substantial investments in carbon trading and offsets companies, including some started by Gore and his pals. The only effect any cap on carbon emissions will have will be on the price of energy and food, and the biggest losers will be the world's poorest people.

sillyfilly: natural warming sometimes hides and sometimes accentuates man's influence?

Sounds complicated. When I breathe out CO2, is that natural or unnatural?

sisyphus: We should all be driving '56 Chevies for the environment?

I've heard it all now.

Q&A: the non-faithful should be tortured and executed by those who strut the corridors (cloisters?) of the Church of Climatology.

Has it ever crossed your mind that there may be some things YOU don't understand?

And, Agnostic of Mittagong, the frog boiling story is also a myth.

ManBearPig?

You make some bold assertions but don’t cite references to back up your opinions.

Time-series analysis of temperature anomalies show that the Earth’s climate has been warming since about 1850 – ergo, since the dramatic increase in fossil fuel burning and expansive increase in agricultural activity. Climate models suggest that most of the rise is due to GHG emissions. The accuracy of the models has been questioned (as they should) so the models are getting better as a result. However, hindcasts (comparing model forecasts with historical observations) are proving quite robust. Nevertheless, ‘climate science’ is not just about GCM’s, nor is it about the one bristlecone pine temperature reconstruction. Contrary to what you/others rely on, there are many other palaeo-temperature reconstructions that show this ‘hockey stick’ trend.

Lean et al (Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L18701, 2008) find that only four factors – ENSO, volcanic activity, solar activity, and anthropogenic forcing by greenhouse gases – are required to explain 76% of the variance in the (recent) temperature records. Furthermore, 90% or more of the warming trend of the past 100 years can be explained by invoking anthropogenic effects. Solar forcing on the other hand, can only explain a negligible percentage of the rise in temperature over the past 25 years. They also find that temperature response to natural and anthropogenic forcing does not increase rapidly with latitude from mid to high latitudes and that human induced warming effects are more pronounced in the latitudes between 45°S and 50°N than at higher latitudes.

______

fungochumley

Your attempts at ‘Bait and Switch’ are symptomatic of someone in denial.

FWIW, science is not a religion (proponents of ‘intelligent design’ are confused about this) and yes, there are things I don’t understand. My research interests lie in coupled ocean/atmospheric systems and how they impact on the hydrologic cycle. AFAIK, the weight of evidence supports AGW – this is why it is imperative that those with an alternate view publish their hypotheses in the appropriate forums – not in populist media or ‘denialist’ blogspots.

Your dig at sillyfilly - do you understand signal to noise?

Q&A,

You accused me of not doing my homework. Have you ever thought through geothermal? Do know how the rocks get hot? From radioactive decay. This decay has contributed helium, argon and radon to our atmosphere. The helium escapes into space, the radon decays, and the argon is now 1% of the atmosphere. It constantly amuses me that people have this great hangup about nuclear power, and promote geothermal, which is still nuclear and has significant radiation issues. I can only presume it is because the nuclear activity is buried underground. It could also be because there is no question of making nuclear weapons, but of course conventional nuclear power stations can be designed using light water reactors, and they are unable to make weapons.

It is always interesting to note how different people latch on to different aspects of the same article.
For me, the important point (rather periphally addressed, admittedly) was the matter of what's affordable.
I would love to buy a solar hot water system, but as a low income earner, all I can afford is instant hot water.
Yes, I am well aware that the instant service costs far more every quarter, but if you don't have the money, what can you do?
I would love to go back to living in a solar powered home, if I could afford it. 12 years of solar power, purchasing solar panels, batteries and a back up generator taught me it is not a cheap solution. Considering the amount of petrol I had to put through the gennie, I was probably less green than if I had been on the grid.
All these things are great, if you don't have to go into debt to finance them.
which is exactly what China and India are saying.
I fully agree with Bernie Masters on the matter of Government spending. It would probably be more fiscally responsible as well as environmentally responsible to buy every house a water tank, rather than to build more dams.
It would be more responsible to spend money on solar electric panels for every roof, than build more power stations.
As someone with personal experience, I can assure you the diciest part of solar power is the batteries.
With a grid connection, power can be poured into the grid during the day, and drawn from the grid at night. The panels by themselves require little, if any maintenance. Just hose them off occasionally.
We already have the solutions. All we need, is to step out of the box.

plerdsus I agree that granite geothermal is nukular-lite. In fact where some of the outback experiments are located is essentially the same block of granite under a sandstone cap as Roxby Downs some distance away. The difference is that controlled nuclear fission gets high temperatures and thermodynamic efficiency whereas dispersed natural decay doesn't. By now an outfit called Geodynamics was supposed to have electrified the town of Innamincka population 12 using hot froth from underground looped through an ammonia boiler. Their silence is deafening. That hasn't stopped many enthusiasts from claiming that geothermal solves the intermittency problem which bedevils wind and solar. Yes I do have solar panels. Given that intermittency problem, the non-advent of geothermal, the high emissions of coal and the example of the Brits squandering their North Sea gas I wonder what options are left. That's one for Bob Brown.

Plerdsus

To answer your questions ... yes, and I do. I also think you misunderstand where I’m coming from.

You may be interested in this link:

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:AE8JAPN25qMJ:chemistry.anu.edu.au/Staff/BKS/ANSTO

However, your post to Taswegian was/is premised on a fallacious argument. If we follow it to its conclusion, even wind power and coal have radiation residue issues, as does the Sun itself.

I agree, many people have ‘hang-ups’ about nuclear power, sometimes justified. Nevertheless, this form of energy must be an option to supply base-load energy (I’m particularly hopeful for 4th generation breeder reactors) and in many countries it is.

Having said that, I don’t think Australia needs them ... yet.

Closed loop HFR technology in Oz is different to geothermal energy sources in some overseas countries, and it was/is disingenuous to associate geothermal with “significant radiation issues” and the Hunters Hill watch factory.

Q&A,

Re AGW FWIW AFAIK IMHO IDKWTFYATA.

I suppose I could waste a large portion of my time trying to make sense of your nonsensical post, but I won't. But I am interested - should those with an alternate (sic) view publish in your proscribed media before or after they are tortured?

Q&A,
you state that-
'Time-series analysis of temperature anomalies show that the Earth’s climate has been warming since about 1850 – ergo, since the dramatic increase in fossil fuel burning and expansive increase in agricultural activity.'

Of course the climate has been warming,the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age. The main fault with most of the analysis presented as 'proof' of AGW is that they won't go back that far or try to eliminate it altogether. This hockey stick trend that alarmists are so fond of is replicated several times in reconstructions that go back several thousand years, unless of course you cherry pick data as Mann et al did. Almost all 'proofs' of AGW try to leave out or minimise the little ice age and the medieval warm period.
As for the paper you cite (Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L18701, 2008), The abstract reads-

"To distinguish between simultaneous natural and anthropogenic impacts on surface temperature, regionally as well as globally, we perform a robust multivariate analysis using the best available estimates of each together with the observed surface temperature record from 1889 to 2006."
They are making the same mistake. It's a fairly recent paper and it remains to be seen if it holds up. My bet is it won't.

The world population keeps growing at 80 million a year and nobody
says boo. Its just a given. So the whole Australian population
could be replaced in 90 days of human breeding.

I went on about this stuff 30 years ago, as a student in Paris.
Nobody cared then and they don't care now, or very few anyhow.

So I've kind of given up on humanity, clearly nature will have to
sort it out, as Darwin predicts in his Origin of Species.

Feelgood solutions to make us all feel better are clearly that.

Best just to enjoy the remaining years, let the crunch happen
when it does and people will learn the hard way, as they always
do.

Some things we cannot change and if we cannot, its pointless
getting stressed about them

Solar power has other options beyond photovoltaic cells. Heating sodium and using the heat to convert water to steam to turn generators is an option.
Storing heat to provide power without the sun is in desperate need of more R&D.
Meltdown isn't the biggest concern of nuclear power for me, it's what do we do with the waste, and the many thousands of years of dangerous radiation that emanates. Chemical waste is bad enough but radioactive waste, where to put it, and storing it safely... we are barely capable of it. Our civilisation has only 7000 years of records (no offense indigenous aussies, who had it right in the first place).
Geothermal needs more R&D too. It's not a reality for us yet.
Tidal power?
A world electricity grid that takes adavantage of the sun always shining somewhere.
Geosequestration scares me, and the posibility of there not being enough space for our CO2 down there.
C02 capture? More R&D please. I'm wary of Clean Coal as are most of us.
Humans went to the moon... we can do anything we want, if we put our heads and hearts together.

Yabby you've said it. Let it happen in its own time - this decade of anti-rationalism has laid the groundwork for a tough future. Sufficient will to postpone, avert or mitigate AGW simply doesn't exist.

Taswegian and Q&A,

I think from your last two posts that there is not a lot of difference between us on these issues. My comments on geothermal were intended more to illustrate the irrational attitudes to nuclear power than to oppose it as such.

To me, there seems only one long term source of continuous baseload power, and that is nuclear fusion. With the raw material being water, and very minor radiation problems, it could be supplying power after uranium, coal and everything else was finished.

The only problem is that we cannot yet get it to work, and need temporary power sources to tide us over until it does work. Once it does, the some of the energy from fusion could be used to dispose of nuclear wastes permanently by sending them into the sun.

If we cannot get it to work, then I believe mankind is doomed, at least at the current population level.

I found the sensitivity on nuclear issues interesting some years ago on a trip to Roxby Downs, where, whenever we were asked for questions I replied "What about the radon?", and they couldn't hear me. Later I was quietly taken aside and told of an expert who could help me. I replied that like Sir Humphrey, you never ask a question unless you know the answer, and the answer was yes, the radon would increase the background radiation, but only to the effect of living one floor higher than you were already. (Not many people realise that in general, background radiation increases 1% for every 20 metres you rise above sea level, and that it impossible to find anywhere on earth with zero background radiation.)

I also share the view expressed by other posters that unless something is done to restrain world population we are all urinating into the breeze.

ManBearPig
It never ceases to amaze me (a.k.a. I don’t understand) why the so called “deniers” of AGW are quite willing to trot out recent papers (some not even published) that raises doubts about the theory, yet are not willing to give the same credence to recent papers that support the theory (but, I take your point ... time will tell).

For example, they espouse the studies of Roy Spencer (clouds/feedbacks/etc) as though he is the modern day Messiah that will debunk AGW, while at the same time ignore the vast amount of research that adds weight to it, by virtue of it being too recent.

MBP, you say;
“In spite on increasing scientific evidence that the climate is NOT driven by CO2, that the earth is entering a cooling phase, ...”

I ask again, please cite this “increasing scientific evidence” as you opine – or are these too recent?
You will have to reference research that can explain the warming trend (that you acknowledge is happening) but which does not include the enhanced green house effect – the basic science of which has been understood for over one hundred years.

So, again in terms of comparing GCMs to the measured observations (instrumental record) – they are proving to be very robust. Reliable and accurate instrumental observations cover only 150 yrs or so. If we want to go back further, we must (and do) look at the many proxy reconstructions that cover the LIA, MM, MWP, etc (of which MBH98 is only one). It is the “deniers” who focus on the bristlecone pine proxy, not the “alarmists” as you proclaim – the correction made negligible difference to the global means and marginal difference to the contiguous USA.

And your comment about “proofs” of AGW?
You have to understand that science is not about ‘proofs’ like that found in mathematics, or in a court room (beyond reasonable doubt). It is very much about probabilities and weight of evidence.

Q&A-

'I ask again, please cite this “increasing scientific evidence” as you opine – or are these too recent?'

sorry about that - here we are.

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm#intro

BTW, I managed to read the article you cited - my suspicions are confirmed. Lean et al rely on James Hansen's data, and also are funded by NASA- that is, Hansen is their boss. And we all know how naughty Mr Hansen has been, don't we?

Now, what about those ice cores? Isn't it amazing that CO2 levels rise AFTER the temperature does? And I don't need a lecture on what science is, thanks. I'll stick with Karl Poppers definition.

A pop vox in Sydney asked teenagers about climate change. "I don't believe in it" was a common answer.

Job well done! I suspect once the north pole is scarcely holding on we'll get the same answer.

ManBearPig has provided a link which claims to be "the ONLY place in the world where doubts and uncertainties [about oceanic acidification] are raised. Our ignorance exceeds knowledge by a wide margin. It's never time not to be skeptical."

Indeed, "the scientific literature and Internet are awash in articles relating to ocean acidification, mainly as part of a world-wide scare for global warming."

So. If it's on the net it must be false. Er, true.

And here's where the author is coming from:

"Hopefully the world will become warmer too, and all this is welcome to the starving billions. As oceans become more acidic, they will become more productive too, adjusting to the new scenario."

Comforting, huh?

Thanks ManBearPig

I am aware of these ‘papers’, they are trotted around the ‘denialist’ blogoshere with gay abandon. While their postulates are not generally accepted in the mainstream scientific community, I would encourage them to keep doing the research, and publish in reputable journals.

To connect names to faces; Tom Segalstad and Zbiegnew Jaworowski are the first two from the bottom left in the following photo:

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/NIPCC-07-c.jpg

Craig Idso, Fred Singer, Walter Kutschera, Chris de Freitas, Olavi Kärner, Hans Labohm, Joe D'Aleo, Martin Livermore, and Vincent Gray follow in order around the table.

For those who don’t know, these people are well known contrarians. In fact, the pickie was taken shortly after the IPCC’s release of the AR4 report last year. They call their cabal the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). An unfortunate misnomer really, spitting the dummy disenfranchised themselves from the IPCC process:

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

The NIPCC group (among some others on Senator Inhoffe’s list, e.g. Bob Carter, William Kininmouth, Hans Labohm, Christopher Monckton, Ross McKitrick, etc) participated in, and contributed to, the publication of an Independent Summary for Policy Makers (ISPM) published by the Fraser and Heartland Institutes in response to the IPCC’s AR4.

ManBearPig, why not link to Segalstad’s website, where the first paper you cited is often lifted from:

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/

Jaworowski’s piece comes from the LaRouche neo-con website, Executive Intelligence Review:

http://www.larouchepub.com/

Glassman’s paper is drawn from his own (under construction) “Rocket Scientist’s Journal”:

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

Puting things in perspective, Anthoni’s (your last cite) own words (widely circulated in denialist blog sites like Jennifer Marohassy’s and WUWT) aptly sum up the efforts of the contrarians.

“My personal experience with ocean acidity ... that, IF CONFIRMED (my emphasis) would turn the whole debate on its head ... That was in 2005, and mainstream scientists have not reacted since.”

Now, you don’t like GISS data. Why do denialists rely on it to prove some of their hypotheses but decry it when mainstream scientists use it?

To finish on Hansen, your argument is a logical fallacy – he is also Roy Spencer’s boss. Do you therefore besmirch Spencer’s work?

AGW debates are being used as a red herring and Mr Masters’ article is typical of a mining man’s view of the current situation in Australia.

Alas, his red herring became evident when he declared that we should: “give the big polluters free emission permits.”

So why should the polluters continue to pollute Mr Masters when the entire global community argues about climate change because the “big polluters” (not least, Australia's mining barons) have poisoned the planet for profits?

Whilst science continues to evolve to discover how anthropogenic CO2 is impacting on climate change, the “big polluters” remain free to pollute with impunity, desecrating what’s left of our ecosystems.

Largest emitters of Particulate Matter in Australia last year? The mining industry, an ignominious First Place with 260,000,000 million kilograms (seriously underestimated in my opinion.)

The largest emitters of arsenic and cyanide? Same answer and Australia’s emissions of carbon monoxide – some 5,500,000,000 kilograms is not one to be proud of though I would suggest that the Commonwealth National Pollutant Inventory team have long ceased counting.

Add other carbon based A/emissions, which oxidize to CO2 and that’s a real toxic soup. Where are the regulators? Where are our politicians? Feasting on the same poisoned fruits as the “empire builders” of course:

http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/australians_39worst_per_capita_emitters39_135130

Major rivers in Australia are on life support due to dumping of industrial waste, resulting in a decrease in oxygen levels and an increase in eutrophication

Fish kills increasing above natural kills – a result of A/pollution (no argument with the science here)

Bird kills increasing above natural levels – industrial pollution

Contaminated industrial sites Australia? 80,000

One of the planet’s most threatened eco systems? The S/W of WA – official!

The following excerpt is written into the Environmental Protection Act:

“The Polluter Pays Principle.” Those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement.” Huh?

And an ETS? Who would desire to trade with a cabal of ethics-free snake-oil salesmen?

I propose an amendment to the ETS - an “Emissions Capping Scheme” (trading for credits not permitted.) Offenders will be prosecuted!

Thanks to all contributors of posts about my article (I've been away from my computer for 5 days so apologies for no feedback on your posts).
Taswegian - the issue of our coal exports accounting for us being responsible for another 6% of GHG emissions is not the main point. The bottom line is, as has been said elsewhere, that stopping our coal sales will force sales of far dirtier coal from other countries, so Australia acting alone may make GHG emissions higher.
Michael in Adelaide - I'm something of a skeptic about peak oil and the current price of about US$70 suggests that the world market isn't too concerned about an impending world shortage.
Agnostic of Mittagong - geothermal may be the way to go but it's completely unproven technology. It should work but it will take 5 or 10 years to prove it, and I don't think we should sit around waiting this long to come up with solutions.
plerdsus - the water used in the production of geothermal energy is almost totally recycled back down into the ground. Radon escape would be minimal, even over the 40 year life of a geothermal operation like Geodynamic's test site in South Australia
Yabby - as I understand human history, the only thing apart from war, genocide and famine that has caused a significant reduction in global population growth is economic developemnt - as wealth and economic security rise, so a family chooses to have less children. My view is that we have maybe 30 or 40 years of increasing population on the planet so we need to minimise mistakes over this period so that, when the decline starts, we're not much worse off (and hopefully better off) than we are today.

CarlStruth - while nuclear waste is dangerous for 1000 years or more, the volumes involved are tiny compared to the amount of waste produce, say, by just one coal-fired power plant. With the nuclear industry now more than 50 years old, there have been few really serious problems caused by stored nuclear waste in that time and we're slowly getting to the stage where we know what to do with it but the political will to put it into someone's backyard is lacking.

dickie - sorry mate but your view of the world is not just excessively pessimistic but simply extreme and unrealistic. To answer some of your points:
why give polluters free emission permits? Because we the consumers are the only people who will pay for them and industry will simply pass the cost of them on to us. Let's make the permits free but give a definite timeline to the polluting industries and legislate so they can't pass a carbon tax on to their shareholders. They would quickly reduce their emissions.
particulate matter emitters - airborne particulates are contributing to global dimming which is causing a lot of heat to be reflected back into space, so perversely cleaning up industry's particulate emissions will make climate change worse
arsenic and cyanide - really, these aren't serious problems. Mercury from coal-fired power plants is far more of a concern.
major rivers on life support because of industrial waste dumping - really? I thought it was excess nutrients from agriculture and sewage treatment plants combined with reduced water flows that was killing our rivers. Industry certainly isn't a problem here in WA on this issue.
80,000 contaminated industrial sites in Australia - I can't speak about the eastern states but in WA most such sites are former rubbish dumps and cemeteries, with industrial sites a small minority.
South West WA - one of the planet's most threatened ecosystems - actually, it isn't. It's one of the most biodiversity sites on the planet and one of the best protected, according to the author of the biodiversity hotspot concept Norman Myers. Lot's of species are at risk, of course, but the news is on balance good rather than bad - the number of extinct plants in WA has reduced from over 50 to less than 20 as botanists return to the sites where the plants were first collected, to give just one example.

Thanks Bernie, for obviously a considered article, and equally your considered responses.

My view of the fundamental issue is that humanity must develop in a more sustainable way ... biodiversity depends on it.

How (and when) to do this is where the real debate should be directed – you have helped.

Unfortunately, there are those that will delay or deny real progress.

If ignorance is the real human condition, then I am not optimistic – otherwise, it is a distraction that must be overcome.
Best wishes.

Thank you for your response Bernie:

1. Particulate Matter:

I’m most pleased Bernie that you are finally conceding that A/pollution affects the climate but are you suggesting we bombard the troposphere with PMs? That would be as outlandish as the proposal to bombard the stratosphere with SO2. The cooling effect of sulfate aerosols does not neatly cancel out the effects of greenhouse warming, but rather, makes the situation more complex.

Aerosol cooling and the greenhouse effect have characteristics that prevent them from neatly offsetting each other. And remember what goes up must come down. SO2 causes acid rain.

Lethal carcinogenic chemicals bond to Particulate Matter - such as nickel (the atmosphere is a major conduit for nickel as Particulate Matter) dioxins, furans, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc. PMs are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths – particularly PM2.5.

While CSIRO have attributed the N/W of Australia’s rain to the Asian Brown Cloud and appear delighted, it is causing havoc around the globe:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801170329.htm

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/08/27/cloud-sniffing-drones-soar-over-asia/

2. Arsenic and Cyanide – “really, these aren't serious problems.” Well Bernie – not to you but a 2004 report commissioned by the Western Australia Government into the tailings dams at the Kalgoorlie Gold mine confirmed that the mine had been leaking cyanide into the surrounding groundwater.

Community members had been complaining of impacts for over a decade, not least to Norman Moore, but the company had previously denied the allegations.

And in August this year they were again fined “a pittance” for spilling 4.5 million litres of toxic waste.

It’s the second time this year they’ve been fined for this type of offence, with a similar spill taking place at the Kalgoorlie super pit.

Toxicologist, Professor Peter Dingle from Murdoch University said he was dismayed by the penalty claiming the fine was disproportionate to environmental effects from this type of spill.

"Excuse the language but $25,000 is a piss in the bucket for industry -- people get fined that for offences much less severe" he said.

contd.....

C/Forward

3. Agricultural pollution IS “industrial waste” Bernie. Many pesticides have a hydrocarbon base. Heavy metals – cadmium, lead, chromium etc have been found in the rivers and industry continues to act irresponsibly:

http://www.soe.wa.gov.au/report/inland-waters/contamination-of-inland-waters.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/12/22/1817480.htm

4. Contaminated Sites – “Rubbish tips and cemeteries?” Please Bernie enough of the baloney! In 2004, the State Government implemented a Contaminated Sites Management committee to address and effect the bioremediation of the hydrocarbon contaminated soils in WA. In addition, community members are also addressing contaminated sites as members of the Contaminated Sites Alliance.

5. South West of WA. “one of the planet's most threatened ecosystems - actually, it isn't.” Actually it is Bernie. Let’s not continue to muddy the waters by misquoting Norman Meyer who said:

“Australia has one designated hot spot in South Western Australia and another one is being planned along the eastern strip of the country.

”A hotspot is an area that features exceptional concentrations of species that are found nowhere else in the world - we call them endemics - and number two, these are, though severely threatened, contain the last remaining habitats of large numbers of species and they've also lost at least 70 or 80 per cent of their original vegetation already.”

Key findings in the State of the Environment Report 2007:

• At a national level, Western Australia has 8 of 12 Australian biodiversity hotspots.

• At a global level, the South West is recognised as one of the world's 34 biodiversity hotspots.

• WA currently has 362 threatened plants, 199 threatened animals and 69 threatened ecological communities.

• Recovery plans have been developed for less than one-third of threatened species and ecological communities.

• There is ongoing loss and degradation of biodiversity in WA.

• Knowledge about many species and ecosystems and some threats to biodiversity remains inadequate.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive," Bernie.

Should we save the seals and club the Liberals?

dickie, you may think the world as we know it is going to be destroyed by us greedy nasty (Liberal voting?) human beings, such is your capacity for seeing the bad and ignoring the good, but it's not going to end. It's simply going to change and, in my view, mostly for the better.

Dickie, I do wish you would stop confusing us with facts refuting Bernies view of the world, which, even if it does seem to be viewed though rose tinted glasses, is so much more comforting than having to face reality.

You must learn to appreciate that some people contend that maintaining the economy and the well-being of business are issues of prime concern. We simply must not give credence to the proposition that if CO2 emissions and global warming continue on their present trajectories, the economy will be severely damaged as will many businesses and that for some species, the environment will be made unliveable.

Bernies views appear to be predicated on a belief that human activity can be tempered over time and there is plenty of time to prevent such outcomes. By all means let us have an ETS but let us not rush into precipitate action seems to be the message and, above all, let us not damage our industries.

Issue the worst CO2-emitters with free permits until we can legislate to ensure that they are unable to pass on their permit costs to end consumers. Only then will they act as good citizens. Well, we have 18 months before the ETS starts, more than enough time to legislate.

The views held by Bernie (and the Libs) appear to be based on under-estimation of the speed of recent and on-going technological innovation, particularly in the fields of renewable energy generation and the storage of electricity in super-conductor batteries. Both are destined to have a profound and beneficial effect on the broad economy and environment but not on the coal industry or major users of fossil fuels.

I am confident that a far more positive response to climate change will be possible than that proposed by Mr Masters - and I imagine that he too would wish his were so.

Agnostic of M, dickie, if you're looking for dirt, that's all you'll ever find

*as wealth and economic security rise, so a family chooses to have less children. *

Bernie, I think you will find that the availability of family planning
and the invention of modern contraception, have a great deal to do
with it.

In some third world countries, women simply don't have and can't
afford that option. So they remain as "breeding cows" want it or
not, dictated to by men, religious leaders, politicians etc.

Providing these women with family planning would be the least that
we could do, but as we have seen with the Bush regime, religion
dominated their thinking and so the rest of the world has put
it in the too hard basket, just like you have.

If you want to get serious about climate issues, start to address
the issue of an extra 3-4 billion people, or frankly you are doing
little but a feelgood exercise, peeing in the breeze.

Bernie, you don't have to reply to me specifically, however ... I, and perhaps some others, would appreciate your views on these two Lateline pieces.

The first includes three of Australia’s eminent scientists.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399646.htm

The next is a round-up with Rajendra Pachauri

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399649.htm

Regardless of whether Bernie replies or not, does anyone else wish to comment?

Q&A

The world is warming and if we keep putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it will warm at an accelerating rate.

We are running out of cheap easily accessible fossil fuels.

Our civilisation is based on cheap energy.

Renewable energy is plentiful but it costs more per kw of output to build renewable plants than fossil fuel plants but it costs less to run because the running costs are lower - mainly because the cost of fuel is low or zero.

If however we build more renewable energy plants it can be shown that their capital cost will, after about six doublings of capacity, be about the same as fossil fuel plants. A few more doublings of capacity and the capital cost will be way below fossil fuel plants. The reason is simple. We have been building fossil fuel plants for over a century and we have learned how to do it. We are still learning to build renewables and we know that for every doubling of capacity the cost will drop by 15 to 25%.

It is obvious what we need to do. We just need to direct resources to building renewable energy plants. The reason we don't is that our financial costs are high. We can print money to build renewable plants and charge zero interest and NOT increase inflation because the money is spent building a productive resource.

We can do this tomorrow and we can have zero emissions within 10 or 20 years or whatever time frame we decide and all get richer. If only we can get our economists to think like investors instead of cost accountants the problem will be solved.

Q&A, thanks for posing the questions raised in the two ABC programs. I'm not a climate scientist and can't comment on whether things are getting worse faster or not. They may well be worsening (although the current financial problems will lead to economic downturns in many countries and reduce their GHG emissions, but only for a few years). So the points that I made in my article remain valid; namely, that we can't turn the climate change problems around quickly so let's get it right, whatever it is we do.

The most telling comment in the 2nd program was: "There are 400 million in India who don't have access to electricity. Are we going to tell them "Till solar power becomes economically viable you'll have to do without any light in your homes," without any electricity that the rest of the world is blowing up and wasting anywhere it wants?" This reinforces my two views that, if the incentives are put together correctly, we'll find the technological answers we need; and possibly the best thing Australia can do is not close down our own industries by imposing an ETS when the rest of the world isn't going to follow but instead we should provide developing countries with the best energy-using technologies we can, even give them away free if need be.

Most of our current problems are political, not scientific or technical. The Indian or Chinese governments aren't going to leave their people in poverty because scientists say the world is warming. They want to get reelected or they want to avoid civil unrest. So we must assume the developing countries will continue to develop regardless of the IPCC's predictions or if we have an Australian ETS, so let's develop some really smart technologies to solve our climate change problems.

Hello fungochumley

Thank you for your response. You know the real danger in debate is the common lack of ability to discriminate between useful, sound information and a worthless load of swill - not least the following example:

"Agnostic of M, dickie, if you're looking for dirt, that's all you'll ever find." Cheers Fungo!

I see our resource geologist is at it again - the delay strategy - predicting marvellous futuristic technologies to reduce CO2, whilst plundering the planet. But hey Bernie mate, the technologies are already here. Just read Agnostic's very informative post on the super-conducter battery. From memory this is an innovation from CSIRO. You should know that Bernie. Just imagine the potential here to drastically mitigate the costs in powering renewable energy - oops sorry Bernie!

Anyway Bernie did you know that while the "empire builders" and their sycophants delay and divide, we are in the midst of the Sixth Extinction? According to many eminent scientists, some 50,000 species are wiped from the face of the earth each year:

http://www.well.com/~davidu/sixthextinction.html

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

So now this old fishwife's off to try some of that chanelling stuff. She wants to know if the 6,500 native animals slaughtered in the trenches by Newcrest Mining have arrived at that Rainbow Bridge and on to safer pastures:

Toodle pip!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/03/23/1071910.htm

I don't have much difficulty discriminating, dickie.

Bernie, appreciate your reply.

Scientists can only present their findings; it’s up to governments, businesses, institutions and ‘us’ as a whole (particularly in a so called ‘globalised’ society) to tackle the issues so presented. I agree, a lot of our current problems are political, but as we have also seen, a lot of our problems are economic (philosophical and ideological) – governments and financial leaders the world over are taking steps to address them.

Addressing the issues of global warming (and its consequences) is no different; albeit climate change is more insidious and pervasive. This is why it is critical we “get it right” (as you say) and why every effort must be taken to get the UNFCCC’s outcome from Copenhagen next year right as well.

Of course “we can’t turn the climate change problems around quickly,” however, we have to make a start. I am sure if you study the Australian Government’s reaction to Garnaut’s report and response to climate change and the proposed ETS, you will find it ‘measured’. In other words, much of what Australia does will depend on what the big emitters will do – you know this as much as Rudd and Turnbull.

Ragendra Pachauri does make valid points, and you would be surprised at the strides the developing nations are taking in trying to address the issues. I think Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has a point, do you agree?

http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/26/stories/2008102654970800.htm

I like your article. However, we can’t rely on just fast-tracking technology (e.g. CCS is a great idea but it’s not all that clean and its years away). Coal-fired electricity generation will be around a while, vested interests will see to that. We must adapt AND mitigate.
_____________

Fickle Pickle (love the tag)
The following article from Canada sort of puts things in perspective.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0f6ce84c-f861-4e1e-bca4-9c83ad7f2472

I believe the real problem we (humanity) are facing is more about sustainable development, without this nothing else really matters – use and abuse of energy resources has compounded this problem and AGW is but a symptom, not the cause.

Yabby
You would agree with the MDG’s?

Q&A draws attention to warnings of deterioration in global warming and the need to respond positively and quickly by replacing fossil fuels with renewables as the source of our electricity needs.

Fickle Pickle notes the high capital/low operating cost of using renewable energy and the economic stimulus which would be provided by investing in renewables during this present slow-down.

Indian PM Singh calls for equality in per capita emissions, conveniently forgetting that major emitters have a hell of a lot of per capitas and that perhaps unaware that Queenslanders hold the world record for per capita emissions.

Bernie rightly draws attention to the need for and absence of political will in responding to the growing threat of global warming – the very thing I criticise his article for. The trite Liberal view of no action until we ‘get it right’ (what ever that means) preferably not before 2012 and then only if the economy – for which read major emitters – is protected.

This is not all that far off the Nats position of do nothing until everyone else had done something and then do no more than the average.

Yet we can do a lot to significantly reduce our consumption of electricity generated from polluting fossil fuels and thereby reduce CO2 emissions. Government and the public sector are particularly well placed to act and lead by example in this area.

What do we get? Inertia from government and tacit acquiescence from the Opposition, failure to adopt appropriate policies or act on them and warnings of the need to hasten slowly. Well I’m sorry Bernie, for me that is just not good enough, nor is it a responsible way of ‘protecting the economy’, since it contains the seeds of ultimately damaging the economy in a lasting way.

Bernie, are you 'closing' this thread?

You responded, thank you. Why do you now ignore the reply? Is your article (comments) passed its used by date? Do you now have second thoughts? Is it (the issues) now too challenging?

Yabby
Are you lost for words or is the question too personally confrontational?

Agnostic of Mittagong
Agnostic?

Pickle
That's it then?

Dickie
We have to get things in perspective.

Fungo
I have appreciated your prior input, why can't you constructively contribute more?

Q&A

To achieve sustainability we

1. Pay people Rewards if they are frugal in their energy consumption.
2. Require the Rewards to be spent on infrastructure to generate renewables or on ways to conserve energy.
3. Create Rewards as zero interest "new money" that becomes untagged money once it is spent on energy saving or renewable energy generating infrastructure.

This "algorithm" will produce a sustainable energy society as it solves the "Tragedy of the Commons" and it can be applied to any expenditure where there is a personal benefit and a community benefit - which is most expenditure.

I am trying to persuade a government somewhere to let me conduct a trial and as part of that persuasion I put up posts in forums such as this as part of the advertising campaign for the ideas. People do not accept new ideas immediately. They automatically first reject them. Typically it takes someone about five exposures to an idea (ad campaign) for the idea to be emotionally comfortable enough to act on it.

The good news is that once a Rewards system is up and running in one place for one community expenditure it will rapidly replicate itself into other areas. The system has a positive feedback component of the more you reduce consumption the more you spend on reducing consumption.

I am confident we still have time to achieve sustainability while increasing our material well being.

Interesting idea Fickle Pickle ... you make it sound simple.

I would not be surprised that if one day, the "almighty dollar" is replaced with a currency that reflects energy costs of production/consumption. A carbon tax through an Emissions Trading Scheme is only a precursor.

Perhaps "enviros"?

For those who need constructive elaboration, my comment alludes to a well known and empirically demonstrated phenomenon of perceptual bias. This is important, as so much of these issues is about perception over reality, and there is a lack of awareness of the ease with which agenda-driven science can be corrupted. As Mark Poynter illustrates in his article above, the key these days is to get the story out there, like at a lavish conference event in Bali, before it's even been properly scrutinized. Just get the perception out there, and let the media do the rest. It's not academic!

Q&A

It took me a while to realise it but it is simple and it will work and enviros is a good name for it - except it works for any community expenditure and that is why I am using Rewards so that people are "happy" with the ownership outcome.

Here is the underlying idea.

Let us imagine that we have an asset. It does not matter how we came to own it but let us pretend it was given to us because we were frugal. We can now "lend" that asset by using the asset as security against a loan and we can get the loan and we can spend it. When we create a loan we create a promise to pay which we call money. As long as we only create money that is backed by an asset then we know inflation cannot occur.

So the sequence of events is - we are given an asset because we are frugal. We turn the asset into money by taking out a loan on the asset and we then spend the money. The loan is not inflationary because there is an asset backing it.

Now let us change things a little. Let us be given the money first because we are frugal but let us promise to turn the money into an asset.

We end up with ownership of an asset, there is some money in the system that is non inflationary because it represents an asset.

The only difference is that in one case we started with an asset and in the other we started with the money to build the asset. The end result is the same.

Fungo: “For those who need constructive elaboration, my comment alludes to a well known and empirically demonstrated phenomenon of perceptual bias.”

Which comment? “IDKWTFYATA”

Whose reality Fungo?

Can you honestly say the ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade don’t have an agenda?

Of course “the key these days is to get the story out there”, but I don’t see you offering any constructive comment on how this should be done.

You make veiled criticism of the UNFCCC and the IPCC process. How should they do it better? How do you think scientists should get the message out there? You damn them when they do and damn them when they don’t.

You talk of scrutiny; the IPCC assesses the science from already scrutinised research. As I tried to point out to ManBearPig (you obviously haven’t followed or understood), those from the alternate (“sic”) camp are quite prepared to trot out new and un-scrutinised research (Graham Young does this on ambit gambit from blog spots like Marohasy and Watt’s)but condemn the already peer reviewed research.

It appears the ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade (like Andrew Bolt and his agenda driven blog site) is doing exactly what you claim, he get’s stuff out there before it’s been properly scrutinised. Like you say, it’s not academic.

This piece from a neuroscientist fits well with this topic.

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/10/galileo-strikes-again.html
________________

Fickle
Has merit ... unfortunately, you are probably 100 years too early for the “developed” world. OTOH, the “undeveloped” world would be intrigued – wish you well.

Here is another attempt to explain it.

One of the outcomes of the credit crisis is that we all better understand how money is created. The government creates new money by giving loans to the financial institutions even though the government does not have any money to loan. That is, governments create money out of thin air. The government guarantee on bank deposits, if ever needed, means the government will create some extra money and loan it to the banks to cover the deposit withdrawals. Although the guarantee might make people feel good it means, if it is needed, we will have more money in the system than we have things to buy. This causes inflation which happens when we have too much money and not enough goods. Prices going up is symptom not a cause.

The government can solve the credit crisis - that is get some liquidity into the system or in other words get people who have money to spend it - by creating new money but making sure the new money is spent on a productive asset - such as renewable energy plants. The government can create some money and give it to the less well off. The less well off can invest it in renewables or sell the money at a discount to people who have money but are not spending it. Those people can now invest in renewable energy plants. This will increase liquidity, stop the recession and reduce greenhouse gases.

Q & A,
I think you have misunderstood me and we are talking at cross purposes. Can't see anything very constructive coming from here. But I will say, if I have to send someone out for a dozen eggs, I'd prefer a person whose reality means bringing back twelve.
For an explanation of the correct usage of alternate vs alternative, I refer you to Bill Bryson's Troublesome Words.