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.