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?