This article contains some significant errors that bring into question the author's understanding of physical geographic and social processes, and thus the whole tenor of his opinion piece.

His claim that the Carteret Islanders are amongst the world's first environmental refugees, the result of a process of forced migration due to rising sea levels, is wrong - they were, in recent times, economic refugees. The Carteret Islanders, occupying a low-lying atoll long subjected to tropical cyclones and storm surges, experienced overcrowding in the 1930s, and severe food shortages since the 1960s. The food shortages were a result, in part, of international fishers occupying their traditional fishing grounds, and the practice of dynamite fishing, which destroys the fringing coral reefs that help protect the atoll from sea erosion. The erosion allowed salty sea water to penetrate the freshwater-based gardens in which they once grew taro, their staple crop. To counteract this the islanders attempted to build a sea wall and plant mangroves, to little effect. In other words they could no longer support themselves on the atoll and have been moved to the PNG mainland.

Given that sea level rise in the vicinity of the Carterets is measured in mere millimetres, and may possibly be due to slow atoll subsidence (a known dynamic of atoll systems) then the author, without explaining the real reason for their leaving the Carterets is, unwittingly or otherwise, misleading the readership of his article.

Furthermore, his reference to the Maldives, another atoll island group, as now literally fighting for its life, may well be true but not for the reasons given by the author. On overcrowded atolls, such as the Maldives, the only building material is coral, dynamited from the coral reefs that protect the atoll from sea erosion, resulting in inundation. The Maldives problem is not one of anthropogenic CO2 supposedly raising temperatures and sea levels but one of unsustainable practices by the islanders and others. For the author to suggest otherwise suggests a profound ignorance of the actual dynamics at work in these two situations.

See submission number two at senate committee on climate URL
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/climate_ctte/submissions/sublist.htm
The same article is number 140 at URL
1. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_09/index.htm path to economics list

Also a worthwhile article is at
1. http://www.csiro.au/news/Aerosols.html
path to CSIRO press release feb 11 09

Well, touche. I think the writer ought to reply to that as I ran to my books and found that the comment is true.

One of the problems many Australians have is that the notion of climate change and carbon emissions gets mixed up with the 'hole in the ozone layer'. It's a narrative ripe for spin.

Many, many years ago, when I was a whipper snapper, I went to Chesil beach in England and it was pointed out to me by my teacher, as we examined the rock structures, how the climate had changed (sometimes very quickly) over the past three million years.

And it had nothing to do with carbon emissions and everything to do with the sun.

I sometimes wonder if there's not a strong anti-scientific push in some of these articles, born from a latent misanthropism, eg, all humans fault, too many babies, we're killing the planet, etc.

Inteesting. This bloke earns his quid by spruiking this rubbish, & many of those on here fall for it.

Y2K anyone?

Typical ACF bleat: "Somebody should do something!"

But it's nonsense. See here: http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/maldive.htm

And here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/

Greens run these scare stories to frighten small children, then hold out their hats to profit from it.

A lot of you people don't seem to get it. Climate change/global warming or global climate disruption is but a symptom of two major issues that neither the ACF, Greenpeace, etc. on the left and the right-wing blogocracy even acknowledge. The elephant in the room is overpopulation (and over-consumption). Comments above mentioned that in both cases the islanders were blasting the reefs for both building materials and for fishing - a demonstration of both of the problems I cited.

Want to fix the overall problem? Let's start with free condoms. As Sir David Attenborough has said "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, maybe we should control the population to ensure the survival of our environment."