Dr Suter

Your comments in "Protecting the environment costs jobs" heading.

All Australian governments have failed to make the most of a “green economy” and despite the trumpeting of Australia's leading role in climate change reversal in his electoral rhetoric, Kevin Rudd is at last finding out why.

The abundant sunlight or wind that a country receives is not the deciding factor for it becoming a major solar and wind technology leader. It certainly is an incentive and Australia has produced industries capable of competing in technology and expertise in those fields.

The deciding factor is not about the abundance of the natural resource.

It is the capital cost, and cost per kW of electricity produced. Despite government subsidies, it is still a cost to the consumer.

The world major solar and wind generation manufacturers are working overtime, but at a cost to employment in their home nations.

These industries have followed the rest of the world's manufacturers and relocated manufacture and assembly to China for growing demand there under Kyoto incentives. They also export components and completed systems against to countries like Australia where local industry cannot compete on cost.

The result has been job losses cuts in the European, Asian and the US manufacturers' home bases.

China's low costs are not just the effect of low labour costs. Major contributors to that low cost includes currency manipulation, "dumping", extensive government subsidies, unsafe work places, lack of environmental management systems in factories, and little to no provision for workers insurance and compensation.

Until China addresses these inconsistencies, exploiting Australia's solar and wind resources to create green jobs here will still be political rhetoric and our "green incentives" will still be import reliant on technology and product.

It is a major reason why China is refusing to reduce its carbon emissions and carbon tariffs need serious consideration.

Arthur Thomas

Keith,
Good piece as far as it goes.

I have long argued that we don't need some ivy school debating society. We need a government.
Notwithstanding what do we do, we need more than a ring side history lesson.
____________________________
Arthur T

Good point.

You conclude: "The Australian climate change debate is not over."

And that is indeed true. In fact, it is arguable that it hasn't even started, at least with respect to the science where the politics of the situation have precluded rational discussion of the issues. I acknowledge that this is not just a Labor/Greens issue. John Howard, some 5 years ago, was being urged to address the science. However, sadly his position was that we accept IPCC advice - the science is settled. I wonder what he is thinking now that the CRU e:mails have exposed the unprincipled advocacy of the IPCC.

The problem is, that many Australian voters think that episodes of drought, or bush fires, are the result of rising CO2 emissions. And this simplistic viewpoint has been encouraged by those eager to win their votes. It is seldom explained, and certainly not by MSM (particularly Fairfax and ABC), that Australia has always had droughts and bush fires, and that if man is having any impact at all, it is far more likely to be due to land-use factors (systematic de-hydration of the landscape and disturbance of natural hydrological cycles mainly, as Peter Andrews explains) than rising CO2 levels.

This is likely true in other countries as well. However, we are told that CO2 is the bad actor. Reduce that, and all our problems will be solved. However, if a CPRS were successfully introduced, we would find that the costs will be enormous, and yet there will be no discernible difference to local climate or global climate.

Please can we start to have a rational discussion on these issues.

Dr Suter
What has been happening (all too slowly) is that those who have the scientific background to understand it, have been reading about the "science of climate change" and find the IPCC material unconvincing. The chemical structure of Carbon makes it probably the most important element in the chain is chemicals that allow life to exist. Calling it a polutant immediately makes one suspicious about the motives of those who want to scare the daylights out of people.

Certainly there have been changes in climate but to attribute the cause to increases in the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere as if there was a "direct" relationship is going too far. Carbon Dioxide does have "warming" properties but they are more "logarithmic" than "direct". That is, the largest impact is at low levels and as the levels increase the "warming" impact decreases markedly.

What has happened is that the political sphere has taken over and because politicians would rather discuss "solutions" than discuss the science people who do not accept the IPCC argument, no matter how scientifically qualified they may be, are labelled as sceptics, deniers, flat earthers, or whatever a derogatory term that can be used in order to push them to one side without having to address the science of their argument. Witness the leaked e-mails within what is called "climategate".

You could be right about this whole issue not going away, only time will tell. But you will not cool the climate one bit by slapping a giant new tax on people in Australia

Yes, Keith Suter' the main problem is man destroying the environment to make way not only for human population increase, but using up the forests and such that has made the world so suitable for mankind.

It is so interesting that even as far back as the Industrial Revolution, when steam power soon began to produce juggernauts which could haul down big trees, certain thinkers began to profess fear.

Now of course, we are well past the end of earth's natural life, mankind's reasoning still full of the faith that modern mankind will progress to the point that he will overcome even if our globe is destroyed of plant life.

It is so interesting that John Howard has recently called this morbid reasoning declaring that we must believe in the faith that has dominated our progress.

Yep, that is why John Howard strove to downgrade much of our university subjects, especially those related to what is major problem with our modern world today.

mechanical science destroying the acience which both men and women talked about

Good article Keith. What is your view on Copenhagen's failure to deliver so far? Can world leaders avert temperature rises that threaten lives and livelihoods across the globe?

Copenhagen points to a grim snapshot of the state of world political negotiations under current UN structures, played more like a poker game than a serious effort at solving the most diabolical scientific problem facing mankind.

If the current offers stand, then even IF all pledges are fully implemented, we will reach 550 ppm by 2050 or 3 degrees warming. If China's pledge stays independently unverifiable, and if rules are not put in place to prevent carbon capture double counting and carbon trading fraud, as exposed in PNG and Europe, then we could be looking at 4 degrees or more.

An unintended consequence of the Copenhagen participants failure may be agitation by 6 billion mere mortals to push for a world governing body, unlike the UN, that has real authority, willingness and aptitude to make the necessary legally binding decisions based on science, equity, accountability, social justice, technological innovation and rollout.

Has Copenhagen fared better than Bali or Kyoto? Will another climate meeting in Mexico next year do any better? We do know, that the longer we delay, the stakes get higher but leaders of key nation states become more guarded at their own duty to save the planet as we know it. 'We'll do no more or no less' than others', sums it up.

As people power gains strength, led by networked communities, then 2010 could shape up as a watershed year in global politics. We have a federal election in 2010 and the differences between parties climate policies couldn't be more stark. Depending who wins, we could see radical Australian climate policies ranging from nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind power plants, to bicycle, all-electric green car incentives and even the refusal of coal export pemits.

What's clear is that as the clock ticks, only radical changes are likely to win public favour. Countries agreement to pass the buck to a competant global body may be the inevitable outcome.

Suter like all the climate nazis deals in slight of hand.

'But he (John Howard)then introduced it (GST) when he became Prime Minister after defeating Paul Keating in 1996 and it became his most notable domestic policy change.'

Yes he introduced it after seeking a mandate from the Australian people at a subsequent election.

Suter is also ignoring the elephant in the room.

The Liberal Party's position has always been to wait to see what the rest of the world would do at Copenhagen before committing to any carbon trading scheme or carbon tax.

Rudd just wanted to inflict the consequences of carbon trading on the Australian population regardless of the outcome at Copenhagen.

Now with Copenhagen blowing up in Kevvys face his campaign to be the world leader is in tatters and his credibility among the Australain population falling dramatically.

Abbott looks like Australia's saviour.

Turnbull's terminal.

Kevvy cannot win an election on Australias response to the climate warming. He'd look too silly in advocating any action. But then Kevvy's pig-headed and not all that bright and might persist anyway.

And to Suter's disappointment it will be the voters of Australia who will finish off the stupidity of the climate nazis. Thus will end, not the debate, but the nazi like propgandising.

"A fresh round of natural disasters would force politicians once again to be more active on this subject."

But there is no evidence whatsoever that the incidence of 'natural disasters' is increasing, or that there is any causal link between natural disasters and global temperature. What you perhaps mean is that another round of natural disasters would make it easier to whip up public panic and hysteria and channel it towards some political outcome; presumably another attempted power grab.

Quick Respnse, where are any competent bodies covering the whole global problem?

Certainly once the polar ice stops freezing, everyone will be forced to take notice, especially America, which many many years ago was so happy to be called the Lucky Country.

Almost as if native America was not only so lucky to have the Whitey invasion, but in the end her global position will let her be the last to go.

Reckon there is still so much like the above to talk about, a strong knowledge of history, especially environmental history being so important.

Copenhagen is over and with it the third best of all possible outcomes. Best of all would have been a realisation that so called anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on fraudulent science and has been correctly called “the scam of the century.” The second best would have been a total collapse of the conference.

Of course neither the first nor second best were anything other then pipedreams. Now we have both the time and leisure to explain the absurdity of AGW. The full impact of the leaked emails can be digested.

Consider this statement; “the global temperature is not to rise above 2 degrees C. No indication as to how this is to be measured. Which data set is to be the standard? Is it the Hadley Centre? Is it NASA/GISS? Or is it the satellite data from RSS and UAH?

Is the measure to be global surface air temperature? An index derived from non randomly situated Stephenson screens (designed by a nineteenth century civil engineer, the father of the famous author RL Stephenson). The screens are placed about 1.25m above ground level. Many images are shown on the internet of screens placed in less then ideal locations.

What about Ocean temperatures? Since about 2001 accurate ocean measurements have been done by the Argos system. A series of buoys placed in a grid pattern defined by 3 degrees of latitude and longitude and cover the seas from 60 degree north to 60 degree south.

The point I make is that if the politicians are going to use global temperature as their measure. They would be advised to carefully define what is being measured.

One other thing the AGW activists from Al Gore downwards seem to have considerable financial interests in renewable energy companies and possible in the putative carbon trading credit companies.

Dr. Suter, your piece reads more like a threat to continue the “good fight”. It’s not just the Australian climate change debate you need to consider but that about to be played out on the international forum.

With the recent issue of “Litigation Hold Notices” by the US Senate to all the main players in AGW science, we have seen another step towards legal action. A further 8,000 personal e-mails have been sent to employees cautioning against the destruction or altering of any related data held on any media whatsoever.

The first big domino to fall IMHO will be in the USA. It won’t be long before it registers with those involved in the alleged Climategate fiasco that they are now dealing with the “big boys”.

So the debate will continue but not I suspect, in quite the way you seem to imagine.

Thanks Keith,

An easily understood model of CO2-related global warming can be found at:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bath

Our problem is explained in terms of CO2 running out of a tap, into a bathtub, at about twice the rate it can pass through the plughole.

A closer look at sources and sinks is given, and a perspective on why CO2 driven climate change is so regularly misunderstood.

This short article is science journalism at its best.

The difficulty, of course, is that anthropogenic global warming is not simply a well-established science issue, however, solid the evidence. It is economic and transnationally political. For that reason, I give the Kyoto process and Copenhagen about the same chance of coming up with a functional response as I would give the Convention on Conventional Weapons, on coming up with a cure for the scourges of land mines, cluster munitions and other UXO.

Regarding land mines, the CCW started gasbagging in 1980, and still hasn't finished. Meanwhile, on land mines, the CCW has been irrelevant for the past 10 years - thanks to the Ottawa Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty, whose second review conference was held in Cartagena, Colombia, two weeks ago. Further diminishing the CCW, the Convention on Cluster Munitions will very likely be in force by July of next year. The USA, China and a number of other countries are still trying to get other nations to trust in the CCW process for cluster munitions.

When movers and shakers see issues as matters of human rights and human needs, instead of as outputs of economic models and issues of hegemony and national pride, things get done.

Who are the movers and shakers on climate change? Not for me to say. But I would not be voting for either our Australian government or the coalition. A shame the government did not act definitively on the Garnaut report, while it had the momentum and a clear mandate.

" ... But I would not be voting for either our Australian government or the coalition. ... "

Yes indeed folks, I wholeheartedly agree and thanks for that *Sir Ivor*
My view is that the red & blue of politics are indeed the problem.

Of course, as unbiased, quality journalism is thin on the ground in Australia it makes the process of informing and enabling the average Australian to make more informed political choices a difficult task, though, short, rapid fire ad breaks done with time lapse and targeted referral to online web based video on demand KNOWLEDGE servers is one way of addressing the problem.

To give you a current example, I like to watch Aust Network Oz news and the Biz report with Whitney et al over breaky in the morning from my Indonesian domicile. This mornings news, included a *Koupenhargen* (Copenhagen) report and indicated that Indonesia was very pleased with the outcome.

Concurrently, local Indo news reports that capital for regrowth projects is "potentially" available IF, and ONLY IF, they bow to international standards of accountability and transparency AND accept international monitors on the ground.

As the corruption/anti corruption war rages on here, the political establishment is throwing a significant tantrum/hissy fit and alleging violation of sovereignty, interference in internal affairs and "Operasi Mata Mata"

(Operasi ~ Operations, Mata ~ Eye, Mata Mata ~ to eyeball/to spy)

All the usual crap that you get from political parasitic toads when they stand not to fleece the lion's share of international funding.

But I can confidently state, if the local farmers, who make little more than an average of $AU5 a day are provided with installment funds on an ongoing cap-exed base per tree to plant and retain forestation it will be a most excellent thing both for the individuals concerned and also for the environment and hopefully in 20 years time also a modest re-invigoration of the local forestry industries.

But the $US20,000 per month + perks senior ministers in Jakarta must want to be brought to heel.

Would someone like to explain why Washington DC is currently experiencing the heaviest December snowfalls on record?

Kevvy last month used a November heat wave in Australia to justify global warming.

I'm perplexed.

Forget the politics ... address the fact that our leader, with apparent impunity in the media, can use one event to justify global warming but ignore another event that repudiates the same global warming.

Hmmm .. it may be that *Prez S.B.Y.* is pumped for the gig. I've started to notice an increase in "Forestry Department" adds where they demonstrate the where, the how and the whyfore of planting trees ..

It could be indicative of things to come ..

Time will tell no doubt.