As the Industrial Revolution held the key to possible eventual global destruction, it is a pity that the great thinker Adam Smith also of the time, did not use his philosophies to give warnings in a changing world concerning the critical differences between Human Need and the potential destructiveness of Human Greed.

Cheers, BB, WA.

So here it is, laid out for all to see. The Socialist Left's vision of our future. The ETS is or should be a vehicle for "distributive justice". That's the move where creepy bureaucrats take your money and give it to some one more deserving.

Like Robert Mugabe. Or Tristan Ewins, since he doesn't seem to have any skills for earning an income of his own. "Freelance" implies "can't get a job as a real journalist".

Note the "authorities" he quotes: The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, somebody who did a pass degree in "Social Science Environment", whatever that is, and Friends of the Earth. Well balanced, no?

And how's this for denial? "Given the virtually universal consensus across the entire body of global scientific opinion, with regards to the reality of human-induced climate change, resistance to action must be seen as being harder and harder to justify."

You haven't been keeping up, have you Tristan? The world has moved on from that self-serving little scam. Hear of CRU? GISS? Climategate fraud?

Some will recall that the Victorian Socialist Left kept Labor in opposition for an entire generation. This steaming pile shows us why. Keep up the good work, guys.

KenH

Now I am not one who is not guilty in making some attacks on the simplistic left, but some of your comments are ludicrous and damn right disrespectful to Tristan who is indeed an intelligent and passionate scholar, albeit that I do not always agree with his tone of argument.

I will say this of your comments. First, majority scientific and public opinion does agree that global warming and/or related problems (including methane emissions) are due to human activity.

Second, bagging Tristan's credentials, his related employment earnings from his writing, or social science, has no relevance to the debate or points raised by Tristan.

As for taking redistributing resources, there is nothing wrong with Tristan arguing such a point, as many a person would not be opposed to such a reality as long as economic wealth creation is maintained. As always, key trick is to balance competitiveness and compassion, as any half-decent Liberal voter would also agree to

Chris Lewis,

You know that one about heat and kitchens?

Tristan's choice of sources was grossly one-sided. That in itself destroys the credibility of the argument he put. And yes, it is entirely fair to question the record and qualifications of sources quoted as authorities. He introduced those issues, after all.

The circles in which you and he move might well find the idea of "distributive justice" appealing. But that proposition will be compared to the results your political predecessors achieved with the same concept - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe and the rest of the murderous gang - they gave their people such wonderful results, didn't they? And you're surprised that the "distributive justice" he/you are promoting is challenged?

Finally, repeating his claim that the majority of scientists are global warmers does not make it so. Even if it were so, that does not prove that they are correct, since science isn't a popularity contest. Remember Galileo?

Ken: Even John Howard - when in government - extolled the principle of a progressive income tax system. Does this make the man the equivalent of 'Pol Pot': or in that same tradition?

I know well enough - that although I am a liberal, a socialist and a democrat, for instance - that it just wouldn't be right to equate Edmund Burke with Adolf Hitler just because they're both 'on the Right'.

Politics is much more complex than that. By the same token when evaluating politics on 'the Left', it's best to appreciate the finer nuances. The fact I consider myself a liberal as well as a socialist suggests very strongly that I'm not in the same mold as, say, Joseph Stalin.

But the conclude: I don't consider myself a scientific authority - but given the relative freedom in scientific enquiry we enjoy in 'the West' - I cannot help but take note of what seems like a virtual consensus on the issue of climate change.

KenH,

If Tristan was a totalitarian, I would indeed give him as much stick as possible. As I understand, he does call himself a socialist, but in the tradition of supporting a level of govt intervention and redistribution such as evident in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. You would find that the vast majority of people in such countries are also ideologically opposed to totalitarian systems.

It is actually good that Tristan now refers to the strength of liberalism and liberal democracy to propose his ideas from a leftist perspective. As I have noted before, such ideas did carry more weight in the past, even under Menzies. You never know, the middle may indeed shift back a bit to the left in the future, but that will hardly make us totalitarians.

Tristan. You say: "Given the virtually universal consensus across the entire body of global scientific opinion, with regards to the reality of human-induced climate change, resistance to action must be seen as being harder and harder to justify."

Frankly, I am amazed at your demonstrated lack of knowledge of the issues, and demonstrated lack of any form of critical thinking. Where have you been in recent weeks?

I am struggling to restrain a rant. I will settle for "by their fruits ye shall know them".

Herbert:

To begin with: re - your Biblical phrase. I do not claim to 'represent God' in this matter. Nor do I claim to be infallible. But your use of the term "by their fruits you shall know them" - infers some kind of judgement on your part.

Mainly I deal with my secular beliefs in the 'public sphere'. And these beliefs are - for the most part - radically socialist and liberal. But I am also a Christian who has entrusted himself fully to God. I know there are many others on the Left who would sneer at that: but that is where my life's experiences have led me. Given that: I don't appreciate your inference.

re: your comments about 'recent developments' - I understand there has been controversy re: the material dealt in another article today "no fraud on hacked climate emails". And I know the weather in Europe recently seems to contradict our expectations re: climate change. But as of yet these are anomalies - not such yet that we can draw conclusions from them.

A well written and considered piece from Mr Ewins, examining problems associated with reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Several issues which should perhaps have got a mention are Rudd’s decisions to:

1. Support use of coal as the prime source of the energy needs of ourselves and other countries who are major coal users.
2. Not support either the adoption of national targets or, more importantly, measures aimed at enforcing them.
3. Not adopt realistic targets which make a realistic reduction of our greenhouse gas emissions to ensure global warming does not exceed 2C above pre-industrial temperatures.
4. Not adopt the Garnaut ETS model which would have ensured substantial investment in the development of renewable energy sources and technology.
5. Not support production or use of electric vehicles in Australia in a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on increasingly expensive oil.
6. Neither explain to the electorate how his CPRS will affect the hip pocket or effect reduction of greenhouse gas emissions – hardly transparency.

Failure of government to wean itself from coal for domestic energy production or as a source of revenue from its export, is evidenced by its investment of billions in a futile bid to develop affordable clean coal technology (CCS). In contrast, it limits investment in renewables to relatively small sums and on-going payment of subsidies to the producers and users of coal.

This does not indicate serious commitment to meaningful national or international reduction of CO2 emissions. If Rudd thinks that providing limited access to subsidies for pink bats, solar water panels and photovoltaic cells is the answer, then he exhibits Abbott-Minchin mentality. If he thinks his policies and CPRS proposals will win him a double dissolution election – think again.

Poor policy is one thing, refusal to adopt consistant policy is another. The Rudd Government is guilty of both, compunded by a poor choice of Penny Wong as Minister. Her performance does not impress.

Tristan, the 2010 Federal election will see Abbott trying to entice Green preferences. Tony has been open about his strategy. Could the Greens be won over? Sure, if Abbott is bold enough in his soon to be announced coalition policy to deal directly with climate change.

Labor, in rejecting the Green's 2020 lower range 25% emission reduction target, lost support for ETS in the Senate and made sickening concessions to gross polluters. Rudd is way too timid in everything he does. That is his weakness and Abbott will exploit the disillusionment successfully if he has a credible climate policy that hits the mark.

So what 'direct action' could make a significant global impact, and win the Greens support beyond some of the excellent proposals in your article? We are the world's biggest coal exporter. Federal environmental export conditions on approval of future coal contracts provides huge leverage.

By taking the proven and effective pathway of requiring end users of coking coal to meet minimum emmission standards equivalent to gas fired power stations, the whole world suddenly takes notice. The regulatory route forces coal power station owners in importing countries to provide a significant CO2 sequestration and capture process in place or pay more for lower quality, from limited coal researves further away. Such a bold policy is achievable with no new tax and would be enough to win over many environmentalists who want dramatic action to discourage coal use.

Tristan,

Whichever way you slice it, “distributive justice”, as you call it, is expropriation of other people’s money. You clearly believe in big government. Governments do not know better than you how to spend your money. If they did, we wouldn’t have had a pink batt led economic stimulus.

The many problems in your article begin with:
“Given the virtually universal consensus across the entire body of global scientific opinion, with regards to the reality of human-induced climate change...”

There is no such consensus and never has been. See here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers%20/

And here: www.petitionproject.org

The theory of human-caused global warming has never been validated. There is no “problem” to solve. And now it seems to be based on fraud.

The climategate scandal revealed that a gaggle of “scientists”, whose careers and grants depend on scare stories, have subverted the peer-review process, suborned weak journalists, doctored and cherry-picked data and destroyed data to thwart FOI requests. One of them, Phil Jones, has been stood down pending an inquiry.

Another, Kevin Trenberth, also has form. He was a lead author for the IPCC’s fourth assessment report (AR4) and was responsible for the resignation of one of the authors, Chris Landsea. Landsea’s open letter about his resignation and Trenberth’s scare tactics is here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/chris-landsea-leaves-ipcc-3372

Similarly, in the United States, another data-doctoring scandal has been revealed: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

The scam is unravelling just as governments are trying to forge ahead with ETSs, vehicles for monumental fraud.

You say: “Achieving real change obviously cannot come without a cost. The question is who pays for reform and how.”

The “change” you propose entails cost without benefit. It’s a transfer of money from the great majority to spiv carbon traders.

Having said that, you are clearly not another Stalin and I apologise for my implicit comparison.

"... know well enough - that although I am a liberal, a socialist and a democrat, for instance - that it just wouldn't be right to equate Edmund Burke with Adolf Hitler just because they're both 'on the Right'. "

Oh dear oh dear Tristran it is impossible to be both a liberal and a socialist, and while it's possible to be both a socialist and a democrat the history of socialist type regimes tends to show the reality is impossible. ie socialist regimes tend to try to dispense with democracy.

And Tristran while Edmund Burke may indeed have been from the right, Adolph Hittler was a member of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany. It was never right wing. Industry was allowed to operate in National Socialist Germany but it's over-riding direction was determined and controlled by the National Socialists.

If you can't even get the simple facts of recent history right how can you expect to be regarded as credible with your intrepretation of current events?

Keith: There is a difference between economic liberalism/neo-liberalism and social and political liberalism. I am a social and political liberal as well as a socialist.

You try and argue that the Nazis were 'Left' - but most people would find this idea ridiculous. For most poeople the 'Left' is socially and politically liberal: as well as egalitarian. Just because the Nazis supported relatively 'big government' does not mean they were 'Left' in most peoples' understanding of the word. There of much more to the 'Left' than that.

Finally: Many people think the 'Left/Right' opposition does not fully accomodate the full range of poltical positions. For instance: it is possible to be socially and politically liberal but not egalitarian: and vice versa. But the idea of 'Left' and 'Right' is deeply entrenched that we still think in these terms.

Tristan, your perspective is change from above. I believe in change from below. I think the failure of Copenhagen shows, as I wrote on my blog En Passant with John Passant recently when I described the Conference as the victory of environmental imperialism, that we need a mass movement prepared to undertake radical action - strikes, demonstrations, sit ins - to force radical solutions on governments around the world and away from the idea the market can solve the problems the market created. hose solutions appear to me to be renewable energy and millions of green jobs. Taxing the polluters,and not allowing them to increase prices, to pay for that makes perfect sense to me.

Passy - struggle for change is not a simple binary opposition between reform and revolution. It is the movement 'from below' - counter-hegemonic cultural struggle - that creates the conditions where governments can reform - or perhaps even forces them down that path.

But that said: there are also many who would like to legislate radical reform: but the movement 'from below' just isn't powerful enough: especially in the face of monopoly media, and the potentially disruptive power of the capitalist class.

Much of the 'moden left' in Australia doesn't emphasise class struggle in the Marxist sense - as the engine of change... I understand there are issues in electoral politics: managing the media cycle; not 'going out on a limb' when you need to hold as well gradually shift the 'relative centre' etc - but there is not enough emphasis - especially from the Labor leadership - on popular mobilisation as creating the real preconditions of change... (nb: holding and shifting the 'relative centre' is an issue affecting Labor especially - but we need political organisations - indeed parties - to the relative Left - who would enjoy more freedom in this regard...)

But nonetheless, there remains the prospect of popular mobilisation, and electoral politics in the sense discussed here - complementing each other. And I think that's what we ought be aiming for: this in the context of a long counter-hegemonic struggle - where electoral politics is just one of many critical fronts...