I'm pretty neutral in my opinions on global warming (I like the more scary name that was used before the sanitised 'Climate Change'), but I do like those disaster movies showing devastation.

I think to myself, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn’t, maybe it’s caused by humans, maybe it isn’t, but it’s probably a good thing to try to avoid polluting our environment.

What makes me angry though, is the recent phenomena of the carbon footprint narcissist. Letters like this to the smh for instance.

“When building my house three years ago, energy efficiency was foremost in my mind. By eliminating high-energy users such as electric hot water systems and installing only low-energy light bulbs, gas for water heating and cooking, I have been able to reduce my electricity usage to an average of $1.82 a day. And that is for a well-insulated three-bedroom house on tank water, with an in-ground swimming pool and associated pumps. If I can do it, anyone can. People just need to think before using useless appliances such as dryers and dishwashers.”

There is generally a handful of these letters a week, along with as much anger at climate change deniers as is reserved for holocaust deniers.

Environmentalism is, I think, basically a new religion. Being a new religion it’s created the effect where all the believers are like born-again evangelists, with more people converting to the cause of ‘Save the Earth’ and ‘Repent for your carbon footprint sins’ every day. I see parallels between the catholic sex guilt and the environmentalist long shower guilt. It’s also a vehicle for the chattering classes to one-up each other (it's even exceeded real estate in this respect) and get on their high horse and prove their moral superiority, founded on their ability to afford more 'religious donations to mother earth' in the form of financial/lifestyle sacrifice than the next person.

The sad thing is the effect of all this preaching and ‘noise’ is to hugely detract from useful and sensible discussion of the problem. Or lack of, if I dare to even SUGGEST such a thing.

I don't think you comprehend what science is. Do you know how much data and research scientists have been conducting on this? I always find it amusing when the layman in public questions the work of thousands of scientists across the world. It's akin to a creationist questioning evolution and asserting to them that intelligent design is scientific and competitive theory to evolution.

As for environmentalism, you would have to be exttremely ignorant to call it a religion. If you even remember some basic history on Australia you would realise the catastrophic effects of ignoring the environment. It's common knowledge to those with some education and many farmers.

Btw Howard's government was one to propose the extreme measure of outlawing incandescent light globes. If environmentalists had proposed such ideas, the reaction and the propaganda from many who dislike environmentalism would have been severely negative. However, not much of a word if a mainstream politician proposes such a measure.

Totally agree.Just a note about those low energy light bulbs.The fluro bulbs use mercury vapour to conduct the electricity and the phosphous gas causes the fluoresence.This is adding a lot more mercury to the environment.I have developed a servere allergy to small amounts of mercury.It is the third most toxic substance known to man excluding radioactivity.

So much for environmentally friendly solutions.Bio-fuels will just create more food shortages.

Solar has to be the way to go.There is plenty of energy for all,but the ideology of the greens and the left is playing right into the hands of the Multi-nationals who are now limiting supply under the ruse of being green friendly.

Guess who is really paying the price for all this mis-information?

TUS you must think like me.Just last night I posted the following on the Greens Blog on the Domain;
"Forget the scientific method.The Greens will have to fight this heresy just like the Catholic Church.What if Jesus really died?What if the CO2 was not the evil devil and the Great Global Warming God did not exist?Those evil deniars need to relegated to the bowels of discredibility.They are surely rich capitalists whose only philosophy is self interest."

Amazingly,it is still there.No comment has followed.Perhaps they are too stupid to realise that it was a parody.

TUS I feel similar to you and Arjay.

I dislike pollution and waste and have, over the past 30 years, spent a lot of time pondering (probably fruitlessly) the implications of oil depletion. I have designed software packages which automatically measure and cost “waste” from manufacturing processes, so managers can respond to what is most significant.

I have also seen a lot of good things evolve. Recycling batteries, mobile phones, ink cartridges, motor cars, glass, aluminium, mineral and vegetable oils etc.

Certainly the latter 5 items are all run as part of proper commercial operations. My knowledge of the glass industry tells me the use of cullet (broken bottles) is a considerable benefit in making new bottles etc. because the “fusion” point has already been reached. Similarly the electricity used for producing aluminium from bauxite is “recovered” in the recycling of cans and the same applies to motor cars. I have seen documentaries on recycling concrete and reinforcement steel from demolished buildings in USA.

These recycling processes are done because, commercially, they stack up and not because it is a “nice idea”.

Cars are moer petrol efficient than they were 20 years ago and GM is looking for someway of using domestic garbage to convert to motor fuel.

I agree with you regarding environmentalism as a new religion and like all religions, it has its fundamentalist zealots who are intent on inflicting their draconian stupidity on the rest of us. It is up to us to counter their stupid extremism with reason and determination.

My views are still as valid (and more reasoned) as those of the radical fringe dwellers and I believe, ultimately more likely to provide the balanced society where all are free to be themselves and life is worth living, than existing in some 11th century neo-feudalism, imposed by restrictive edicts of fundamentalist environmentalism.

I am also an optimist, identify a problem and capitalism allows someone to benefit from it. Waste and pollution are just opportunities awaiting to be discovered.

Let me hear you say yeah! Praise de Gore'd!

Recently heard a phone-in on 702 ABC Radio wherein contestants out bid each other in virtuousity by telling the world how few buckets of water they had managed to scrape out of their shower cubicles whilst showering.

Did not know whether to laugh or cry.

You people realise you are living in a society protected with environmental laws/regulations, don't you? Or do you think they all just 'happened' out of thin air because of market forces? Surely you are not so delusional.

palimpsest,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_restrictions_in_Australia#Queensland

Steel ,not all of the environmental laws are there to protect us.Many of them are there for the Govt to collect revenue.Back in 1990 general waste in Sydney was charged at $11.00 per tonne.Now it is $120.00 per tonne.This is well over 1000% increase in 18 yrs with an average inflation rate of 3.5%pa.In real terms it should be just $22.00 per tonne.Nothing has changed.They still just push it into a big hole and no processing is involved.

Our electricity in NSW is rising expodentially but the price of coal has not.The Iemma Govt build the most expensive,unfriendly environmental water solution,ie the desalination plant.Both our Govts and Big business are using environmental excuse to screw us and the Greens just stand ideologically by,while ordinary Aussies suffer.

Do you really believe that for an individual to try to reduce the chance of climate change is a narcissistic thing to do? And people who try to improve efficiency or reduce emissions have found a 'new religion?'

In other words is what you're saying:

1) Don't turn off the lights and appliances when not needed.
2) Don't recycle.
3) Don't plant trees.
4) When buying a car choose one that doesn't get good mileage.
5) Don't insulate and weatherize your home or apartment.
6) Don't carpool, drive more.
7) Don't replace old, worn out appliances such as refrigerators, heat pumps, with the most efficient new models.
8) Don't become informed, don't help family and friends learn about climate change.
9) Don't actively support government policies that may be appropriate.

None of us need to be provided with information about the need to make better choices.

Let's just enjoy life.

Interesting.

Usual Suspect: “I think to myself, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn’t, maybe it’s caused by humans, maybe it isn’t, but it’s probably a good thing to try to avoid polluting our environment.”

I’m about as sophisticated in my thinking as you on this, but I would have thought that “carbon footprint narcissism” conveyed precisely the opposite of what you are trying to say. Seems more altruistic to me, misguided as it may be. Not likely to lead to a breakdown of civilisation as we know it, is it?

"The sad thing is the effect of all this preaching and ‘noise’ ....."

Usual Suspect. Are you suggesting that all this "preaching" is a conspiracy when you also preach: "it’s probably a good thing to try to avoid polluting our environment."

"Probably." Do you actually have an interest in the environment?

My interest in the environment commenced way back in the 60's when, soon after the spraying of my home and surrounds for funnel web spiders, my cat died and so did my infant daughter.

So which pollutant subject would you prefer to have a "sensible" discussion on?

What about the 60,000 barrels (16,000 tonnes) of hexachlorobenzene which has languished in a shed at Botany for 20 years? Or the 45 cubic metres buried and leaking from an adjacent car park where the underground toxic plume, described as the largest in the Southern Hemisphere, is heading towards the bay at 100 metres per year? This is industrial negligence on a grand scale. HCB is one of the most dangerous chemicals man has ever manufactured.

And yet you sneer?

Perhaps you are interested in the 500,000 litres of assorted, toxic chemicals which exploded into the atmosphere from a hazardous waste site at Bellevue in WA, where again, regulators had performed the ostrich dance.

Now we have Esperance contaminated with industrial lead which invaded the bodies of small children and adults and killed over 4,000 native birds - a result of regulators' neglecting their duties. Now these very hypocritical regulators have commenced a law suit against the Port of Esperance for breach of the "Act."

Have you heard about Alcoa at Wagerup in WA where the citizens have had to resort to employing Erin Brockovich to commence a law suit against one of the largest polluters in the world because Australian regulators share their beds with the polluters? Very funny eh?

These hazardous chemicals, destroying human health and vital eco-systems, are mostly carbon based.

So which part of the conspiracy do you not understand? And why would you describe the more enlightened, who have minimised their carbon footprints for decades, as narcissistic?

Steel,

'I always find it amusing when the layman in public questions the work of thousands of scientists across the world'
I think you have too much 'faith' in scientists. There is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind like I have. You know why? Because science evolves, who knows what the same scientists may be saying in 20 years, and the publication and publicity of findings is also influenced by the political environment of the time.

Foxy,

'Do you really believe that for an individual to try to reduce the chance of climate change is a narcissistic thing to do? '

No. It's the bragging and big noting oneself that illustrates the narcisim. Listing your professed efforts to limit your effect on the environment to attempt to illustrate you are somehow 'better' than the average Joe. It's easy to say you use public transport, or ride your bike to protect the environment if you live in paddington, a bit harder when you live in Castle Hill. It's easier to afford organic food or pay for a new car or whatever when you have higher expendable income.

With regards to your list, yes they are all good things to do, but not all are things as easy for all to achieve, and some are a lot to do with how people run their personal life. That's another parallel with religion, the preaching about how people should live their life.

dickie,

I haven't mentioned any conspiracy. Maybe when environmentalists like yourself describe themselves as 'more enlightened', they leave themselves open to being described as narcissistic.

To all,

Notice how some of the poists have proved my point. It's maybe not quite as bad as the many who seem to equate climate change denial with holocaust denial as I described in my post. But I have stated I am fairly neutral, and favour avoiding polution where possible, yet people have 'jumped on' this with fervour, like a religious fundamentalist reacting to someone questioning the existance of god.

Moderation in all things is a good motto.

The oft heard quote of thousands of scientists is itself a bit suss.
There is a significant rethink going on in scientific circles by some
hundreds of scientist who have reservations about the IPCC process.
A few of them were associated with the original IPCC work.

I don't have all the answers but it is not proper to critisise those that
express counter thoughts and worries.
The cost of the IPCC being wrong would in a few years time send us all
stoney broke. So just be thankful that someone is checking their work.
Those compact fluo lamps are not all that good. I bought the highest
powered ones I could find but I had to put the old ones back in because of eye strain.

Whats that trumpeting I hear in the corner ?

Oh dear it is peak oil elephant, perhaps we had better worry about that first.

"Guilt, resentment and apocalypse. Prophets have since the dawn of history recognised the power they can unleash by linking these three.
Elijah told of earthquake, wind and fire; Jeremiah of disasters unnumbered. Ignatius Loyola, Luther, Calvin, the Wesleys, Moses, Mohammad...and countless other seers, ayatollahs and divines, have called upon us to bail out of whatever version of Sodom and Gomorrah it has pleased them to paint, before those cities burn. The prophets of climate change are their inheritors, reclothing new belief in the metaphor of the old, reconnecting it to those ancient drives. So there you have it. The Friends of the Earth are Elijah's latest recruits. Eco-apocalypticism is the new religion."

In the article above, you learn that Dr. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, informs everyone that they will go to hell if they won't fight against "climate change." What you won't learn is that almost 30% of assets of his church are ExxonMobil stocks.

All this was taken from "Eco-Apocalypticism Is The New Religion,"
Matthew Parris, The Times, 1 April 2006.

The website - if you want to read more is:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/climate-apocalypse-is-new-religion.html

Excellent list Foxy. Science is never improved by an addiction to received wisdom and a hostility to dissent.

This opinion piece by IPCC member and dissenter John R Christy is must-read: http://mobile2.wsj.com/device/html_article.php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

A quote:
"My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit 'global warming.'"

Here's an older article by an Australian writer:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-garden-of-good-and-evil/2007/06/16/1181414606757.html?page=fullpage

Sorry Usual Suspect

I misunderstood you. However, you say you are "pretty neutral" in your opinion on global warming and that those who "preach" and make a "noise" are not adding to "sensible" debate. So what do you mean? Should people allow you to gag them, revert to "pretty neutral" or should they continue with debate even if their handy hints make you "angry?"

"Maybe when environmentalists like yourself describe themselves as 'more enlightened', they leave themselves open to being described as narcissistic." (Usual Suspect)

Thanks for that Usual Suspect. Actually you mention "global warming" in your opening. You will find that I do not debate the science on global warming. I do not understand it and I leave that to the more knowledgeable where I endeavour to digest their knowledge.

However, I do debate the state of our environment in Australia and beyond including the state of our seriously threatened eco-systems. Forgive my immodesty here, but I believe I am "enlightened" on those specific issues.

One cannot be "pretty neutral" on hard scientific evidence and others who are not interested, cannot be "enlightened."

Therefore to the unenlightened, I ask: "Please refrain from your anger, as I leave you excerpts of a "preach" from a wise one - long gone to meet his ancestors":

"The whites too shall pass -- Perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.

"When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses all tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires.

"Where is the eagle? Gone. Where is the buffalo? Gone.

"Humankind has not woven the web of life. They are but one thread within it. Whatever they do to the web, they do to themselves. All things are bound together. All things connect." (Chief Seattle to US President Pierce 1855)

"I think you have too much 'faith' in scientists. There is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind like I have. You know why? Because science evolves, who knows what the same scientists may be saying in 20 years, and the publication and publicity of findings is also influenced by the political environment of the time."

I don't think you do understand science. Faith resides in those who question the scientists, not the other way around. And political views change on a whim, not scientists opinions. There is little faith required when you realise what scientists do to make a claim. On the political influences, they are made by politicians. If you look beyond the prominent speakers you see the vast amounts of research going into it. Making an unsubstantiated jdugement when you know NOTHING -ie, you are 100% ignorant, is absolutely priceless.

Science does change, but it changes far less than people's ignorant, layman opinions. It's truly laughable for someone to question the science without any basis.

"Notice how some of the poists have proved my point. It's maybe not quite as bad as the many who seem to equate climate change denial with holocaust denial as I described in my post. But I have stated I am fairly neutral, and favour avoiding polution where possible, yet people have 'jumped on' this with fervour, like a religious fundamentalist reacting to someone questioning the existance of god."

Your post is not neutral, since you so easily dismiss the research of scientists. GOing so far as to call it narcissism. Now with a view like that, there wil be angry responses, because you are just another speculating layman who knows absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

Rather, perhaps you should note the scorn of others replying when they talk of environmentalism.

I would say, ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALISM IS THE RELIGION. And to substantiate that claim, it's because anti-environmentalism is based on faith. Faith that the environment and "ecosystem" are fabrications. There is no scientific basis for such a view, only a socio-economic perspective.

dickie,

'Should people allow you to gag them, revert to "pretty neutral" or should they continue with debate even if their handy hints make you "angry?"'

None of the above. I don't mean to gag anyone. I just want to expose the real motives of this 'my carbon footprint is smaller than yours', morally superior set. I also want people to realise that their 'moral superiority is founded on their ability to afford more 'religious donations to mother earth' in the form of financial/lifestyle sacrifice than the next person.'

It's like making a big production of putting a $50 dollar note in the collection plate at church and telling all the people in your row 'if I can do it anyone can', and thinking you're a better Christian for example.

To be convinced by ' hard scientific evidence', one must have a high opinion of one's analytical skills and scientific aptitude, or have high faith in the scientists. I have explained in an earlier post why I find scientific evidence less than convincing

Steel,

'Making an unsubstantiated jdugement when you know NOTHING -ie, you are 100% ignorant, is absolutely priceless.
'
To be fair I do know some things, and wonder how you have come to the conclusion I am 100% ignorant? Surely that's impossible anyway. Also I have made no final judgement, so I don't have to substantiate anything, and I have not ' question the science without any basis', I have questioned whether the scientists themselves may come around to a definitive final judgement in the future that contradicts the current consensis. Surely this is what science is about, and why it is superior to religious dogma. Maybe that's why I find the treatment of the climate change debate so offensive, as it is anti-science not to question, and climate change is hence turning into a religion. All I have done is kept an open mind.

'dismiss the research of scientists. GOing so far as to call it narcissism. '

Just where have I dismissed any research of scientists. And where have I called it narcissism? If I were to call a tele-evangilist a narcissist, is that the same as calling the christian faith narcissistic?

usual suspect

I partly concur, as laymen we cannot be 100% sure how much global warming can be attributed to human activity. The science is pretty compelling, when the scientists cannot agree, that in itself suggests that we should take notice.

I don't think many scientists disagree that the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and general ozone thinning is caused by overuse of ozone depleting substances (CFCs) which are now banned in most countries. In fact on the radio the other day a solution put forward was to propel some sort of sulphur compound into the stratosphere to reflect light. But then it was found that the substance itself would contribute to thinning. Scientists are not being idle on research in this area and while they are still battling it out it is not unwise I think to proceed with some caution.

'Reducing our carbon footprint' is just modern jargon for not polluting as much, not sending chemicals into our rivers and not overlogging our forests etc etc etc. Nothing really new here.

We have to ask ourselves do we believe that some of the environmental suggestions and ideas in response to global warming will make a positive difference to our planet or are we all just wasting our time?

Environmentalism is not like religion, there is science to back it up. I wonder if the letters to the paper you refer to are more about being positive and helpful rather than any genuine attempt at one-upmanship.

Yes there is some self-righteousness I grant you, last night on the TV some model was bleating about using low energy light bulbs (the mercury laden ones) as though she was the first one who thought of it (I am probably being a bit unkind). This is the cultural response to change I suppose - we are in the process of evolving and in the future talk of the environment won't be as prolific because many of the ideals will have been achieved and will be the accepted norm.

Until such time I guess there will be more harping :).

I will believe that environmentalists/Greens/the Left are serious about solving climate change - not simply using it as a scare tactic to push their ideologies - when they start questioning their own sacred cows, such as their blind opposition to GM crops.

Getting behind the research to develop drought tolerant/salinity tolerant/heat tolerant crops, and crops that yield more through resistance to pests and mould, would do far more to help feed the world and address the changing conditions than cutting showers by 2 minutes and self-righteously proclaiming it. Let's see some real sacrifice - being willing to rethink one of your pet crusades.

US “Notice how some of the posts have proved my point.”

I see it US. The source of the posts will not, they see their view as omnipotent and beyond challenge.

If it is of any reassurance, US, I am having fun with a detractor in the “New Taxation System” thread too.

Stand fast to your view.

As dearest Margaret said “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

The environmentalist and levelers here are exhausted of argument, ad hominines is all they have left.

I note little dickies post,

he/she who has still to find and justify the posting evidence of the claim he/she made that I was a supporter of cartels –

I will grow old waiting for dickie to prove that and all because I have the audacity of challenging the environmentalist view with common sense.

I am not stalking you dickie, just holding you to account for what you post.

I got up at 5:50 today to travel across the City for a 7:00 am breakfast organised by a financial services group and accounting body. We duly listened to a noted environmental speaker with credentials (Doctorates and PhDs from all over) and a CV including working for UN.

He talked on and criticized the inefficiencies of supply chain management, ignoring the obvious “economies of scale”, which drive the “counter-balance” of production efficiency to “supply chain length”.

Actually he is at least 60 years behind the times. Australian manufacturing has always balanced “local production” versus “economies of scale” in determining where to place manufacturing plants. It is a standard component of what I have been trained to evaluate.

He further, completely ignored the bleeding obvious, that human population numbers have a significant influence on all environmental issues, not mentioning global population once.

That might explain why he was not receiving a presenters fee, because, like most “environmental experts”, what he said was a bunch of crap.

The environmentalists are fine, playing in the sand pit but in the real world, where people need to work, earn a living, bring up families etc. they are out of their depth.

Leave them to build convoluted theories, computer and social engineering models.

And leave the real world to the real business folk who know how to run it.

Ah well, at least the venue and food was good and I entertained the table with a few enviro gags.

Like:

What to do with an environmentalist when he dies?

Bury him with his butt stuck out the ground and use him as a bicycle rack.

Col says "they see their view as omnipotent and beyond challenge" then says "Stand fast to your view".

Typical us/them mentality backed up by "I am having fun with a detractor in the “New Taxation System” thread too."

If it is of any reassurance to you Col, I respect your views on the "New Taxation System" thread (given you have some specific expertise) but reading your latest responses here ... well, you are the master of ad-homs

Q&A “well, you are the master of ad-homs”

I make no secret of my “skill” in that area Q&A.

I do, however, use them in response to attacks (current or past) and not “indiscriminately”

as for you picking up my comment on "having fun"

Yep thats me, life is a game (of chance) and I enjoy mine. I never take myself too seriously.

You should try it sometime.