Brendan Nelson’s office is denying reports - discussed on an earlier post - that he will be having a “showdown” with Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt over the Coalition’s stance on emissions trading.
Some were reporting yesterday that Nelson would next week “take on” Malcolm Turnbull over climate change. His office claims that is “nonsense” and, given his tenuous hold on the leadership, it does seem unlikely he would be seeking a showdown with anyone. But he and Turnbull are “consulting”, which suggests he is trying to inch the party as far as he can towards a more sceptical line, in a bid to keep everyone happy.
However, Nelson is apparently “negotiating” with Turnbull to “harden” the Coalition’s position, and in an attempt to keep the denialists in his ranks happy, came out with this gem:
Now Nelson’s rhetoric is sounding more sceptical again. “I see there is an emerging body of scientific opinion which questions the role of carbon in all of this, but I’m strongly of the view that we give the planet the benefit of the doubt,” he said yesterday.
Sure, scientists differ about the degree and speed of global warming, but if it is not caused by carbon, why on earth are we contemplating support for an emissions trading scheme at all?
Quite. And that difference is between more catastrophic and slightly less catastrophic outlooks. It’s very clear that a significant contributing factor to the Coalition’s defeat last year was the perception that a bunch of “skeptics” constantly took the do-nothing option on climate change. Even John Howard saw the political imperative to support an emissions trading scheme - eventually. Part of the Liberals’ line of attack on the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is that it’s meant to be a copy of Howard’s approach. It just makes no political sense whatsoever - except in the context of buying Nelson a little breathing time for his shaky leadership - for the Coalition to oppose an ETS, and make no mistake about it, that’s the direction they’re heading in. The Liberals are once again looking like a clueless rabble, and they may well find that getting fulsome praise from Andrew Bolt is no substitute for adopting a responsible stance, or a plausible imitation thereof, in the court of public opinion.
Update: [by Kim] More from Lyn at Public Opinion.
Hmmm. It seems the Libs really, really want to fight a double dissolution on this issue…
Are they really that dumb?
Yes, because they really, really believe an ETS scare campaign is a vote winner.
Robert, I reckon if the libs ran the mother of all scare campaigns during an economic downturn, it has an outside chance. People tend to forget the niceties when they’re struggling with their bills, and I still think climate change policy is in the “nice to have” category for a lot of people whose more immediate motivation might be paying their electricity bill or filling up their petrol tank where $50 is the new $20.
Wouldn’t you be tempted to give it a go as a political strategy if you genuinely thought global warming was a commie conspiracy?
But a) petrol is already out of the ETS for the first three years, b) low and middle income earners are getting tax cuts and pension increases to compensate, and c) the government can quite easily afford to overcompensate, particularly if the economy does indeed start to seriously slow.
If I genuinely thought that, and I also genuinely thought that all the polls showing high levels of public support for action on climate changed had been rigged as part of that conspiracy, I probably would. The idea that the Christopher Pearsons of the world might be running Coalition strategy has always struck me as being too good to be true, but that’s what it’s starting to look like.
Far too rational Robert. We’re talking commie conspiracy! I can see the ads now, complete with that menacing low frequency audio tone to induce dread, a lot of pictures fading to black, dirty faced kids, mum in a torn sundress trying to find a $2 coin on the floor of the Tarago with a kid in the wheelchair in the back, babies crying as lightbults on strings go out etc. There’s some dark forces at work here, and it’s pretty clear they’ll stop at nothing so the carbon party can keep going. They’ve tried obfuscation via well funded think tanks, confusing the issues, ignoring it, getting hysterical about it and finally they’ll resort to publically denying it. I think all those massive Visa card bills that Australians can never quite pay off are going to look very daunting when your house price is sliding backwards, petrol will never be under $1.50 again and the government wants to increase your cost of living for some gas you can’t see. I’m scared it’ll work.
David: all the polls so far have indicated that a) a strong majority of people want something done about climate change and b) they understand it won’t be cost-free. Combined with a good old JWH-style buy-off of the
aspirationalsworking families I just can’t see public opinion turning around so radically that the a scare campaign will win…This is silly stuff from the Liberals. I was pleasantly surprised with their response to Climate Change after the election and wondered whether they had truly realised that Climate Change needs serious action. They appeared to be as serious as Labor on the issue. That was a positive move for them electorally.
How they have changed! Clearly they were all spin and no substance and clearly they were just trying to play clever political games. If they continue to head down this road of denialism and opposition to action on Climate Change, they will only make Labor look much better than they are in this area. Labor will gain majority public support for its half-baked actions on Climate Change as the voters will see this as preferable than the Coalition’s do nothing approach.
Hell, I’m not confused on this. I know the Libs have got it wrong. Howars’s legacy is rill working itself out and at this rate it’ll take decades. Sooner or later the party hard-heads will realise they’re way behind the electorate and what really worries people about global warming is the stinking kind of world they might leave to their kids and grandkids. Now that’s a kind of family value most voters will identify with. Unless you’re a bit like George Pell and you suspect we might be in the Last Days but aren’t quite game to say it.
I sort of hope the Libs will come to their senses, but I won’t hold my breath waiting.
At least on the subject of “Liberal lunacy”, generally, we might be about to see war break out on another front within the federal coalition. A Liberal/ National stoush looks likely following Mark Vailes’ retirement from Lyne.
Liberals are courting Rob Oakeshoff, former National, to stand on their behalf.
Apparently he would have a good chance of a win even as an independent.
Another episode of the “clueless rabble” to come?
What all of you lot ignore is that the whole ETS house of cards will produce absolutely zero results globally, and even if you believe in the AGW hypothesis.the whole idea is clearly more about seeming to do something that doing anything worthwhile.
True believers, love to point to opinion polls that show people are “willing” to pay more to “save the planet”,but when they actually have to pay the extra they will become far less sanguine.
Rudd is making a rod for his own back with this policy and the opposition would be mad not to exploit it in the time between now and the next election especially as everyday the scientific justification for this policy becomes more and more shaky.
Iain Hall wrote:
This is the sort of stuff that scares me - that the Iain Halls of the world continue to push that line of bullshit and are suckers for all sorts of denialism because they hate environmentalists.
Ute man
as I said even if you are a dyed in the wool true believer in the green faith there are very good reasons to sceptical that this scheme will archive ANYTHING.
Please explain just how it will do any good at all for all of the money it will cost ordinary Australians.
I ain’t no greenie, but I ain’t stupid. Petrol costs more money now and it sure makes me neighbours think twice about makin’ too many trips in their LandCruiser. I carn’t see why makin electricity more expensive might make the lazy buggers turn off a few more lights. I read yer blog and I like yer little car, but I figure you carn’t see past a bit of greenie hatin an that’s just sad.
The denialists have definitely cranked it up a notch or two in the past year. Bolt’s blog is almost exclusively devoted to climate change denialism these days. The world-hasn’t-warmed-since-1998 meme is growing and spreading like a cancer through the MSM. Ditto for more-ice-in-the-antarctic, more-ice-this-summer-in-the-arctic, its-sunspots-not-CO2, the-scientific-consensus-is-weakening (APS) and all the other wacky ideas.
Like others have said, if the economy weakens it will be oh so easy for Brendan to run with a scare campaign and an openly skeptical position on climate change.
Awww… Ute Hippy.
UTE Man
i don’t hate anyone , not even Greenies (although I do think that they are simplistic and misguided) But for the third time what is the point of imposing the huge burden on our economy if it will do nothing at all to alleviate “the problem”. That is the hurdle that both Rudd and the true believers in AGW have to get over and like you they are stumbling big time.
Carbonsink (a true believer’s user name if ever there was one) It is not a case of “denailists” cranking it up it is a case of the true believers being shown more and more to be arguing from a faith position rather than from the facts and actual evidence for their claims.
FDB - heard of Landcare mate? Them Utepersons (farmers, like) and them greenies (some of) ‘ave ‘ad a very good little working relationship fer a long time: everyone’s happy. No wuzz.
Careful Iain - someone might ask you to come up with a shred of evidence to back up your claims. Not me though. Feeling generous.
I ain’t no dirty hippy neither and I got no beard you carn’t trust blokes with beards. Me kids reckon global warming is bad but tell ‘em to put on a jumper and socks instead of turnin’ on the bluddy radiator and the looks ya get! Them greenies do cause trouble when they get all dribbly over me favourite camp site and won’t let me camp there, but I know blokes like Iain who hate everythin’ thats greenie and it makes no sense to me. Like my old man used to say, don’t sh*t where ya eat.
FDB
I don’t have to prove anything here. It is the advocates for this scheme who have the onus of proof and I notice that you are not risen to my challenge to show just how the ETS will do Anything to help the planet.
Ute man
I actually own a little slice of the bush and have all kinds of wildlife around here.I live simply and like you I have to work on the family to do the right thing with heaters and so forth. Don’t be fooled into thinking that it is only minions of the left who care about the environment.
But to get back on topic I suggest that the liberals taking a harder line on this issue can only be a good thing because we will at least have some real debate on the issue and no matter what you believe about climate change that is a good thing.
“it is a case of the true believers being shown more and more to be arguing from a faith position rather than from the facts”
That there my good fellow is a baseless assertion.
Their dodgin’ the debate Iain like them greenies dodge soap, not interested in arguin about it. That Bolt feller is a real good example. I can click on a link as good as anyone an’ every time he craps on about warming stoppin or them scientists that don’t believe it, it fair makes me eyes roll. It’s alwez the same clowns who used to work for the tobacco blokes or them oil companies. Fair dinkum, does he think we’re that stupid? If the same feller who told you smoking doesn’t make the cancer, but yer relloes are coughin’ up their lungs in little black gobs after years on coffin nails, he says everybody is wrong on global warming? I trust ‘em as much as used car blokes and the shiela who swore blind she didn’t have that herpes.
FDB
I get them at my blog mate and and they are very hard-pressed to provide any reason why this emissions trading scheme has any virtue, rather like yourself actually…
The true believers want to think that this scheme may inspire the Chinese, the Indians , or even the Americans. But wishing will not make it so. Come on matey surely you can provide a reason for me to believe in the ETS, something along the lines of how it will help the planet would be good.
Ute Man
I can’t make head nor tail of your last comment care to rephrase it in plain English?
Well … I can point to a few hundred papers published in prestigous journals such as Science and Nature. Can you point to one, just one, skeptical paper that has been accepted by these journals?
As Garnaut said:
Now, I’m an outsider to climate science, as I’m guessing you are. I am simply not qualified to judge whether the evidence for or against AGW is compelling. You, I assume, are similarly unqualified. The only rational way for me (and you) to make a judgement is by what the mainstream journals and scientific institutions accept, and to the best of my knowledge, every single scientific journal and institution accepts the “AGW hypothesis” (as you call it). When I look at who accepts the alternative view I only see nutters and extremists like Bolt.
Hypothesis it may be, but its an extremely well supported one. If you are correct, AGW will go down as the greatest scientific folly in human history.
Iain Hall wrote:
I think he meant that the institutionalised and heavily corporate funded global warming skepticism that is paraded by worthies such as Andrew Bolt and linked to on your very own blog are transparent to ordinary folks. How much credibility do denialists have to lose before people like yourself stop listening? It’d be one thing if a genuine alternative was proposed (like debating between a carbon tax and a cap and trade system) but the default argument is “we can’t or shouldn’t do anything”. I don’t know about Ute Man, but the spectacle of ex tobacco lobbyists now lobbying on behalf of oil companies against carbon emission mitigation is not exactly edifying.
Carbonsink
Given you are so versed in the “climate science” then perhaps YOU can answer my question , exactly How will the ETS scheme make any difference to the climate?
Your whole comment #25 is one big appeal to authority, basically you are just genuflecting to the holy prophets of climate change.
It is not rational for either you or I to believe someone just because they say “trust me, I’m a scientist” Go to first principles and question the foundations of the arguments, does the actual evidence support the theory and can the theory be tested by the scientific method? I think you will find that in the first instance that there are enough evidential gaps to drive many large trucks through and I have yet to see any experiment devised to test the hypothesis.
I’m happy to turn off the carbon if everyone else does it. Then (potentially) having little effect will also cost little.
Regardless, if the biggest emitters do nothing or next to nothing, then anything Australia does will:
1. Have no positive effect on global warming
2. Have negative effects on our economy through job losses
There is little point in being international martyrs on this. Europe is doing something, but not all of Europe, and they are a long way away from us, and they are big and ugly enough to look after themselves. If the US did something it would be an achievement, and K-Rudd should be “opening a honest and open dialogue” with the Yanks over this if he truly believes what he and his ministers are saying.
But it would be disastrous to be out there by ourselves or with seldom few friends. We are in a difficult position to lead the world on an ETS. We should be concentrating on innovative technological solutions, that will make it easier for the rest of the world to ween itself off carbon, and in which we can make a fair buck at the same time.
“FDB
I get them at my blog mate and and they are very hard-pressed to provide any reason why this emissions trading scheme has any virtue, rather like yourself actually…”
Oh, so you’re talking about true believers in the ETS as recently proposed, and asserting that they’re “being shown more and more to be arguing from a faith position rather than from the facts”. What, more and more since last week, when the Green Paper was handed down? I’ve heard a hell of a lot of complaining from people who were optimistic about it but are now disappointed. Perhaps what’s happening is the precise opposite of what you said.
You “get them at your blog” eh? Two people in total have commented negatively on your oh-so-clever AGW/ETS posts of late, and both merely laughed at your foolish photoshoppery and hamfisted regurgitations of denialist talking points. Wow, quite a faith-based movement you’ve exposed there!
Personally I think the ETS is pretty light on for virtue actually, but it’s a start. Possibly of some real benefit, definitely better than nothing.
So Dr Brendan the Brave is prescribing political viagra to harden-up the Coalition’s Climate policy.
With all those denialists in the ranks, I suppose the bloody thing was a bit of a limp noodle.
Still, we all know what happens when a bunch of middle-aged Lotharios chomp-down the little blue pills: Someone ends-up getting screwed.
And I reckon its a fair chance that that someone will be Brendan.
One of the things I don’t think the Liberals have thought about is that if they trigger a Double Dissolution on this Labor can pick the timing. All Labor has to do is wait for La Nina to finish combined with the start of the new sunspot cycle (a minor contributor to temperatures but not irrelevant) and temperatures are going to skyrocket.
Give us a sweltering summer, some bushfires, a bad year for sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic, maybe even a bit Hurricane season and we’ll see just how well denialism plays with the electorate. Since Labor can choose to a) go in March 2009, b) go in March 2010, c) wait until their full term is up and not have a double dissolution they’ve pretty much got the whip hand. I guarantee you that at one of these times there will be plenty of hot weather here and globally. The Libs will be looking for pacifist Greenies to protect them from ordinary voters who want to lynch them.
If the large majority of scientist says there is a 90% chance the gun is loaded and a few scientist and politicians say it ain’t, I wont be pulling the trigger, no matter how many times Bolt says he is certain. I guess he is happy to take the chance of blowing his kids brains out.
Bolt obviously thinks that Europe, UN, various US state governors and the current presidential candidates are so dumb that they have been tricked into believing GW is a man made problem that needs action. Bolt for world President then, who needs them pesky scientists. I can bet you that in a different era he would be saying smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
Of course it is. What other rational course of action is there short of embarking on 10 years of education in climate science?
Frankly mate, I don’t believe you understand the science any better than I do. For every quote you throw at me from globalwarmingisaleftisthoax.com I can find something vastly more credible and believable from a reputable source.
Simple question: Are you saying, that with your cursory knowledge of the science, you have found holes in climate science that countless universities, scientific institutions, and peer-reviewed journals have missed?
Are you really saying that?
If so, can you please enlighten me how and why this monumental scientific folly came about, and how it has continued for so long when the flaws are (apparently) so obvious?
If this were the case, surely we would be seeing dozens of the AGW “faithful” break ranks and start telling the “truth”. Imagine the money Hansen could get from Exxon if he changed his tune? He could earn many, many times over what he gets in grants.
carbonsink, don’t question the conspiracy with people like Iain - they just don’t get it. Ironically, he spends an awful lot of time on his blog disdaining conspiracy theories, but has bought the global warming denialist one hook, line and sinker.
Bolt’s blog has been pushing the ‘Nelson should take on the believers (read people influenced by credible scientific opinion)’ hard over the past few days.
The wingnuttery over there is unbelievable. Creationists; commie under the bed fantasists; and a fair number WHO TYPE IN CAPS at random MOMENTS!!!!! when they want to make one of their impenetrable points.
For the Bolt cultists who accept that the planet is warming we’ve got all sorts of explanations that are apparently being ruthlessly suppressed by the Great AGW Conspiracy.
Volcanoes! It’s the sun! Kinetic energy in the ocean! Clouds!
It’s like being stuck on public transport and every nutter in the city boards and decides to sit next to you.
I include Iain Hall in this.
As a three year veteran of the Bolt blog nothing I read there surprises me anymore.
I have to post under a different name now because Bolt banned “carbonsink” for posting a link to this.
Clearly denialism doesn’t run in families.
One does not need to do ten years of education in science to pose the most basic question, that you continue to dodge here, namely will this policy actually do anything to alter the climate? Even the true believers concede that it will not make one iota of difference. So frankly what is the point of Australia as a nation enduring all of that economic pain for no result? Surveys may show that most Australians care enough about the planet to want to do their bit to “save ” it but we would be better served to suggest that they take up prayer because it has a better track record than the sort of wishful thinking involved in the ETS.
I don’t claim to be an expert but I do understand first principles of science and the scientific method all you seem to have is a sycophantic desire to believe anyone wearing a white coat.
Just off the top of my head, I question the veracity of the methodology of determining the paleo-climates from proxy data, the validity of “computer climate modelling” and if you read any of your esteemed journals you will see that even there when discussing proxy data or modelling the writers will put enough caveats on such things that render their results little more than guess work.
That is a task for historians, but perhaps you should consider Has Christian Anderson”s cautionary tale of the “Emperors new clothes” as an explanation.
As in the Anderson tale most people are afraid to break ranks and come out and argue against the current orthodoxy but there are a few who, like the small boy in the story are coming out and saying that the Emperor’s butt is swinging in the breeze.
Finally have you ever done any calculation of the amount of money that has been devoted to substantiating the AGW orthodoxy in academia? there is no doubt that it far exceeds any money spent by Exxon on climate research by many orders of magnitude.
Keep pissing in the wind Iain Hall, keep buying into the greatest conspiracy theory that the world has ever known, with no more evidence than a friggin’ fairy story FFS. Just don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
But at least Elton John wrote a song for you. The opening lines go something like this I believe:
And it seemed to me that you lived your life, mainly pissing in the wind,
Always knowing which loser cause to cling to,
When the fax came in …
Even if we accept that first sentence, there seem to be a number of points to accepting short-term economic pain. On a global basis, a lot of the world has already started. The feet-draggers are the US, China and India. It is likely they will eventually be shamed into action starting with the US vis-a-vis Canada and the departure of the Bush-Cheney (petroleum lobby) regime.
What’s in it for Oz would seem to be our long-term trading, especially if coal is to lose its dominance of exports. If we look at the old ‘comparative advantage’ theory, Australia is extremely well placed for alternative fuels. Apart from uranium,there is natural gas, geothermal potential, wind farming and lots of sunshine for solar energy. As an island nation there is lots of ocean for tidal, wave and ocean current generating energy. And some of these alternatives may lead to improving that scarcest of all Australian resources -fresh water - through desalination and condensation capture.
I’d have thought the main political weakness in the current strategy is not the changes encouraged. Rather it has seemingly missed the opportunity to involve schools and local communities in such projects. Some of the best ideas for conserving energy and water and reducing carbon emissions are likely to evolve locally at relatively low capital costs. A system of ‘rewards/incentives’ would not be all that costly and it would certainly lead to greater public/voter commitment.
Whoops. My response was to Ian Hall’s 38 post. Should have included the quote:
“Even the true believers concede that it will not make one iota of difference. So frankly what is the point of Australia as a nation enduring all of that economic pain for no result?”
carbonsink
Richard Bolt and Andrew Bolt, there’s an odd couple of brothers: akin to Tim Costello and $weetie. But it would be unfair, I think, to shine a cruel spotlight on Richard just because Andrew seems mistaken on climate change!
Don
Don you talk as if China , India and the US are just about to get on the AGW band wagon and there is absolutely NO evidence that this is the case. None of these nations are going to play this game and without them there is absolutely no point in anyone else doing so either, apart from that warm inner glow that true believers have when they have correctly preformed the rituals of their faith.
Yes well that all sounds fine and dandy but none of that needs to be predicated upon the foolish and unnecessary ETS proposed by the Labor government, When it comes to trade what matters is the right product at the right price , not ideological purity, other wise you would not be buying any goods from China. (given it’s repressive one party state.)
No the main weakness of the current strategy is that it is entirely pointless and futile, something that the opposition should be exploiting to protect the Australian people from the excesses of the ideologues of the green faith.
“protect the Australian people from the excesses of the ideologues of the green faith.”
Again with the “green faith” thing. Don’t suppose you’ve found me an example yet…
Listen up mate, the vast majority of Australian people believe in AGW. Are you saying this is false consciousness? Are they all morons?
I can speak with some authority on this matter, as I was employed by the National Office of the Communist Party of Australia from 1985 to 1988, by the Queensland State office of the CPA from 1989 to 1990, was a member of the National Committee from 1989 to 1991, and attended and helped to organise all the meetings of the CPA National Committee during this period as well as the 1987, 1989 and 1991 CPA National Congresses. It is a matter of fact and record that the CPA did not begin to talk about global warming until it had been put on the agenda by other (non-communist and often non-leftist) political actors, and that Jack Mundey was displeased about the lack of attention given to environmental issues at the 1987 CPA National Congress (held the year before the IPCC was set up, and two years after the Villach Conference which got global warming going as a serious policy concern).
Ah, but then I would say that, wouldn’t I?
On the question of the religious motivations of protagonists in the greenhouse debate, I have concluded that the sceptics/delusionists/denialists/whatever conceive of themselves as a kind of secular Priory of Sion who are keepers of a transcendent truth which has been suppressed by the official Church in the form of the IPCC. The idea of Frank and Miranda Divine as real-world Australian equivalents of Jacques Sauniere and Sophie Neveu quite tickles me.
FDB
the vast majority of Australians believe in some form of God, and that does not prove the existence of the deity, so why should mass belief in AGW do likewise?
Iain, YOU said that Australians needed to be protected from their own folly, implying they are more or less willing dupes in some lefty conspiracy. Why do you hate ordinary Australians? What solution do you offer? If you want them to be convinced there is no AGW problem, I’d advise getting yourself on the fast track to a PhD in the field, cos everyone who’s working on it already is part of the conspiracy. Right?
In this case it’s belief in AGW being a faith that’s suspect, Iain’s evasive smirko act over the articles of this ‘green faith’ hasn’t done much for his case.
Well, I’m not so sure that China will remain intransigent, given the extraordinary lengths the authorities have had to go to to make Beijing Olympics habitable. In fact it might provide an excellent starting point for ‘before’ and ‘after’ research on the affects of pollution on the population health. Pollution is only one part of addressing global warming, but a pretty important component.
I am a little lost on your assertion that the current proposals are pointless and futile. I’d have thought any proposal trying to put a real value on perishable resources would go a good thing, if only in preparing the public. The US consumers are currently going through a huge shock mainly because they got away with cheap gasolene for years while the rest of the world was paying somewhere near the real cost. On such an issue I don’t think the market can be trusted to act benevolently without directives.
Likewise, doing something about water supply is hardly futile regardless of where you stand on Global Warming. You’re not seriously suggesting we should continue to allow the Murray-Darling system to deteriorate, which seems to be the outcome of the NSW and Qld governments’ policies of supporting upriver irrigation?
The 19th century was a great age benefiting from the Enlightenment and leading to huge advances in engineering, geology and water control. The down side is that we’ve come to treat fuel and water as cheap throw-away resources. And they’re not.
Don
Don there is no reason to believe that the changes made in china for the Olympic games will continue after they tourists have gone home, Life is cheap in China and while I share your concerns about the rampant pollution there ,pollution it self is NOT the crux of the ETS scheme and even if you were right about china that still leaves two nations of equal magnitude who are not towing the AGW party line.
As i keep saying what is the point of creating a very elaborate trading scheme if it does nothing to actually change the climate (supposedly it’s raison detre′ )? But we do not pay the real cost for petrol, nor do most places in the world because governments impose lots of taxes on it which distorts it’s market value and I just don’t think the argument that making things more expensive so we will get used to them costing more is worth much either.
Water supply and the Murray Darling basin are not really relevant to this topic and while I actually support efforts to better manage the water we have there the proposed ETS will not make any difference there either.
I agree but that is no reason to artificially inflate the costs for either to meet create a “cure” that will not actually work at all.
Iain Hall wrote:
It’s not an artificial inflation of costs, its accounting for costs that have so far gone unpaid to our detriment.
We know with 100% certainty that increasing the cost of carbon will reduce it’s output - that other countries are reluctant to follow is neither here nor there as was ably proved by the incredible success of trade liberalisation. We went that alone initially too.
David it is entirely the point, if our reducing the output of carbon does not inspire others (a a AGW true believers fervently hope) then the pain and dislocation here will be pointless and futile, even if you believe in AGW.
I have said before(at mine) that even if you do believe in AGW, working out how to adapt to climate change makes far more sense that wasting time and treasure pretending that we can mobilise a politically diverse world to take up the ascetic lifestyle advocated by the green faith.
Iain Hall wrote:
You keep invoking this “faith” thing without ever really explaining what you mean Iain.
Nobody is advocating ascetism, simply the placement of a price on the emission of carbon and nothing more. That doesn’t necessarily entail shifting to a lifestyle of robes, caves and living in silence.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, provided you’re some kind of mage.
“Don there is no reason to believe that the changes made in china for the Olympic games will continue after they tourists have gone home,…”
Possibly, but the evidence collected in research data before, during and after the event whether gathered by outside or Chinese sources will help establish the case against unbridled pollution. True, this may only be peripheral to the whole climate change concerns, but it is a starting point.
The value placed on human life in China may be lower than here (albeit, some may argue that tobacco corporations and mining companies in 3rd world countries don’t place a high value on human life either). But any government will eventually have to bear the cost: hospital care costs may exceed those of pollution and carbon controls. And as is occurring with the Olympics, a despotism may allow more drastic controls than a democracy, where as you noted it is not hard to generate populist objections.
The ideal, of course, would be to enable India and China to leapfrog the automobile age, but it won’t be possible without offering a lot of incentives.
As to two nations then left staying out of AGW actions,well, I wouldn’t think the US would hold out much longer than Bush’s departure, which is now <6 months. Even if McCain should get up he could only do so by not being a captive to Big Oil.
I see water supply as inextricably linked with our survival irrespective of AGW concerns. Perhaps it comes from being of South Australian origin. We have always known of the finite quantities of water. (Bolta, assuming Carbonsink’s link is correct, is also one, but must have been raised with his eyes closed.)
That origin is relevant. It took a Texan archeologist to nail the sudden collapse of the Mayan civilisation to loss of water supply. Texas, like SA, has had to get by with insufficient water.
Another one identified 7 great ancient civilisations, 4 of which had evolved quite independently of any other influence. All collapsed eventually through overuse of fertile land and usable water.
Many of our policies are a consequence of obsolete political-economic theories. The decisions to grow cotton and rice in Australia were based on the 1930s priorities of trading self-sufficiency. Growing them meant less balance-of-trade deficit. Nowadays that no longer makes sense. The priority should be to help these irrigation communities out of those industries. Alternative energies may offer some help.
carbonsink@36
Fantastic link. I’ll have to give it a try.
I can’t believe that you put up with Bolt’s blog for three years. Basically I view it as a slowly unfolding trainwreck where One Nation cranks have found a bus seat and the Boltwit can feed his growing egomania.
Really, it is 57 different varieties of Teh Stoopid.
Sorry don but I don’t think that even the Chinese disagree with the idea that pollution is bad,both for the environment and bad for the health of it’s people really it’s self evident even to them
There is no evidence that China is going to expend the same sort of efforts that we do when it comes to health care for its citizens, I am sure that their government just does not care.
I cant see this happening , no matter what incentives are offered.
I don’t think even Obama in the White House will do any more than pay lip service to the climate change faith Don, it would be political suicide to do so.
I believe that Andrew is actually from SA and I even agree with you that the way we use water is something that is a serious concern But I just get mad when green idiots claim that the Murray Darling problems are a result of “climate change” heaven in a hand basket, anyone can see that the problem is the rult of both drought and extracting too much water for irrigation further upstream. Fixing the way we manage that water is very important but by no stretch of the imagination predicated on any sort of ETS .
I agree water management is vital
Well maybe what we need to do is to only grow such crops during the right part of our drought cycle when there is actually an abundance of water for irrigation, rather than trying to stretch the envelope when there is not enough water to go around.
Adrian @ 38, I believe it was “Condom In The Wind”.