THE Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has been overheard pouring cold water on world leaders’ chances of hammering out critical climate change limits at Copenhagen – just hours after the US President, Barack Obama, called for global optimism.
Mr Rudd’s comments were picked up by Australian TV microphones that had been allowed in briefly to make a video of talks with the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who is to host the Copenhagen summit in December….
“Right now I don’t think we are on track to get an agreement at Copenhagen,” Mr Rudd told Mr Rasmussen.
“There are too many problems.”
It’s tempting to blame Australia, the government, and Kevin Rudd himself for this; while it’s very difficult to be sure, the few sketchy reports we’ve gotten suggest that Australia hasn’t exactly been the most constructive force in the negotiations. But, in the end, Australia is small fry. The fate of the negotiations, and to a large extent the fate of the world’s climate, are hostage to what Barack Obama, Hu Jintao, and Manmohan Singh are prepared to risk imposing on their constituencies.
At the moment, it seems the answer is not enough to reach even a minimal compromise.
The refrigeration industry is a major contributor…. {oh, why bother?}
It’s all ok – Senator Fielding has a graph.
so “how to lie with statistics” has a sub-set in which graphs are the principal tool.
Australia would have more leverage at Copenhagen if the Coalition would pass the ETS. Our country would have a lot more credibility in negotiations – we would already have passed a climate change bill and could press others to go further, in which case we’d match higher targets.
And for a middle-sized country we would make an impact – going from wrecker to constructive participant. In fact, for a country heavily reliant on extractive industries, we could even be seen as something of a leader.
But let’s put the blame where it belongs: the Coalition – and their allies in the media who say their position makes sense.
So this is supposed to be an “embarrassing gaffe” by K.Rudd. The ABC, like fairfax, ran this line all day yesterday, as well. These idiots cannot see anything except through the “gotcha” prism. The reporting in this country is complete crap.
You’re right Ginja, but that said the ETS as curently proposed by Rudd is a very poor one — and of course it is going to be locked in until 2020.
Personally, if you ask me to choose between this scheme and no scheme, no scheme doesn’t sound all that bad. Eventually, (perhaps after a DD in which the Greens advance at the expense of Xenophon and Fielding and some Liberals) we will have no choice but to have a comprehensive scheme and at that point we won’t be giving out masses of free passes to the big polluters but auctioning them all, and we will have a proper target of *at least 25%* not including dodgy “REDD credits” sourced overseas and there will be provision if we move faster or new opportunities arise to reduce more quickly for a stiffer cap to be imposed at 2015 and 2018 and so move more quickly on this.
Fran
Is that really surprising for the world’s largest coal exporter? Sorry, I know I shouldn’t bang on about this minor conflict of interests Australia has in climate negotiations.
If Rudd really cared about the CPRS (you know, like how Bob Brown cares about climate change) he’d have put enormous political pressure on the Coalition to pass the legislation. He hasn’t. In fact, I think he’s happy to let it slide. He can blame the Coalition for not passing it, but he doesn’t have to cop the political flak for higher energy costs for consumers (not that there would be much cost, its so p*ss weak).
What gives me the shits.”Unless I can have a great big ice cream I don’t want one at all.”
Zorronsky, I assume you’re referring to the widely-held view amongst environmental activists that we should block the CPRS.
While I’m in favour of passing the CPRS, your metaphor doesn’t quite capture the true picture.
It’s more “I’m not going to support a deal that sees me paying the big bully up the road all my pocket money, gives him 80% of the ice cream, and only lets me have one tiny bite a week for the next ten years, and won’t even let me buy extra ice cream with my paper route money”.
“While I’m in favour of passing the CPRS,…”
Why is that Robert? If you have explained before please just direct me….
I am inclined to agree with Fran@6. We are more likely to end with a better deal later on as this one just seems designed for carbonlovers.
And Joe2@10 as Quiggan noted, it does seem particularly odd that we have an “entry-level” scheme aimed at appeasing the Minerals Council/AAC crowd even though they aren’t the least bit on board with it. They are opposed to all schemes and that’s that.
As getting them to play ball was the key rationale for departing in their direction from Garnaut and they are throwing rocks one might as well design a robust scheme that people can believe, assert that it’s the minimum necessary and tell the polluters that they had their chance at a deal and now we’re just going to press on. As I understand it, the NG people are pretty gung ho about a stiff carbon prince – for fairly obvious reasons.
Has Rudd been reading my posts here?
Ginja – you are kidding yourself if you think China and India, let alone the rest of the BRICS, give a toss what we do. Jesus, we can’t even get a real-time problem of the arrest of an Austrlaian Citizen sorted out in China despite all the supposed good will and political connections and their dependence on our resources etc.
The CPRS will be passed – Turnbull can’t afford to give the ALP any DD triggers. Don’t worry about the principel of the mattter – its the politics that count and the counting is bad at the moment for the Coalition.
Joe2 – it is an embarrassing gaffe given the tight message line the ALP has run. They are the masters of media and spin. This is a suprising slip by Rudd. what is more suprising is that the media are willing to run the story given the vindictiveness of Rudd.
CCS funding – smoothing the pillow of a dying industry.
Ginja @4: Part of the problem at the moment is that most world leaders see ETS as a costly, risky can of worms but aren’t quite prepared to say so. You only have to look at how ineffective the EU scheme has been and how much the price of permits has fluccuated to see why. You might also try to work out how the proposed CPRS will affect your life or start looking at the alternatives to putting a price on carbon.
Copenhagen might achieve much more if our leaders concentrated on reaching agreement on targets for dealing with a limited number of the more important sources of emissions. For example, in an oil starved world they may be able to agree on future targets for the average fossil oil consumption of new cars. They may also be able to agree to emission/kwh targets or reduction targets for electricty generation, particularly if there is an option that allows equivalent action to be taken instead.
I think the important thing is for the world to get started on actually reducing emissions without precluding the possibility of more stringent targets at some time in the future.
Personally, I cheered when the opposition blocked of the CPRS legislation. The worst thing that could happen to the fight against emissions is for the government to introduce a dud scheme that ends up disrupting the economy while acheiving very little. It will be just that much more difficult to convince the voters to support a better scheme instread of dropping the whole thing.
Having said this the opposition is not going to do much good if it concentrates on playing games and limits its suggestions to even more compensation for its mates. It has to start talking about a more radical approach that doesn’t depend cmpletely on putting a price on carbon.
If you want some idea of what I am banging on about have a look at an earlier post:
ETS alternatives. The message there is that, at least in the short term, it will be smarter not to have to have a comprehensive system and to avoid deppending on pitting a price on carbon.
It is also worth looking at the Senate Climate commitee report
Ginja @4: “Australia would have more leverage at Copenhagen if the Coalition would pass the ETS.” Actually I think they would have more leverage if they showed real results, i.e. a real reduction in CO2 emissions kg/head. Talk and symbolism are cheap, results show you mean it and are actually doing something about it.
Rudd’s ETS is highly unlikely to achieve anything more than symbolism, as far as I can see, since it has too many exceptions for the biggest emitters.
joe2: Because I think it’s the best our political system can deliver, and will help to tilt things in the right direction to make the more substantial changes required when the shit really hits the fan down the track.
I agree Elise @15
Trouble is that you need some legislative power to compel the changes and Rudd currently doesn’t have it.
I’d mandate renewables and then offer an ETS with the other hand — the flying wedge. Most of the enemies of an ETS play lipservice to renewables — because they know this is popular and tangible.
I take that back, Rudd’s ETS is highly likely to achieve something more than symbolism.
The ETS will add a significant hidden compliance cost, in addition to the ETS carbon tax, which will be passed on to consumers. Even if negligible emission reductions are achieved.
These same consumers will also have to foot the tax bill for the hidden bureaucratic cost of policing the ETS. Even if negligible emission reductions are achieved.
Meanwhile what is the bet that those carbon tax dollars will somehow suffer significant losses on the way through the government system, such that hardly anything will be left over for funding green alternatives?
Meanwhile, countries which can read the science and can cope with some complexity, are getting on with real solutions
http://lightbulbs.org/category/siemens
http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_article/365594/17/ARTCL/none/none/1/Sun-shines-on-turbine-makers/
Fran Barlow @17: “I’d mandate renewables and then offer an ETS with the other hand — the flying wedge.”
I like that idea a lot!!!
I just don’t think people here understand the significant change in Australia’s position. To go from a pariah at Kyoto – and I don’t think Australians understand just a very active wrecking role the Howard Government played – to a nation that could be seen as a leader among similar nations. Australia isn’t going to be a leader on global warming in the way many European nations are – at least not right away – but we can be for countries with economies like ours.
But the thing with cap-and-trade systems is that they’re not set in concrete – they can be changed. The urgent thing is to get something in place quickly.
And the little snippet of overhead conversation with Rudd showed nothing other than he is taking the negotiations seriously.
Ginja @21: “…a nation that could be seen as a leader among similar nations…”
A leader in spin, you mean? Fine Words and Christmas Wishes?
I’m more a fan of the bottom line, as in will we achieve anything meaningful?
Whether there is enough convergence between developing countries and developed countries to get a deal depends on several things. One problem is that the targets proposed by developed countries are too weak. Another issue is financing from developed countries to developing countries for mitigation, adaptation and technology. Gordon Brown suggested something substantial, but it remains to be seen whether developed countries cough up the money. Rudd could make significant progress by announcing a good financing package. Something like $5 billion a year would be a good start. Better targets would also help of course.
When will people realise that wishing does not make things come true?
Fran Barlow at 6 seems to believe a double dissolution would see Fielding and Xenophon removed from the Senate. Actually, the reality is that a double dissolution would probably see them entrenched and at a half Senate election even Fielding would be almost a certainty.
Why? Well, Fielding was elected last time with less than 3 per cent of the primary vote. Next time, given his quite cynical decision to appeal to the climate change deniers he would at least double this (maybe treble it).
Want more detail? Well, climate change deniers (as apart from sceptics) probably represent about 15 per cent of voters. They are a vociferous, one-issue bloc and are likely to give their Senate votes to the candidate who is the most prominent denier.
So, what do you think the motive for Fielding writing to all the Senators is really about? Stupid, he may appear to be, but cunning he certainly is when it comes to election numbers.
If Fielding received just one-third of the votes of deniers, that means a primary vote of 5 per cent. At 50 per cent it means a primary vote of 7.5 per cent, which is more than half a quota for a Senate seat in a normal Senate election.
That is why Ginja at 4 makes more sense despite the zealots howling him/her down.
Fran, Elise and all the rest: Do you really believe the Bill before the US Congress is superior to what Australia is now proposing? Examine it properly and you will find that it is not.
By all means, carry on with ideological purity. As the ALP found between 1949 until the 1960s, that is the way for impotence in changing society.
Those who really believe tackling climate change is important don’t want to see any progress scuttled because zealots consider their warm inner glow of ideological purity is more important.
JohnL, I don’t know anything about the Bill before US Congress, and whether it is superior to the crappy Aussie one. I made no comments about it at all.
I am not suffering from ideological purity. I’m a fan of 80/20 solutions, practical solutions. The ETS is mostly bureaucratic hot air.
John, Fielding’s primary vote was miniscule, and he only got up due to an exceptionally dumb preference deal by Labor which will not be repeated. More to the point, the only reason why Fielding and Xenophon have such influence is because of the overhang of Liberal Senators remaining from 2004.
Some of the pollbloggers can give you more precise information, but the short version is that a DD election would probably leave the Greens in the balance of power, and might go close to putting Labor in outright control of the Senate if the polls held at their current levels (unlikely, during an election). A DD election would obviously give Fielding and Xenophon a better change of getting up again, but Fielding in particular is unlikely to get any help from Labor this time around.
John L @24
I disagree. Fielding would either not be returned or he would battle it out with the Liberal closest to him for the last spot. With no Democrats the Greens would pick up most of this and the ALP preferences. Fielding also upset some of his base by his antics on alcopops.
As to “ideological purity” this is nothing of the sort. I want a scheme that doesn’t invite ridicule and undermine progress. I am a pragmatic person, first and foremost. What Rudd proposes is not progress. It locks in something very much like BAU — but not enough for the filth merchants to accept it. They smell political fear.
I do agree with Peter’s point @23 about creation of a fund to assist LDCs to get onto a low emission pathway.
Part of the problem at the moment is that most of the developed countries are running trading deficits that are increasing their foreign debt. It would seem a bit strange for the US to borrowing even more money from the Chinese to give to the Chinese to pay for Chinese emissison reductions.
If anything the US legislation is a bit worse than the Aus CPRS. The problem is this idea that it has got to be trade and cap/put a price on carbon and that the conservatives in both countries are more concerned with protecing their mates instead of looking for better ways of driving down emissions.
Remember when Greg Combet “warned coal producers that time is running out for haggling over the carbon pollution reduction scheme, and they could receive less government support if a stalemate in negotiations continues”.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/combet-lays-down-law-to-coal-miners-20090610-c3mm.html
I was inclined to agree with Robert that it would be better to just get some legislation passed and get on with it. Now I am hoping Labor and Combet are true to their word and the coal industry falls flat with it’s impossible demands. We might just end up with a much better plan.
Anne Applebaum at Slate puts the simple (but I think compelling) case for a carbon tax as being the quick way to get moving towards lower CO2:
http://www.slate.com/id/2222739/
Worth reading.
Fran@27 No Democrats? The Australian Democrats appear to be in the process of a fairly hearty rebuilding effort, and what seems a concerted effort to return to their centrist base rather than leaning left – I’d be expecting a fairly strong rebound from them in 2010.
(And I sincerely doubt there will be a DD despite any number of available triggers.)
Openly Rudd is running the coal industry line of pushing for carbon capture, but this accidental disclosure seems to show that secretly he is closer to the more extreme coal industry position of sabotaging climate change discussions altogether. Rudd has betrayed the majority of Australians who voted for him in 2007.
Crikey has an article showing that the CSIRO is dominated by coal industry executives who were gagging their own climate scientists by not allowing them to appear at a recent Senate hearing on energy.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/07/why-are-csiro-scientists-spruiking-for-the-coal-industry/
If Rudd was serious about climate change, he would sack the entire CSIRO management. I hope that on his return from Europe the media hold him to account for this betrayal.
I think that it is way past time for creating a list of environmental good guys and environmental bad guys. I’ll kick of the list with one of each
Environmental good guy….Michael Jackson
Michael, by cancelling his proposed 50 concerts in London, has saved hundreds of thousands of tons of Jet A1 fuel that otherwise would have fueled the travel of his fans from all over the world. Thank you Michael.
Environmental bad guy….Kevin Rudd
Kevin has allowed himself to be hoodwinked by self serving arguments of the coal mining lobby and has become their spokesman carrying the flawed notion that coal can be “clean” right onto the G8 conference floor. Booo hisssss Kevin.
joe2 @5
SBS started this at the weekend. Their news bulletin said it was an SBS camera that picked up the comments by Kevin. The next day, ABC TV news said “TV cameras” picked it up. No attribution.
I can understand SBS running what they claimed to be “an exclusive”. Then Kevin was asked about it at a press conference (overseas).
So that is where it started Ambigulous@34. I wonder if they started with the use of the “gaffe” word? They seem to use it by default even when it makes little sense. I am with Ginja on this and see no conspiracy….
“And the little snippet of overhead conversation with Rudd showed nothing other than he is taking the negotiations seriously.”
It is just that his faith in geosequestration seems just as misguided as some loopy alternative energy provision hopes.
Robert at 26: I agree that Labor should win more Senate seats at a normal election in 2010 because of the overhang of the 2004 results. However, looking backwards to 2004 to gauge Fielding’s chances in 2010 is not necessarily an accurate guide of what will happen.
My point about Fielding is that he is positioning himself to be the focal point for the climate change deniers in Victoria. He, or his advisers, have long realised his 2004 election was a fluke and the preference deal with the ALP unlikely ever to repeated.
Fielding’s forays into the climate change debate are calculated with the next Senate poll in mind. He would prefer a double dissolution because that would bring the quota needed under double figures. At a normal election, Fielding’s position would be grim if he only had his Senate record and Family First affiliation to support him. He would have an outside chance because he would enter the race with a much higher profile than in 2004.
However, as the candidate for climate change deniers, Fielding would not only have a bigger pool of potential supporters, but would also attract a lot more campaign funds in a State which has a huge reliance on coal for jobs.
There really is method in his madness.
Where the 2004 Federal election has some relevance is Tasmania where the clash between forestry preservation and timber worker jobs resulted in a victory for the latter in a key electorate.
Fran at 27 claims she wants a scheme that does not invite ridicule and undermine progress. Does she mean the “ridicule” of President Obama praising Rudd’s carbon capture project at the end of the recent L’Aquila talks? Or perhaps she means Al Gore supporting the need for the Australian Senate to pass the existing proposal before Copenhagen.
Silkworm at 32 and BilB at 33 are really into conspiracy theories about Rudd’s support for carbon capture. They seem incapable of understanding It is a sensible political position in a nation with huge reserves of coal, large export earnings from coal and many jobs that depend on the coal industry. Perhaps they could also consider the reality that such a policy also makes it more difficult for strident attacks by this industry on climate change measures.
John: I don’t think Fielding or his advisers are that calculating. He’s pulled the occasional effective stunt (getting down to his undies in support of pensioners) but his record in the Senate is embarrassing.
Robert, I still subscribe to the method in Fielding’s madness theory. Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s public utterances were often embarrassing. Same goes for Pauline Hanson. Embarrassing people are not always political losers. Xenophon, for instance, owes much of his political success to embarrassing stunts.
John L @36
You ask whether the “ridicule” of President Obama praising Rudd’s carbon capture project at the end of the recent L’Aquila talks was the kind of ridicule and undermining of progress I had in mind under the CPRS. Short answer?
Yes. That’s an example. CC&S is, in the current context, retrograde. It demonstrates that this government is utterly in thrall to the world’s filth merchants.
JohnL 36p6,
It really is all about timing. Howard wasted the critical 10 year lead time from broad awareness to action start date, Rudd now seems to feel that he has the same luxury. His actions do not reflect the urgency of the threat. I pressed hard with various government figures on solar matters prior to the last election and I detected a clear point at which interest stopped and arrogance began. What we are seeing in Rudd is the continuation to his game plan determined before the election. Medium term coal interests are not in anyway threatened by renewables. But renewables and the ultimate goal of climate change abatement are threatened by a fetish for maximising the use of coal into the long term (over 25 years) with a clinging hope that CCS might work. Prioritising CCS over renewables is not in Australian’s interests or the world’s.
Dena@31
I suppose we will have to see about the Democrats, but I just don’t see their “brand” as viable any more. When Chipp started the notion of a third force was not only popular but a way for those who could be seen as “liberal moderates” to have a say. There weren’t any independents and the ALP was still licking its wounds. There was no real Green movement.
Australia has moved on. Few now think that something as vacuous as “keeping the bastards honest” amounts to anything more than a slogan. When you put someone into parliament what you want is a definite set of values and goals. “Honesty” can acquire meaning only in relation to these things — and of course it is worth recalling that the defection of the Democrats to the Coalition side post-1998 underlined this point. Without the assistance of the Democrats, the Howard era would not have been possible. The Democrats were the political glue that allowed an unstable set of constituencies to cohabit for long enough to consolidate and ultimately achieve control of both houses. Had they said before the 1998 election that they were meaning to pass the GST and Telstra sell-off, it’s likely the Democrat vote would have collapsed and the Liberals might even have been defeated — What conservative voters wanted at the time was Howard without a GST and Telstra sell off.
These days, most of the space occupied by the Democrats has been taken up by the Greens, but with a more explicit orientation to the imprisoned voters to the ALP’s left, and the figure who sounds most like the old Chippocrats is Nick Xenophon. It’s hard to see how the Democrats can reclaim enough of this constituency to make a comeback. What would be the point?
You may be right that a DD may not arise. The Liberals would see this as a high risk gamble at the moment, so unless they felt the government was overreaching enough to yield them a tactical advantage, they will probably cave. That said, if they do not, it’s worth noting (for the benefit of John L) that if a DD were held and even allowing his highly doubtful contention that Stephen Fielding were returned, legislation that is the subject of a DD then goes in its unamended form to a Joint Sitting. Assuming the government is returned, even allowing the same senate composition we have now the government’s lower house advantage would render Stephen Fielding’s opposition moot — and that’s assuming that a severely bruised opposition would have the stomach to continue to oppose legislation that had received an explicit mandate at an election.
Fran
Fran Barlow at 39. The logical conclusion from your response is that President Obama is also “in thrall to the world’s filth merchants”, by which I assume you mean the coal industry. I am intrigued by your statement that “CC&S is, in the current context, retrograde”. That seems to suggest you envisage a context when it will not be.
By the way, the Rudd Government is so “in thrall” to the coal industry that the ABC today is quoting Greg Combet as not supporting Anna Bligh’s call for greater financial aid to the coal industry.
Steve from Brisbane@30
While I’ve no doubt that Ms Applebaum is sincere I believe that she is mistaken in advocating a carbon tax as an effective or efficient measure for restraining growth in emissions. It seems to me that an ETS — or something that operates very like one — is an indispensible component in any effective and efficient scheme aimed at secureing swiungeing reductions in emissions. The reasons for this are largely political but also economic too.
You might wonder why those on the soft fringe of the fossil fuel lobby would prefer a carbon tax to an ETS and the answer is simple. They know that as a matter of practice there is no substantial lobby for higher taxes — particularly when these taxes can be presented as making industry uncompetitive. Every new tax or tax increase is ultimately a political act for which politicians stand in the firing line, and so the likelihood that any carbon tax regime will approach the actual costs of fossil fuel emissions to the community as a whole is remote. There would be persistent and effective pressure to make exemptions, hand back subsidies and to sanction imports from trading partners that weren’t imposing the same “job-destroying” taxes. In short, we’d have a new iteration of something like Smoot Hawley and a prolonged argument in which the advocates for green policies would be presented as old-fashioned protectionists and high taxers. The fossil fuel people like that ground.
An ETS on the other hand allows businesses to hold onto valuable financial instruments. If you have purchased an emissions certificate, the last thing you want is for the state to do anything to diminish the value of that in the market –quite the reverse — your interest is in the value of these things rising. The same objections to printing money apply to giving out freebies to your competitors, so right away, you wedge business. You want your certiificates to be tradeable off-shore, so the pressure on all governments *from business* is to reconcile their trading systems to allow convertibility. The fossil fuel lobby has to have its argument with everyone who holds these instruments — many of whom will be them — and with people who stand to gain from producing offsets — e.g. holders of land with vegetation on it. This too underlines a basic point – whereas a tax regime might permiot rebates for people sequestering carbon, the process is likely to become bogged down and slow — whereas under an ETS, all that needs to happen is a scientific evaluation of the CO2 sequestered for it to be plugged into the system of credits.
That’s much stronger ground for those of us who want emissions cuts.
It is also the case that when businesses are forced to guess how much certificates are likely to be in the future, their guesses are likely to be imprecise, and so they are likely to err on the side of overfulfilling. That’s what they did with SO2. So again, the progress towards big emissions reductions is likely to be swifter.
Fran
joe2, I can’t recall whether SBS TV news used the word “gaffe” but they did suggest his overheard remarks to the other PM seemed to be at variance with his public statements.
Kevin was then pressed by journalists on this point. I was surprised that it seemed to take some time to be raised in other news outlets.
Maybe none of them watch SBS?
Fran Barlow at 41. It was you who said at 6 that a double dissolution could see the Greens advance at the expense of Fielding and Xenophon. The thrust of my comments was to question this assumption. At 6 you were also saying: “ETS as curently proposed by Rudd is a very poor one — and of course it is going to be locked in until 2020.
“Personally, if you ask me to choose between this scheme and no scheme, no scheme doesn’t sound all that bad.”
At 41, in an irrelevant parade of your electoral knowledge, you write: “Legislation that is the subject of a DD then goes in its unamended form to a Joint Sitting. Assuming the government is returned, even allowing the same senate composition we have now the government’s lower house advantage would render Stephen Fielding’s opposition moot — and that’s assuming that a severely bruised opposition would have the stomach to continue to oppose legislation that had received an explicit mandate at an election.”
Perhaps you would like to explain how this equates with what you said at 6. Surely the legislation that would be going to the joint sitting would be the Rudd ETS legislation that you found so bad.
Consistency does not seem to be your strong point.
JohnL@42
On the question of Obama … I regard him as very likely the least ethcially objectionable incumbent of the presidency in history. Certainly he is a man of very considerable acumen, and, as far as one can make inferences about these things, an admirable fellow. None of that changes the hard reality that the parameters and usages of policy within the US system preclude serious interference with the prerogatives of the most privileged stakeholders in the system — of which the military, the financial sector and those whom I’ve dubbed “filth merchants” (i.e the major energy producers such as the big coal and oil companies) are prominent.
It’s absolutely plain that CC&S cannot make a positive difference to emissions reductions within the time frame we need to, and worse, to the extent it serves to divert funds from more efficient and effective approaches to reductions and to extend the life of coal plants, it subtracts from them in the medium term. The only rationale for this excursion from mitigation policy is political posturing — few want to be cast as destroyers of the jobs of coal miners and power station workers. Apparently they prefer to run the risk of being cast as porkbarrellers or purveyors of pollution or investors in technologies which are unfeasible.
One can see an analog of this policy in the exclusion of the transport sector until 2013 — they certainly don’t like the idea of being responsible for higher petrol prices and so the petrol refiners get their way. They don’t want to be seen as upsetting farmers, so the agricultural sector gets a free pass, even though this too is a major source of emissions.
And if one casts one’s eyes in nthe direction of the US, one does see the same pattern …
I suspect he detected exactly the same thing coming from you. Maybe if you’d ‘pressed hard’ on nuclear power instead of unreliable, hugely expensive solar you may have had more luck.
Fran @43, you mention the example of the SO2 scheme which I know economists like to hold up as an example of how an ETS can work. I have never had time to look into any detail of how that did work, but my gut reaction is that surely it was on a much, much, lower order of complexity (and ability to be “abused” and have perverse results) than the proposed CO2 ETS, especially when you start talking about how it will work on an international level.
And by the way, I didn’t know that there was a “soft fringe” of the fossil fuel lobby that would prefer a carbon tax. (I am not sure what that “soft fringe” includes, by the way). I thought the fossil fuel lobby was very gung-ho about ETS being the only possible way to go, which automatically makes one suspicious.
JohnL@41
I don’t support the current legislation, obviously. My point is this. It is claimed that the rejection of the current legislation followed by a DD would put the legislation at risk because Stephen Fielding and Xenophon might be returned. I merely show that this isn’t so. At worst, we will get the current (poor) legislation a little later. However, one possible outcome is that the government might abandon the legislation and in the next parliament propose a better scheme, which with Green support, could pass. The government is not bound by a DD to present the legislation thst triggered it.
Steve from brisbane@43
On the fossil fuel lobby favouring carbon taxes: The American Enterprise Institute and Yale economist William Nordhaus, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxonmobil etc … Carbon taxes are more popular with conservatives — and that’s why in climate change spoiling Canada they went for this approach. I understand this is where Xenophon is.
Fran
Steve from Brisbane @48: “I thought the fossil fuel lobby was very gung-ho about ETS being the only possible way to go, which automatically makes one suspicious.”
Fran Barlow @50: “On the fossil fuel lobby favouring carbon taxes: The American Enterprise Institute and Yale economist William Nordhaus, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxonmobil etc …”
The fact that ETS will likely have bugger-all impact on carbon emissions isn’t a problem which overly troubles the fossil fuel lobby. They only care about costs and profits.
They know that costs can be passed on. They have the previous oil crises and the spike in 2008 to prove that even VERY LARGE price increases will be swallowed with a managable amount of screaming from the public.
The ETS as proposed will subject them, after successful lobbying, to only minor price increases. Especially since they only come into practice in a few years when oil prices will be sky-high, so the percentage increase will be miniscule.
What is there not to like about ETS, if you belong to the fossil fuel lobby?
Elise @51
An ETS disrupts their ability to present a unified constituency to pressure the government for subsisides and free passes and more lax interpretation of the rules. It locks in a regime that is above politics and locked in property values.
And yet, it is the government who effectively determines the rules by determining the cap.
Fran Barlow @52: “An ETS disrupts their ability to present a unified constituency to pressure the government …”
And yet they like it???
Logic disconnect.
Begs the question Elise. Do they like it? Mitch Hooke seems not to …
Elise, it’s good to see you’re borrowing the “spin” line from the Coaltion. Keep it up and we’ll have another Coaltion Government sooner rather than later. You remember, the sort of government that didn’t even want to meet with Al Gore lest it catch greeniness.
There are many signs that Australia will make a big turn-around on global warming. The fact that the government’s solar energy initiative blew out by hundreds of millions of dollars during a serious economic downturn is a sign of that. But we’ll still dig up iron ore and have aluminium processing for a while yet. That was my point – that we could be a leader of countries with roughly similar economies, economies heavily reliant on extractive industries.
Why don’t we just turn off the power stations(starting with the oldest one) one by one over a few years say 10 to 20 what ever we like combined with properly shared load shedding until there are say 20% of them left running. Also at he same time a progressively reducing fuel rationing system ( this worked in WW2) until there is say only 20% of the fuel at the petrol station available for sale that there is today.This would reduce our emissions by a controllable definitive amount with out any fancy ETS schemes that may or may not work! And hey there is no way anyone can make money out of this scheme.” Just save the planet”.
Ginja @ 55: “Elise, it’s good to see you’re borrowing the “spin” line from the Coaltion…the sort of government that didn’t even want to meet with Al Gore lest it catch greeniness.”
Then you don’t understand me at all, Ginja.
I’ve read Al Gore’s book, and spent a lot of time thinking about, and arguing for, climate change and renewable energy. And I didn’t “get religion” yesterday. I wrote a Masters thesis on the impact of alternative energy on OPEC pricing policy back in 2001, arguing for the growth of renewables.
I try to walk the talk, as far as reasonably possible. We have a solar PV system, catch public transport where possible, installed new low wattage appliances and water efficient appliances in 2 different houses in the last decade. We replaced the lawn and English garden with Aussie natives, and have planted dozens of large gum trees on our bush block. We aren’t saints, but we certainly aren’t anti-green or anti-renewables.
I dislike symbolism without substance. That is my objection to the ETS. It is highly unlikely to give any environmental bang for the many bucks it will consume.
I reckon the Rudd government would get greater actual results if they legislated for maximum consumption levels on cars and set a maximum CO2 output per unit of electricity (ramping down over time in both cases), and beefed up the MRETS system accordingly. They should also legislate for feed-in tariffs to the electricity grid, to encourage households and communities to install renewable power, and gradually retire the more inefficient coal-fired power stations as more renewable power comes online.
Ginja, if you prefer the symbolism of an inefficient ETS, then go for your life. But don’t falsely accuse me of being “anti-green” because I don’t support your preferred approach.
Chris, that,s about the dumbest idea I have *ever* heard. What*a*dickhead. Were you born that way or did you learn to be so stupid at uni?
Fran@41
The Democrats were the Green movement. As much as the Greens like to claim many of the Dems victories, it was the Democrats who forwarded most of the major environmental achievements for a long time from protecting the Daintree to the Franklin River – eg. it was Norm Sanders, a Democrat, who promised and delivered on moving the no confidence motion against the Tasmanian Government when more than a third of Tasmanian voters wrote ‘no dam’ on their referendum ballots. I understand that environmental concerns were even in the original platform in 77.
But they always had a broader policy agenda. I don’t think the space the Democrats occupied has been taken by the Greens… the environmental vote sure, but it’s only about an 8th of the Democrats vote. I think it is more likely that Labor moved right in to the space left by the Dems, and that gave the Greens some more air on the left.
If, as I suspect, the ALP base is not that happy with Rudd, Labor will move left again as the poll gets closer, choking the Greens and giving more air for the Democrats – newly reconnected with their true base of centrists – to bounce back. And the point would be to return balance and serious review to the Senate – as opposed to the grandstanding ‘all or nothing’/'what are you going to give me in return’ charade the Senate currently suffers from.
Fran wrote: ‘and of course it is worth recalling that the defection of the Democrats to the Coalition side post-1998 underlined this point. Without the assistance of the Democrats, the Howard era would not have been possible. The Democrats were the political glue that allowed an unstable set of constituencies to cohabit for long enough to consolidate and ultimately achieve control of both houses.’
The Democrats were never on anyone’s side. You ask anyone who worked in Canberra while the Dems held the balance of power (as I did) and they’ll tell you that the Democrats always listened to both sides of the argument, and worked with everybody to achieve the best possible outcome. The assertion that it was the Democrats fault that Howard got control of the Senate is so ludicrous I wouldn’t know where to begin.
I wasn’t a Democrat before, but I always respected what they did (up until about 2002, when they really started to lose the plot). Now I feel their absence. Australia needs the Democrats.
(Minus Andrew Bartlett preferably, just my $0.02.)
“(Minus Andrew Bartlett preferably, just my $0.02.)”
There’s a textbook example of taking your credibility out and shooting it in your final sentence.
Of course there are tooo many problems, one of these being a major problem. There is not a scientifically proven link between manmade carbon dioxide and climate change. All we have is models and manipulated data.
John Michelmore@61
It’s hard to imagine what you thought could be achieved by posting this hoary old filth merchants’ meme here. If you are doing it to achieve some purely personal end, I would suggest that there may be better places to do that.
As is well known, the link between increasing CO2 and the current temperature anomaly has been adequately well-attested by peer-reviewed science to ground public policy. Nobody has yet shown any reason for disregarding the impact of increasing anthropogenic CO2 and other GHGs, and nobody advocating such a course has yet shown any other driver of the temperature anomaly that matches the incontrovertible data about the pattern of warming we have seen.
Instead of publishing in peer-reviewed journals of record, the contrarians have contented themselves with spurious and specious talking points and allusions to outlandish conspiracies and slanderous allegations against the world’s scientific community, which conduct serves humanity’s interests ill.
It is unfortunate that you have, in a modest way, instantiated that disinformation campaign here. Assuming for the sake of argument that you are honestly unawre of the science my advice would be to familiarise yourself by visiting places where the issues you might want resolved are discussed by those with actual expertise in the field. Real Climate is moderated by those responsible in part for the science underpinning the IPCC conclusions (people such as Gavin Schmidt, Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, William Connolley, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert etc), and provided you remain civil and focused on the science, you will be answered civilly and substantively. I would recommened checking out the archives first however so as to familarise yourself with what has already been discussed in areas of interest to you.
I hope this helps.
Fran
Thanks Fran,
Welcome to the other side of the coin.
There are two sides to every coin including the side that concludes to date that there is no proven anthropogenic climate change.
The IPCC conclusions are just that conclusions based on models which are not science but just models. There are thousands of other scientists who believe the IPCC conclusions are incorrect.
There is a wealth of information “out there” that you as a “believer” may wish to read. “Watts Up With That ” discusses the problems with the current theories and Professor Plimers recent book discusses other issues that could affect climate (amongst other authors now going to print).
I’m all for saving resources and not having a consumer driven society, but I’m also against an ETS based on suspect theory. I’m also concerned that an ETS is open to the same problems of corruption and greed as the current financial system is. There has to be a better system than this. Mankind is foolish to even consider that “he” can control the climate.
When you’ve had a long hard look at both sides, you might consider joining the new political party, I think their called The Climate Sceptics.
Well done John@63
I think you get points for squeezing in a maximum number of specious regurgitated talking points into the minimum of text.
These points have been debunked so often I’m not about to waste bandwidth here. I do note you lack of interest in looking at any actual science, so I’m going to assume your intention was purely to troll.
I would note one thing though: How come self-declared “skeptics” never assume that the IPCC has been optimistic?
Apparently, “doubt” only comes in one form and serves only one set of stakeholders. That in itself is telling.
Elise, I didn’t say you were anti-Green, just using stale lines from the Coaltion.
As I understand it, the government is working on paying households to feed power into the grid as we speak. That is what is replace the solar rebates.
I’d encourage more people to ask Penny Wong’s office for information and not listen to the spin of the Opposition and the media (70% of which is owned by Murdoch). You’ll get a bit of spin, but not as much.
People should look to the states too – a lot of stuff is happening that doesn’t get picked up in the national media.
I applaud what you’re doing at home for the environment. Great stuff.
…I should’ve said 70% of newspapers – not the media – are owned by Murdoch. Still, bad enough!
Ladies and gentlemen,
could we please avoid the terms “talking points”, “meme” and “stale lines” and address arguments fairly and squarely? Demolish lousy arguments by all means. Ridicule is time-wasting.
Peter please don’t be derogatory. At least my idea would work better than any ETS scheme proposed to date.I hope you are not one of those intending to make money out of ETS’s
Thanks again Fran,
I think you may have misunderstood my comments. It is not doubt that I have about anthrpogenic global warming. Outside mainstream media there is a wealth of information that indicates the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures is unproven. Anthropogenic climate change is scientifically unproven, there is no doubt about it.
I’m sure if you take the time and read some of the alternative sources, not pushing the hype that is so prevalant nowdays, you may see there are other other sides to the issue.
However if your not interested in considering both sides of the story and believe in anthropogenic global warming as proven fact, then I’ll not attempt to convert you.
Debater @67
I can’t imagine how you came upon the idea that you were in a position to specify the terminology others could use to descibe recurrent spurious and specious claims made about efforts to foreclose uncontrolled climate change by those favouring business as usual.
No honest and informed person could advance such claims without at the minimum acknowledging the responses that have been made by those aware of the well-attested science, and to persistently revisit these exercises in agnatology as if these had never been addressed is to unwittingly aid and abet those spreading the disinformation. These have been around so long that whole websites have been set up to counter them. See for example:
OSS Foundation or Skeptical Science Foundation
Nor do these talking points date merely from the debate on global warming. They are simply the replication of previuous industry lobbying strategies on CFCs. passive smoking, SO2 abatement, vehicle safety etc, sometimes with an overlapping cast of characters.
Here’s a link to something I wrote recently on the similarities between this and campaigns to subvert action on CFCs in the 80s.
While one does get the occasional intellectual indolent for whom WUWT is their first contact with the policy discussion, for the most part when one sees these talking points rattled off with such precision it’s entirely calculated to disrupt. That is affirmed again in the incoherent response one can see from “John Michelmore” above.
Let us call things by their right names, calling out their memes and talking points as needed.
Fran
Chris @68
While it’s regrettable that you were on the receiving end of incivility, what you posted wasn’t well-conceived.
You assumed, for example that “we” [the government] could simply “turn off the power stations(starting with the oldest one) one by one over a few years say 10 to 20 what ever we like …” [emphasis added by me]
The reality is that there is a mix of ownership of the power stations in question. In Victoria, where many of Australia’s oldest and filthiest powerr stations are, these are privatised. Hazelwood for example is 91.8% owned by a British-based company that also operates Loy Yang A called International Power so “we” can’t do anything this side of reacquiring the assets presumably at an acceptable cost to the group.
Im unclear what you mean by “properly shared load shedding until there are say 20% of them[?] running” — do you mean cutting back everyone’s power by 80% on average? What would this imply about existing power demand? It’s a bit like saying that everyone should reduce power demand by 2% each year until we are only using 20%. Unless you can show this is feasible in practice and politically acceptable, it’s purely theoretical. You then repeat this unsound exercise in relation to reductions in fuel at petrol stations with the endorsement “it worked during WW2″. Well gosh, that’s a relief.
You need to think through your ideas, considering possible objections on feasibility grounds [do the resources exist? Cost-benefit questions? schedule feasibility? organisational feasibility etc] before putting them into public space if you want people to take you seriously.
Fran
Fran,
Let me ask you a coherent question. How do you and the IPCC explain away the fact that global temperatures have not and do not follow their predictions in relation to the supposed relationship between global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.
Anthropogenic climate change is an unproven theory, I can’t call it science.
John Michelmore @ 72, you begin “let me ask you a coherent question”, then fail to do so.
Go away and inform yourself about the science.
I think you’ll find that most people here are at least as familiar with the alternative sources you allude to in 69, it’s just that most of us have looked at them critically and realised that they’re just a bunch of flat-earthers.
Sorry David,
Forgot the all important question mark!! The question is there if you look.
It seems that the AGW believers would rather attack those who question the validity of what has been called science. That’s fine if you can’t and don’t want to see the questions and the possible alternatives.
Anthropogenic global warming is still unproven, irrespective of your wish for me to go away.
Maybe there are a few people out here whom also agree with me in relation the unproven science being spread about anthropogenic climate change.
There are polls running on the News websites if you would like to add your weight against the turning tide of disbelievers in the AGW religion.
John, the important bit was that you should inform yourself.
I didn’t even notice that you’d missed out a question mark, btw: I was merely commenting on your lack of coherence.
For anyone who is interested there’s a great piece on the very point I made above @70 in Huffpo
It runs in part:
This link may shed some light on what has been dubbed “agnotology” or “the Cultural Production of Ignorance”.
Shut up Debater – they started it.
StopPress, the Tata Nano is now on sale (if you live in India).
The standard model sells for 140,000 rupees ($3595) including tax in the showroom. The deluxe models cost up to 185,000 rupees ($4750).
The deluxe model comes with extra features: air-conditioning, automatic windows and central locking.
How many Indians in India? Over 1 billion.
How much extra petroleum production will be needed?
Right, that does it. I’m buying oil shares tomorrow.
Not only that, but the safety provision in the Tata Nano mean many more Injdians will be going tata sooner
yeah but hearses need fuel too, Fran.
Just for those that are interested in what an IPCC author has said about manmade emmissions and global warming. The relationship is not scientifically proven yet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/17/ipcc-lead-author-on-global-warming-conclusions-were-not-scientifically-there-yet/#more-9404
And if anyone goes to WUWT, here’s what they will find that lead author saying:
A metallurgical engineer who admits (rightly) that he lacks the expertise to evaluate what he is commenting on?
Amusing. What a lame attempt at deception!
The funniest thing about John Michelmore, Fran, is that he thinks he’s found something new, that upends all of physics and chemistry completely (a new Galileo!!!!1111!!!11!!!), rather than some tired old bullshit that’s been debunked again and again and again and again …
John, inform yourself. Trot over to deltoid, Real Climate, or Brave New Climate and learn about what the scientists say, not what a bunch of emeritus oil geologists are fantasizing about.
David and Fran,
Thankyou again for your attack on the people with views not the same as yours.
I’ll ask the question again. Why is there not a statistical relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations? If this relationship isn’t statistically proven, how is controlling the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going to change the global temperature?
I’ll await your responses.
Yawn.
Please don’t feed the denialists.
Thanks Robert,
I see you can’t answer the question either.
John M, of course he can. The best analogy of what you’re doing here is the dog Hannah and her ball.
I suggest you look up the latest findings on climate sensitivity, but I’m not going to bother finding the links for you. It will come up in a post I plan to do soon.
I don’t mind the John Michelmores of this world, I learnt [learned??..why is the english language so obtuse???] quite a lot from Fran Barlow’s posts above, thanks Fran, those links were very interesting.
Glad you liked them fb@89.
In formal written texts the learned is most common both for the past definite and for the past participle. “Learnt” is more common in written transcription of informal vernacular.
Thanks Brian,
But I haven’t seen any evidence the statistically, scientifically proves manmade carbon dioxide emmissions are related to global warming (or climate change). Not sure the dog and ball (or bone) routine applies.
Look forward to your future post, and the answer to my questions.
John M, I suspect that you won’t get the answers to your questions because to do so would upset your mindset and take you out of your comfort zone, so perhaps this applies.
It’s a tendency that everyone has, some (most) don’t recognize it as applying to them.
But really, I don’t know better than you do how you think, not necessarily, it’s just something you should reflect about, if you haven’t already. And if you have, perhaps time to reflect again.
The one thing I will add to this in parting Brian is the rather telling implication from John M that our chief sin here is “attack[ing]people with views not the same as [y]ours”. John M, like many of those attempting to defeat policy in this area, is trying to sneak in the idea that the fundamental science attached to climate change is simply a matter of opinion, which of course opens the door to everyone being respectful of “both sides” and having “balance” in the discussion.
This of course is poppycock. Neither the interaction of CO2 molecules with infra red radiation, nor the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, its provenance or the data from instrumental records about temperature are matters of anyone’s point of view, but of observation, and no view one could have about them could alter any part of that a jot. They are what they are.
The denier position has never involved an attempt to mount a competing theory of the drivers of the post-1850 temperature anomaly to that of mainstream science and this failure reflects more than the mere empirical and scientific challenges of such a project. Rather, it reflects the reality that what they are bothered about are the implications for public policy. They don’t need to show that the science is wrong. Most of the people about whose opinions politicians are bothered would be hard pressed explaining it anyway, so the exercise would be massively wasteful of resources. What the opponents of policy need are a set of scientistic slogans that can be repeated by those parts of the populace who don’t want their basic desire for their corners of the world to stay as they are to sound selfish or reckless. They need noises that can be uttered on cue by armies of gun toting backwoods orcs and christian fundies can repeat on cue. And for that they don’t need science. They don’t need the objections to even be consistent. They just need frivolous doubt rebranded as “skepticism”.
“Doubt is our product” as the tobacco lobbyists (some of whom are running this campaign) used to say. Spread doubt about the science and then everyone who hates elites, everyone who is jealous of those more accomplished or has a self-esteem problem or feels marginalised can become an ally. In most countries, but in the US especially, that is a hell of a lot of people. Adduce visceral hatred for elites, for government, for “ivory tower” academics, “bureaucrats” and so forth and suddenly James Hansen can become science’s Bernie Madoff, and Al Gore the Madoff of politics. The elites currently alienating the commons can posture as friends of people living in trailer parks and driving F100 pick-up trucks who sound like extras from Petticoat Junction. It’s ‘Mr Smith Goes to Washington’ writ large.
Let there be no mistake: this is a cleverly structured campaign being run by the world’s filth merchants to hide their persistent theft from the commons behind the populist banner of cultural authenticity. And they don’t need to be 100% successful. They just need to whiteant and delay by keeping people in doubt, by implying that there is some debate to be had about the fundamental science so that fear of change can function as their ally.
We must not allow them to get away this. No important judgement made by individuals or communities can call absolute certainty on all conceivable relevant matters to its side. Every rational act of individual or collective policy (including those that turn out to be flawed) is the result of well-tutored inference, because there is nothing better and no better way of discovering what “better still” might entail.
So it is too with policy here. We know plenty enough to know what elements good mitigation policy must contain and we are bound to follw it event as we acknowledge that uncertainties about the precise effectiveness of our measures and the interplay of these with dynamic elements in the biosphere remain. To refrain from acting would be irredeemably reckless.
Fran