It’s hard to ignore resurgence of the ‘Australia shouldn’t do anything until everyone else does’ meme, most recently by the National Party. Dennis provides another variation on the theme, spinning this fair and balanced question in the latest Newspoll:
Currently, the federal government intends to introduce the carbon pollution reduction scheme in 2010. Under the carbon pollution reduction scheme, the price of energy sources, such as petrol, electricity and gas may become more expensive. Do you think the federal government should delay or should not delay the introduction of the carbon pollution reduction scheme beyond 2010 because of the recent financial crisis?
Push poll much?
Climate Denialism is usually shorthand for someone who denies the truth of the basic science of global warming, but I think a more relevant redefinition is Climate Recalcitrant – someone who doesn’t believe that we can get organised to do something about the problem. What the Nationals and Dennis have in common are a desire to trash 15 years of global negotiations, bury their heads in the sand and yell ‘head for the hills (or the barracks)’!
I’ve written here before that ‘public opinion’ around climate change arises in direct response to media events and it’s vital that we have strong leadership committed to addressing the long term nature of the problem. Michael Grubb, who’s been following the international negotiations for over a decade, dealt with some of the more pernicious and parochially appealing myths around Kyoto after the US withdrawl in 2001. In particular, this one is worth repeating:
Myth 6. Kyoto could be ditched in favour of global target negotiations: The reality is that the most credible route towards global quantified commitments is through expansion over several rounds of commitment periods, as provided for under the Kyoto Protocol. Agreeing how to distribute emission commitments amongst 39 industrialised countries in Kyoto was hard enough. “Going global” at this stage would be immensely complex … as well as politically explosive… international efforts since the inception of the climate change negotiations have been founded on the principle that industrialised countries must lead. The best hope for global target negotiations is if they are founded on such leadership, and upon several years’ experience of operating an international targets-and-trading system. That is the intention behind Kyoto’s first period commitments. Abandoning the massive international efforts and painstakingly negotiated agreements developed over the past decade will not build the experience or foster the cooperation needed to solve the climate problem; quite the contrary. It is likely to throw the climate change regime into a lengthy wilderness of animosity, confusion and stalemate.
ref:Climate Policy 1 (2001):272
Elsewhere: Media Watch on the ‘W-R-O-N-G’ episode last week featuring ol’ goal-post-moving Dennis’
Update: I got my Crikey email after I’d published this. Sophie Black quotes Erwin Jackson from the Climate Institute:
“We polled on the weekend after Black Friday. The results that we were getting were only 22 per cent of the population thought the financial crisis was a reason to delay,” says Jackson.
“The bigger risks for the government is that based on our focus groups, rightly or wrongly, the community thinks the government are dithering and is looking for strong, credible targets from both major parties… Over seventy per cent of people agree that taking action on climate change will create opportunities for new jobs and new clean energy industries.”
As for the implications of delaying an ETS, Jackson says that based on The Climate Institute’s independent research, there is a real risk that “the community will [lose] patience.”
“There is already a growing concern within the community that the big polluters will be getting billions of dollars worth of free handouts and also to build momentum internationally, Australia needs to go to the next round of climate talks with credible and decisive plans to significantly reduce emissions,” says Jackson.
“In relation to the market turmoil the Prime Minister recently linked the current global financial turmoil to ‘the triumph of the short term over long term, sustainable growth’. The long-term risk and impacts of runaway Climate Change would dwarf that of current financial turmoil,” says Jackson.
“Global warming is not waiting and nor should we in implementing the necessary long-term plan to reap the benefits of the 21st clean-energy economy.”
What Shanahan proves is that the climate denialists are really shills for the coal and oil companies.
I had to read Dennis’ column twice this morning, it appeared to bear no relation to the table of Newspoll results on which it was apparently based.
The thing I find most scary about this so called “debate” is that the philosophical grounding of the denialists seems to be that the earth was created for man by a superior being. From this flows the refusal to believe that it could ever be rendered unfit for human habitation. Even those who pay lip service to the enlightenment seem to have difficulty removing humankind from the centre of the universe. Among these are self styled Marxists who should know better.
The sooner we all understand that “nature” does not give a toss about us, that microbes of divers kinds dominate the globe in mass,volume and numbers terms and judging by the writings of Shanahan et al, in intelligence as well.
The difficult thing for us to really understand is that our so called “dominion” is nothing of the kind. No I am not advocating a return to some imaginary bucolic utopia but I am saying that we urgently need to deal with the situation. It’s not rocket science after all.
Huggy.
If you’ve had your head buried in a carbon sink for the last few years, you wouldn’t have heard of the World Carbon Smackdown – a home-and-away series of no-holds-barred debates – between the Algore Alarmists and the Do-nothing Denialists.
The two teams in this game picked themselves long ago. “Media events” might have the added benefit of shoring-up the odd player with an attack of the what-if-I’m-wrongs, but most of these articles – on both sides – are just plain old barracking.
Tony, not having a go at you, but are you (or anyone) able to tell me what the amusement is in running Al Gore’s name together (algore), to be dismissive of him? Seen it around, don’t understand it.
Is that what that is?
“Push poll much?”
Strictly speaking, from my understanding of the term, it probably isn’t.
On a previous thread, on this subject, I wrote about my experience actually contributing to this newspoll thus…”I complained about the possible inaccuracy/answer influencing lead up statement to the question on the carbon reduction scheme.”
I resisted using the term “push polling” because it seems to refer to the blackening of an individual candidates character rather than pushing an aggenda. Wikipedia covers this very well and has a fantastic topical example.
“Perhaps the most famous use of push polls is in the 2000 United States Republican Party primaries, when it was alleged that George W. Bush’s campaign used push polling to torpedo the campaign of Senator John McCain. Voters in South Carolina reportedly were asked “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” The poll’s allegation had no substance, but was heard by thousands of primary voters.[4] McCain and his wife had in fact adopted a Bangladeshi girl.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_polling
Maybe a new word needs to be invented to cover what Newspoll is up to. I would push for “Shananigans”.
Crikey on Newspoll’s push polling:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20081028-ETS-push-polling.html
If you think the AGW science is on the money then the article by Gary Johns in the Australian today should be seriously considered – we are past the point of actually being able to change the climate, therefore any emmissions trading scheme is a misallocation of resources and therefore a waste of time. Having a strong economy that can adapt as required to climate change is better than a smaller economy that can’t adapt as easily.
More from Sophie Black:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2008/10/28/an-ets-will-give-you-brain-cancer-send-you-broke-and-kill-your-firstborn-still-want-one/
heh!
Razor, Gary Johns is a hack, and a denialist in both senses. Acknowledging there is is commitment and inertia in the status quo does NOT signal he understands the mainstream science. If he did, he’d realise how much worse we can still make things if we just give up and keep burning our way into a coal fired, oil powered future.
And thanks for the links, Mark. I got the Crikey email late.
Adapting to climate change? Climate change is not going to be some benign and balmy 2C rise in temperature, its about a full on re-ordering of life on earth. It’s about a life and death struggle for lebensraum, for suitable croplands and against life forms that just love higher temperatures.
Huggy.
I see Talcum took up the talking point today. Yawn. Just the usual Liberal party whore-puppet yabber, for big coal ventriloquists.
Shows the industries are scared, anyway – which is great news for humanity.
What better reason to stick to the ETS plan? Let’s push it through people.
After all, the AU public believes Rudd the superior economic manager by a considerable margin.
Andrew Bartlett:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/bartlett/2008/10/28/too-appalling-to-ignore/
Didn’t Gary Johns used to be a climate change denier? And now he says it’s too late to do anything? What a turkey.
Gary Johns was also a junior minister in the Hawke Government. He probably got a leg up in the climate denier stakes from former senator Peter Walshe, a formidable opponent and renowned finance minister.
Ah Razor, I remember not so long ago on LP you were convinced the whole thing was a crock – now you’ve had your come-to-jesus moment and it’s suddenly so bad nothing can be done? Christ man, I wish I had a car that could turn that fast.
That said, i think in some senses you are right: Things are so bad, and we’ve left it so long I think without actively sucking carbon out of the atmosphere where are in for truly terrible times.
But, I think we’re talking about the difference between catastrophe and literal armageddon for humans. Something must be done and done as soon as possible.
patrickg – you are jumping to conclusions. I still think both the science and the economics is a crock. I was just pointing out the article.
Here’s an insight into where most climate denialism comes from, and why its proponents should be ignored:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/29/2404237.htm
Meanwhile back in reality, ‘Cost of carbon regime “modest”‘
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24569272-5013871,00.html
Whether that makes it worthwhile in its current form is another matter…
19 – I can understand why the Real Estate Agents are unhappy. I believe that the current rate in sea level rise is about 3 to 4 mm per year on average, although this may have slowed recently. The wild forecasts of meter rises are not being supported by the physical evidence. Al Gore and Tim Flannery saying they may rise meters is the same as me saying Megan Gale may go out with me – it may happen but what is the probability?
I go sailing almost every weekend for six months a year. I have yet to see significant discernible change in the sea level in the last 30 years. If what the AGW supporters are saying is true then I should be seeeing it. I am not. Seeing is believing.
As I continue to say – when they can produce both climatic and economic models that closely predict real world events (past and future), then I’ll get interested. At the moment they don’t. Show me a climate model that accurately predicted the path of annual global temperature since 1997. Show me an economic model that forecast the current credit crunch, equity market falls and global growth slow down. I doubt you can, but if you do then I will sit up and take notice.
Lefty E @ Oct 28th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Agree with what you say except for the above. Here is why:
* ETS has not signficantly reduced emissions in 15+ countries where it is already in place (e.g. Europe)
* Rudd & Wong have already stated they will give away free permits to the worst polluters – which Garnaut observed would compromise the scheme (and make it less effective than a simple carbon tax)
* It is a strawman. Industry outrage is feigned.
* It is going to cost heaps to implement and manage – for little or no emission reduction benefit
* We don’t have time to faff around with it for the next 2 years.
* Higher prices for carbon intensive products and activities (e.g. jet travel) doesn’t really damp down demand much among the wealthy.
* Market based mechanisms for regulation have just been proven a total failure by the 2008 crash and subsequent global Govt bailouts.
I reckon it is time to introduce carbon (and water) rationing. Fair, equitable, effective and easy to comprehend. Starting 1Q09.
Sure, Peterc. If only something better was on the table. Me, Id prefer a straightcarbon tax. Simple.
thats said, the ETS does start getting the institutional framework together (eg companies hire sustainability officers, reporting becomes standard, framework for increasing reductions in palce).
Also, as Ive argued previously – free permits do not mean ‘no reductions’. They can be sold if unused – hence there’s still inbuilt incentive to reduce.
There’s a lot of low hanging fruit out there right now – even a crap system will help reductions at this point.
Re the terminology debate – how’s about the classic from neo-cons about the French refusal to sign up for Gulf Was II: “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”.
That’s the real problem now – not those who still deny the science, but those who say it’s all too hard, so let’s not try.
If you don’t like the surrender-monkeys suggestion, how about Macbeth’s immortal put-down from Act V, scene iii: “thou cream-faced loon… thou lily liver’d boy”?
Perhaps we need to goad them into action. Embarrass the bastards.
GOod suggestion Tim: its a war of position, and you’re thinking the right way.
Carbon emitting surrenders monkeys indeed.
On terminology – can we start saying Carbon Pollution rather than Carbon Emissions?
It resonates better with “eating” for the purposes of the war of position Wbb!
But sure, how about “coal-eating surrender monkeys”?
speaking of which – the economic myths have been exploded. Treasury modelling finds early action on climate change will save money, and create 700,000 jobs.
We can t afford not to do it – so Turnbull and the Libs, and the denialists, can be safely ignored as ‘economically irresponsible’.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/act-fast-on-emissions-swan-20081029-5bgv.html
That’s my kind of goal post positioning, Lefty E.
Greenpeace commissioned some major modelling earlier this year on a green energy transformation and was criticised (!!!) because it would need too many workers – skills shortage and all that. Ridiculous.
Yes, one day people will wake up to the great con that has been big coal/ big forestry’s position: they oppose action because it will *create jobs* and they might have to pay for some of them.
We might also realise that – climate and environment left completely aside for the sake of argument – old growth logging is an unsustainable ECONOMIC joke.
Tasmania reeks of QLD circa 80s – a very close relationship between govt and extractive industry hides the fact that they are retarding the economic development of the state, not advancing it.
dk.au: If you’re referring to my criticism of that report here, my critique was as follows:
* what matters is the overall level and quality of employment, not the level of employment in the energy sector.
* employing more people in the energy sector doesn’t necessarily lead to better outcomes for level and quality of employment.
* That Greenpeace could exhibit such a fundamental misunderstanding of these issues in a public document doesn’t do them much credit.
I still think that critique’s valid.
New post on coal-eating surrender monkeys at Bite my Latte
http://bitemylatte.blogspot.com/2008/10/coal-eating-surrender-monkeys.html
What is a ‘quality’ job, Robert? According to whose criteria?
Great post, Lefty E. Related – Gabrielle Kuiper at New Mat who gestures at a break from cost-benefit analysis then calls for a broader definition of ‘costs’ http://newmatilda.com/2008/10/28/beyond-garnaut-towards-reality
And, fwiw, I wasn’t referring to your criticism but spoke to one of the modellers at the launch of the Australian report (Greenpeace did modelling in many countries). He was surprised that people were so worried about creating too many jobs – it wasn’t something of concern anywhere else.
I suppose it’s by the preference of the people concerned. But, seriously, things like salary, conditions, job security, working environment. The usual.
Yes, so it comes as no surprise, but with considerable disappointment, that old growth logging continues unabated in Victoria, despite Labor promises to end it in 2006[link]
Despite that these forests store over 1000 tonnes of carbon per hectare, most of which is converted to carbon emissions when they are logged. There are remarkable similarities between the woodchip industry and the coal industry. And they take a leaf out of the tobacco industry’s book on PR tactics.
Sorry I’m not following your critique of the modelling then… Are you saying they’d be jobs that are too insecure? poorly paid?
The real problem was that they considered the effect of the changes in employment in the energy sector. It’s entirely possible that increasing employment in the energy sector might decrease employment, and overall living standards of the broader community.
The Greenpeace modeling answered the wrong question.
I think it’s not surprising that the Nats are playing silly buggers on emissions trading. My country rellies tell me that they know no-one, not a single person, who accepts the scientifically orthodox position on climate change. They’ll accept that the planet may be warming and that the climate is changing (“it always has”) but not human causation.
Bolt’s article on six graphs was copied and sent all around the place by email with apparent approval. That’s how I first heard about it.
Andrew Robb is a full-on denier, or was unless he’s changed in the last year or so. His attitude to AGW science was derisory. Turnbull made a very curious selection in appointing him ETS spokesperson. Or maybe he inherited him, I don’t know.
Brian, I’m starting to wonder if Petit Mal isn’t a denier as well. His public position on carbon sequestration has changed from support and approval when he was Minister for the Environment to doubt about its viability now that he’s leader of the Opposition.
Perhaps, David. I’m inclined to think it’s a case of political necessity on his side of politics over principle, which is disappointing to say the least.
They all know that CCS is political cover for the coal industry. Which is why Malcolm now says we can’t rely on estimates for the “unproven technology”. With political positions reversed, in opposition he simply looks for points of leverage. And all the horseshit about CCS is a soft target.
The huge investment and time required (which defers real action on climate change and incurs more cost) will make it more expensive than genuine zero emission renewables.
At least the treasury report indicates the real opportunities in embracing green collar jobs.
Well yes, Peterc, we all knew CCS was bullshit from the start, but Petit Mal at least pretended he thought it was a good idea until he thought it was a bad idea.
I’m just wryly amused by his opportunism, or whatever it is that’s driving him at the moment.
It is amusing. Backflips are no problem for him. But the real issue is that playing politics on this stuff will lead us all to rack and ruin.
I was appalled by Wong’s steadfast refusal on Lateline last night to comment on the impending loss of the Great Barrief Reef, or on CO2 PPM as defined by Garnaut.
She just would not respond to Jones’ repeated question about Garnuat’s 550ppm equating to the complete death of the reef, and Kakadu wetlands. She might as well have said “no comment”. Or sent along a parrot in her place.
As if the CPRS is going to bring emissions down any time soon . . .
Petrc, last night I watched the video of Margot O’Neill’s report on the state of the Reef and the Wong interview.
Wong is a competent politician in that she is doing a job strictly within the parameters she’s been given and is not going to embarrass her boss by departing from the party line.
The positives are that Tony Jones had done his homework well and that Wong didn’t pretend that there was not a problem with the Reef or the parameters of global policy. Which means that she almost certainly knows that there is.
The situation of the reefs of the world and the sea in general is considerably worse than most people imagine, even scientists, according to a new book by Alanna Mitchell called Seasick. I hope do do a post on it when I get time. It’s an easy read but a truly shocking story by a journalist who took a lot of time and trouble in gathering the information.
Yes but it was embarassing how many times TJ tried, bravely but not really successfully, to pin her to admit
In another segment there was a hopeful moment where an indication of China’s serious minded attitude was hinted at
A greening China surely is a necessary but not sufficient condition for climate de-catastrophisation, we’ll see indications at the shanghai expo.The fact that China’s richest man ( he did his studies and solar industry startup experience here tho, and is an Oz citizen) made his pile on solar power has got to be a good sign: green
big bucksbig yuan are possible.Can anyone put a figure to how much % the global CO2 load would be reduced if Australia found an alternative magic
solar, Australian IPeconomic pudding to flogging fossil fuels for a living, a la “We don’t do that stuff any more”, ie just how big a global eco-criminal are we really?Agree danny. And Brian, Wong being “on message” really doesn’t cut it. The Rudd Government is not accepting accountability for the loss of natural World Heritage icons (of which Australia does not have many) due to climate change – such as Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef.
If the government is not responsible, who the hell is?
Scientists are saying 25 per cent of the reef is already dead, and at 550ppm will be completely dead by 2030, possibly earlier. And the best our politicians can do is prattle on about a market based scheme to put a price on carbon, but compromise it in exactly the way their pre-eminant economic adviser (Garnaut) tells them they must not!
With the whole ideology and credibility of free markets now in tatters – due largely to corporate greed and government complacence – it is clear that a market based system won’t address climate change effectively. It didn’t for CFCs – they were just banned. And global warming is a whole lot worse than the ozone hole ever was. Sunscreen doesn’t help.
We need emergency bipartisan action – like carbon rationing. Cold turkey might just save us. But rearranging deckchairs and glib “no comment” and “on message” politicians won’t.
danny, the problem with China is that it seems to be browning faster than it’s greening.
Peterc, Rudd is no Arny Schwarzenegger and Penny Wong is nothing more and nothing less than a politician doing her job. That’s my point. So we’ll be followers rather than leaders on a world scene.
I understand that 100 million people around the world depend on coral reef ecologies for their main source of protein. But the problem is that the destruction of the reefs lies this side of the 2C guard rail. The further problem is that 450ppm let alone 550ppm will take us well beyond 2C as the feedbacks unfold. But the acidification of the ocean will cut in quite rapidly as the ppms go up.
So the reefs are a goner for sure and you have to ask why no-one apart from Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and a few other wandering souls seem to care. I don’t have the answer to that.
Meanwhile in Qld we’ve been hearing how Queensland will be the worst affected of the states. The economy will still grow by 300% by 2050, so I guess that’s OK. And our Premier has been going in to bat for us asking for increased protection for our export industries.
I wonder what her answer to Tony Jones would have been. Similarly anodyne and professional I expect.
In looking for that article online I did stumble on an this interesting interview with Gwynne Dyer about his latest book Climate Wars. Dyer was a defence analyst by trade and got interested when he found that defence planners were taking seriously all that business of people squabbling over water, of major population shifts because of major changes in weather patterns, glaciers melting, sea levels rising etc. He says:
Something that Clive Hamilton reckons he’s noticed too.
A recent issue of New Scientist had lots of depressing articles including an interview with Gus Speth who has recently written a book The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Gus reckons that
So we need economists who have noticed that the planet isn’t getting any bigger and a new approach that puts human well-being and the well-being of the planet at the centre. Anyway Gus reckons it just isn’t going to happen. He said that in the middle of last month and I’d bet he hasn’t changed his mind in the last two weeks. My expectation is that we’ll patch up the financial system, make it a bit harder to perpetrate the dodgy strategies that brought the thing unstuck and blunder on till the next crisis.
BTW the local 7.30 Report had a segment about plans to gasify coal underground with interviews with capitalists with $billon signs in their eyes and having every expectation that their plans will be approved. No shortage of cash there.
If the government is not responsible, who the hell is?
I am extremely disappointed that the Govt seem to be taking a softline approach to the threat of climate change, but do see the political quandry for them.
We currently have a Govt that at least accepts that climate change is real and is trying to initiate at least some changes in the right direction.
To make a real difference, they must stay in Govt (and we the people must give them our full and vocal support). If they upset too many vested interests to radically they will be subject to a concentrated campaign against them (by the usual suspects) in order to shake public confidence and hopefully (for them) restore a more ‘understanding’ coalition Govt which will say much but do nothing. As they did their last 11 years in Govt, muzzling all in sundry so business as usual can continue.
It is really up to every single one of us, to do all we can to lower our personal emissions. Buy green energy, install solar, support the green industries. Only by voting with our feet (and $$$) will we achieve real change. We can’t rely Govts to do anything they consider politically detrimental. And by becoming as green as possible ourselves we demonstrate our concerns, and support for real renewable energy and the real reduction of carbon pollution.
Praise the Govt for the initialtives they are taking and denounce the Coalition for their dangerous stalling and denial.