Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
The Ethics of Climate Change
Recently, Andrew Hewett, Executive Director of Oxfam Australia was
asked to address a joint meeting of the Uniting Church and Rotary on
the business ethics of climate change in, of all places, the La Trobe
Valley. This is what he said.
The Ethics of Climate Change
Andrew Hewett, Executive Director, Oxfam Australia,
Traralgon, 17 October 2007
Climate change is upon us - we hear it everyday on the news, on the radio and in the papers. The recent Nobel Peace Prize jointly shared by Al Gore and the UNFCCC is further evidence that the world is waking up to the issue.
In Australia it’s an election issue - Our current drought, the recent bushfires and floods affect us all - and the Australian public cares about how these issues are going to be tackled now and into the future.
Climate change is also the biggest moral and ethical issue facing our planet.
Tonight I have been asked to talk about the ethics of climate change - in particular what this means for those most affected - poor and vulnerable communities around the world.
Oxfam has already observed the impacts of climate change in many of the communities where we work around the world. In southern Africa climate change is severely affecting water and food security, reducing the amount of food and water people have access to. In the Pacific rising sea levels are eroding away valuable land and even forcing people to be displaced from their islands. In Aboriginal Australia people’s health is already being affected through the spread of mosquito borne diseases.
What is perverse about this situation is that those least responsible for climate change are, and will, suffer the most. To illustrate this; the average Australian is responsible for roughly 60 times more carbon than the average Bangladesh, yet the average Bangladeshi is less able to cope with the impacts of climate change as poverty makes people vulnerable and limits their choices. If crops fail for example, subsistence farmers have few or no alternative means to provide food for their families.
Oxfam fervently believes that equity is at the heart of the climate change debate.
While we know that climate change is upon us, we are less certain about what our world will look like in the future. The reason for this is that the future depends on our actions now. As a starting point to this talk I would like to offer everyone here a glimpse into three very different futures - all possible futures for our planet in the coming century in light of climate change. These scenarios were first articulated by Herman Ott of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
In the first scenario where world carries on ‘business as usual’, nothing is done and negotiations post-2012 fail. The world is locked into a fossil fuel path and concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase continuously. Shortly after 2020, concentrations reach a level where temperatures are set to increase by more than 2°C. Hectic attempts at geo-engineering are not successful; governments fear uprisings of their populations and do not take serious measures to limit emissions. Global mean temperatures will rise to 4.5°C in 2100 and more afterwards. The world is a different place from the Earth we know.
In the second scenario governments and companies do act, but without resolve and by preserving the growth paradigms of current economic thinking. Economic and technological structures are left unchanged, but central and large technologies (nuclear power, “clean” coal, large biomass and large hydropower) cannot stop the trend in emissions. Partially rising shares of renewable energies and efficiency gains are eaten up by stronger demand, in traditional industrial as well as in the emerging economies. Since decisive steps to reorganise energy production have not been taken, the goal of 2°C will be missed. It is not sure that a turn-around can be achieved after 2020. A slide into the first scenario is possible.
In the third scenario governments finish the negotiations for a post-2012 regime in time. As a precondition, industrialised countries offer substantial support for mitigation measures in the emerging economies, in order to allow them to leapfrog the fossil fuel era. They also offer adequate financial means to help the least developing countries adapt to climate change. At the national level, governments and business in industrialised countries reorganize the energy systems to allow decentralised feed-in by millions of renewable energy sources. Combined with a massive increase in energy efficiency and the phase-out of coal, the world society manages to stay below 2°C. Even in this scenario, large-scale environmental disruptions take place. But global catastrophe will have been averted.
From the looks on people’s faces it is clear that the first and second scenarios are not futures we would like to contemplate. It is the third scenario that we would most like to see happen. The third scenario is an equity one. To achieve it however requires massive changes in the current world we know. Above all, it requires leadership on the part of rich countries and companies: proactive, unconditional steps taken in good faith to build trust in the developing world that decades of neglect of global inequality and global atmospheric pollution without regard for consequences. This is an extremely tall order, but no other will do. It requires our world to tackle the ethics of not only climate change, but the ethics of the world as we know it.
It is clear that climate change brings the ethical dilemmas to the fore. Whatever the origins of pre-existing inequalities and injustices around the world, they are clearly compounded in new ways because of climate change. And in responding to climate change there are winners and losers - and the losers as always are poor people.
Poor people deserve justice just as much as anyone. Solutions to the climate challenge depend on the promise and delivery of justice. In other words, without equity it is difficult to imagine that climate change can be stopped. Success requires the active cooperation of all countries. The abject failure of the rich world to live up to longstanding promises of aid, trade and debt relief is all the more reason for poor people and countries to view hollow promises of cooperation to address the global challenge of climate change with scepticism, if not disgust.
There are a number of ethical principles that are of relevance here.
Firstly there is the issue of equality; the equal claim of all people to a fair share in the earth’s common resources, and to equal consideration in decision-making. This is especially relevant now given the unequal distribution of resources around the world.
But what about future generations and inter-generational equity? This is an issue Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, has talked at length - unless we change our polluting and destructive habits - and do this urgently - our children and future generations will inherit a wasted planet. The science is clear - and we must act now.
Source: http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/TheGDRsFramework_highres.pdf p9
This graph from Ecoequity shows three progressively ambitious global emission reduction trajectories. Using current understanding of the relevant scientific uncertainties, it shows estimates of the probabilities that each trajectory would actually lead to more than 2ºC of warming. The most rigorous of these trajectories is heroic indeed. It shows emissions peaking in 2015 and dropping off at six percent per year, reaching a level of 80 percent below 1990 levels in 2050. Yet, even with this effort, almost inconceivable in today’s political environment, we’d still be exposed to a disturbing 17-36 percent risk of exceeding 2ºC. And while some might feel these trajectories are unrealistic the point here is to show what is really needed and possible with enough political will and action.
This takes us to the issue of individual rights and responsibility; individuals, not countries, are the most relevant unit of analysis given there are not only high emitters in rich countries but poor countries as well. Likewise, it makes little sense to talk about countries such as ‘the US’ and ‘China’ as if they were similar units because each is ‘one country’. China has over four times the population of the US, and every one of those people has an equal claim on global resources. It is also important to remember that while each of us – at an individual or organisational level – has responsibility for our personal or organisational impact, there is also a need to adopt an ethical approach as a society overall. It’s fine being ‘climate clever’ but tackling climate change requires the promotion of a national and global ethic. We need to see ourselves as global citizens, and of Australia playing a role as an ethical nation. For this to occur, change needs to happen at multiple levels; at home, in our communities and in the corridors of power.
This brings us to the issues of people’s right to development; all people have the right to development: in order to reach a decent standard of living and to realise their human rights.
For Oxfam it is important for us to advocate and work with communities in ways that uphold these principles. Why?
First of all, it’s our mission - Oxfam is dedicated to fighting poverty and related injustice around the world. We are explicitly committed to significantly reducing inequality and meeting human rights. Our role, in the eyes of the public, is to say what these require, and set a goal post against which to measure the actual outcome of developments.
Secondly, principled is the new pragmatism - Cutting global emissions to stop climate change requires the cooperation of all countries. Yet developing countries will not sign up to a deal that essentially blocks their future prospects. Hence it is in all countries’ interest to create a regime that respects poor countries’ right to development. Only agreements explicitly based on principles of equity have a chance of being accepted and then adhered to in the long run. Again, this underscores the instrumental value of equity.
Thirdly, pragmatism won’t do the trick – It is often true that ‘something is better than nothing’ – especially when it comes to incremental gains for the poorest of the poor. If a pragmatic approach to trade negotiations promises to increase the incomes of coffee farmers across Ethiopia by 10%, we can have a rational discussion about whether it’s worth pressing for a principled approach that promises to lift them entirely out of poverty but is highly unrealistic in today’s context. There is nothing lost by going for 10% now, and the meaning of even this incremental amount is huge for a household in rural Oromiya. Climate change is different. Unless the world as a whole gets on track to avoid dangerous climate change, all is lost for most coffee farmers in Ethiopia. If we take this reality and its implications seriously, we must start from first principles.
In fighting for justice in climate change many people’s interests are at stake, but some people have more to lose than others. First - while all people will be affected by climate change, along will plants, animals and ecosystems; it is the vulnerable and marginalised communities - those affected first and worst - whose voice needs to be heard loud and clear. This means including women in decision making process; in ways that enable their full participation. It also means recognising that all countries have a right to be included in the decision-making processes - not just the rich ones. This highlights the importance of the UNFCCC process remaining the primary location for discussion and dialogue involving global frameworks for action. Where countries and other actors seek smaller venues to build trust and consensus or otherwise facilitate or enhance progress, discussion should include a balanced representation of actors including those most affected as well as those most responsible - something that isn’t happening at present.
Now let’s turn our thoughts to ethical dilemmas around the problem of global warming.
Just how much global warming is ethically ‘tolerable’? Determining what is a ‘tolerable’ degree of global warming raises profound ethical issues because it means specifying which people, animals and plants will survive or die due to climate change.
The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC’s Article 2 is: “… stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The Convention further specifies that this “level” should allow ecosystems to adapt naturally, ensure food production is not threatened, and enable sustainable economic development.
Average global temperatures have already increased by 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels, and further warming in the same range over the coming two decades is inevitable due to the lag in impacts of gases already emitted. A broad consensus of scientists agree that beyond 2°C, there are much higher chances of rapid, non-linear impacts (such as the collapse of the Amazonian ecosystem), which could lead to widespread and catastrophic levels of harm. Oxfam is calling for global warming to be kept as far as possible below 2°C, since that is the ethical obligation of duty bearers under these circumstances.
In terms of how we keep temperature increases to below 2°C, if we put first the interests of the hundreds of millions who are most vulnerable to the impacts, the ethical position is to aim for a pathway that keeps the risk of reaching 2°C well below 50%. Of course, we must remain flexible and respond to changing science. But on current projections, the ethically consistent trajectory is a global emissions pathway that peaks by 2015 and reduces global emissions by 80% (below 1990 levels) by 2050. Though this looks drastic, and is a steeper cut than is being considered by OECD governments, it still represents a 17-36% chance that we exceed 2°C. (Note that no one would choose to fly with an airline that had a 17-36% chance of crashing, no matter how cheap the ticket).
In any future scenario we need to undertake both mitigation and adaptation activities.
Adaptation is more pressing for developing countries, while mitigation is a greater challenge for industrialised countries, which are heavily wedded to high carbon emitting systems and infrastructures. Although interests and priorities are different, poor people need a global climate regime that handles them together. The ethical considerations relating to each issue are certainly related, but also slightly different. Oxfam’s most recent policy is focussed on adaptation and we will start by looking at that.
Developing countries face two kinds of costs as a result of climate impacts. The first is in preparing for climate impacts by building resilience in order to reduce a community, region or state’s vulnerability. Oxfam estimates that, across all developing countries, this will cost at least US$50bn each year and far more if we do not cut emissions rapidly enough. The second cost is the other side of the coin - recovery and compensation. No matter how well prepared a community is, there will be droughts / floods / hurricanes caused by climate change. Unfortunately at present there are no global estimates of how much this is likely to cost.
Who pays for the costs of adaptation though? Oxfam’s paper Adapting to Climate Change presented the Adaptation Financing Index (AFI) as a means of indicating how the costs of adaptation should be distributed on the basis of ethical principles. The AFI is based on the principles of responsibility (for emissions), capability to assist, and the right to development (minimum thresholds on responsibility and capacity used in the above calculations).
Finance for adaptation should be provided in addition to existing rich country commitments to increase ODA to 0.7% of GDP. Why?
Two important reasons: First, this commitment was made decades before policymakers had heard of, or committed to fight, climate change, precisely because it is important in its own right – to address structural inequalities and the development needs of poor countries resulting from the colonial legacy. Efforts towards this end are currently focused on the MDGs, which are unlikely to be achieved without on-going increases in ODA.
Second, this financing is payment for which polluters are liable as a result of their on-going pollution – not an optional or voluntary payment based on charitable or humanitarian concerns. In contrast to the complex, indirect, and partial relationship between poverty in the developing world over the past three decades (and responsibility for this state of affairs on the part of rich countries), rich countries’ responsibility for climate change (and its impacts) is clear, direct and overwhelming. As agreed in the UNFCCC’s Article 3 – and in line with the long-standing and well established ‘polluter pays principle’ – rich countries have the obligation to pay for the adverse effects of climate change.
This is what poor countries want - adaptation must be additional and distinct from ODA, and funds must not be raised by re-branding or diverting commitments to provide 0.7 per cent of GDP as aid. Interviews conducted with country delegates at the most recent UN meeting in Vienna illustrate these points;
“It was always intended to be additional. ODA came into place from a different context, of addressing the problems of disparity between developed and a developing country…The context was not climate change…Anyone talking about ODA addressing adaptation I think, is way out of line”. (Tanzanian UNFCCC delegate)
“It has to be new money; it can’t be a diversion of existing ODA, which already has to take care of things like education and poverty alleviation…” (AOSIS UNFCCC delegate)
“ODA will never be enough. Even if the countries meet their ODA commitments, which they are not doing; what you need for adaptation will be in the billions of dollars”. (Brazilian UNFCCC delegate)
Ways that rich polluting countries could source financing to meet their obligations could include levies on carbon trading (cap-and-trade) schemes and national carbon taxes. That said, there is no inherent reason why adaptation finance should be raised through carbon-related mechanisms (it could, for example, be provided out of general taxation).
In terms of mitigation, there is a range of proposals for a global regime to tackle climate change, and debate around them is growing more intense as international negotiators move to discuss the substance of a ‘post-2012 regime’. The major proposals fall into two main categories. The first type of proposals is based on pragmatism which tends to propose cuts based on current or historical baselines for established country groupings. The second, based on principles are clustered around three sets of principles: 1) Equal emissions per capita: at the heart is the assertion of equal claims to the global commons and so equal property rights over emissions; 2) Responsibility and capability: at the heart is the assertion that countries must take action on the basis of their responsibility for causing the problem and their capability to assist; and 3) The Right to Development: the current level of poverty in a country must be taken into account in determining its obligation to pay towards mitigation and adaptation.
Oxfam itself is in the process of developing an equity reference framework for evaluating global burden sharing under a future climate regime. The framework we adopt should ideally;
- Ground itself explicitly on the principles of responsibility, capability and the right to development – as required by a position that puts the needs of poor people first, and our climate policy work so far has been (AFI);
- Be firmly rooted in current scientific understandings of adequacy (e.g. 2°C), and flexible enough to both adjust to on-going scientific findings and allow for different assumptions about the application of underlying equity principles;
- Be fully developed, with the robust detail required to assess the implications of various post-2012 allocation proposals on a country-by-country basis;
- Explicitly recognise and account for “the North in the South, and the South in the North”, thus allowing Oxfam to push for greater equality at both national and international levels as Economic Justice requires;
- Have the potential for widespread recognition and momentum – be simple, elegant, rigorous and bold.
I would now like to return to the beginning of my speech where I spoke of three future scenarios for our planet.
My question is; what can be done to help usher the world towards this third ‘ethical’ scenario, in which poor people have the best chance of realising their rights in spite of – perhaps even because of – the climate challenge? The answer I think lies in three key ingredients;
The first key ingredient is people taking charge. No equitable future is possible unless international national governments are willing to take action. Progressive political leaders the world over constantly beg NGOs like Oxfam to deliver the public concern that can enable change. In part, this is an entirely legitimate recognition that a political mandate in a democracy requires widespread public support. Such calls for active citizenship by politicians are an open invitation for people to engage in collective action to demand change that meets their true preferences and priorities. None of us today had a say in technological choices that resulted in our current use of the internal combustion engine or alternating current. But we can influence how we source and use energy and transport options in the future – for generations ahead. This strategy is equally relevant north and south, but requires intense organising and coordination efforts both within and between countries, since common global messaging needs to be reconciled with a diversity of national situations and context-specific messaging.
The second key ingredient is equity as necessity. For anything like the ‘ethical’ scenario to have a chance, all sides need to understand that delivering equity is in fact instrumental to securing a future worth having. While idealism has long played a role in international affairs, never has it been so central to cold-hearted realpolitik. Rich countries know that developing countries – including the most powerful among them – are extremely vulnerable to climate change, and will hold out in hopes that failed harvests in China or water shortages in India compel these actors to abandon lofty positions couched in terms of equity and basic needs. But this is a dangerous game of “chicken” because, arguably, rich countries – most integrated and dependent on a globalised economy – have the most to lose.
The third and final ingredient is the need for developing countries to push ahead. Developing countries face critical decisions about the direction of their energy and wider development policies. The shift to more sustainable, low carbon models of development is not a question of if, but rather a critical question of when. Developing countries need proven, commercial, low carbon technologies and energy solutions.
They should move to begin to switch national energy pathways to low carbon alternatives as soon as possible – even before the costs of current, fossil fuel-based systems surpass those of available alternatives globally. Simultaneously, they should push for the additional, incremental costs of doing so to be assumed by rich countries, consistent with what equity requires
Apart from long-term strategic value, this position has the advantage that it can help generate trust amongst rich countries – who must take on further emissions limitations first – that their lead will be followed quickly by action on the part of the developing world. While developing countries can be excused from early commitments, they do need to put forward proposals to usher in progress. As part of a wider equity-based framework, voluntary moves to begin the transition can both help secure international agreement and increase the likelihood of “leapfrogging” to the solar age.
I urge you all to consider yourself in these key ingredients. For without everyone’s efforts in the climate change challenge, we cannot hope to achieve all that needs to be done, in the short time we have to do it.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Webdiary Pty Ltd. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Australia Ratifies the Kyoto Protocol
In the Irish Times today there was mention of Australia's new postion. Rudd's ratifying the Kyoto Protocol will make a difference:
Europe's position at the talks has been strengthened by the change of government in Australia, where the new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, has set aside his predecessor John Howard's opposition to Kyoto by pledging to sign up to the treaty.
Minister for the Environment John Gormley will represent Ireland. He said he intended to "push for the most ambitious agreement possible to cover the period following the expiration of Kyoto in 2012".
Pulp Mill
Possibly ineffective but, a touch of democracy.
Today, I watched the National Press Club debate between Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull on Climate Change.
No worm of course but I perceived that there were small snippets of sincerity that raised the debate above the normal rhetoric.
We noticed that Malcolm Turnbull intentionally paused when a question included that he had put to cabinet they should neutralise the Kyoto issue by signing the Treaty.
When he brought up Mr. Garrett's "joke" I remembered Mr. Turnbull's statement when he was confronted with the Californian target of 80% in 2050?
His attitude was that both he and Arnold Schwartzenagger would be under the ground by then, creating carbon emissions. Not a very statesman-like thing to say.
I noticed the sincere attitude of Peter Garrett and the logic with which he explained his love of nature.
Both debaters appeared to be reasonably polite until the final speeches.
Again with perception, perhaps subjective, I thought that Peter Garrett spent more passion on saving our planet (and Australia) than did Malcolm Turnbull.
Mr. Turnbull seemed to adopt the bully boy "rabble rowser" attitude for which he was apparently notorious in College.
Nevertheless, I found some of the discourses very entertaining.
While I believe that these debates may not change people's voting intentions, I think there is a distinct fairness quality to the system. It might be a highlight of elections in the future.
IMHO that is because the Howard Parliament has been the most undemocratic in my living memory.
The blatant abuse of the parliamentary procedures by Howard and his entire coalition must be the laughing stock of the democratic world.
No wonder he wants "debates" in Parliament - he has never ever won a debate against any Labor Leader without his slavish Speaker of the House.
So much for democracy in Howard's "Aspirational Natrionalism".
NE OUBLIE.
For Good or Bad religious freedom is democracy.
G'day Alan. I disagree with your attitude of being able to blame an entire religion for the actions of a percentage.
Especially when that percentage is trying to take back their illegally invaded country.
It's as silly and childish as the Howard government choosing some Australian citizens who are, or have been, Trade Unionists. Struth.
For example, the latest spin that Muslim children are being mustered in to the "insurgency" in their country is disingenuous to say the least.
Do you remember the 5-6-7 year olds et al, who the U.S. were frustrated with as child "bombers" in the Vietnam war? Of course you do - well most, if not all of them were Catholic due to the original French occupiers of their country.
Why don't we marginalise the Catholics on their history, like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition?
History is full of invasions and wars due to religion but, I don't think the Muslims have as bad a record as have the Christians - do you?
Surely the actions of any national, of any age or religion, who try to protect their country from invaders should be seen as patriots?
Certainly the British citizens who waged a guerrilla war against their Mother nation for freedom were, and still are, considered so?
The U.S. which began with such high expectations of freedom, has begun a downward slide due to the bigotry of their Administration.
All we want to do Alan, is to remove the Howard "New Order" before we finish up a fascist police state.
Freedom of Peanuts
Alan, how do you feel about that born again Christian nutter who holds the world in fear of his letting off a nuclear bomb?
A Nuclear Eden-Monaro?
I not only consider the Australian Labor Party (my party affiliation) to be the only complete answer to Howard's gallop to fascism but, I am seriously concerned for my wife and home in the Eden-Monaro electorate.
The local Liberal Member, Gary Nairn, has become arrogant and absorbed by the accolades that Howard has rained on him in this bell wether federal electorate.
As a consequence, whatever people may think of the character of this man, one thing is certain, Howard's word is sacrosanct! It necessarily follows that Mr. Nairn will follow Howard's charge into a nuclear Australia and will not oppose nuclear reactors in the Eden-Monaro electorate. Conversely, the candidate for the Australian Labor Party, Mike Kelly, is opposed to a nuclear
It is a fact that the requirements of a nuclear reactor (and the crimes it will foster) are readily available in this broad federal electorate.
But I advise the people in our area to seriously consider whether they are prepared to take the chance of nuclear reactors, not only in
As a consequence of that, we must try to remove Gary Nairn.
I recommend that the webdiarists consider: SEA-US Inc. : The Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service. And think of your future. Keep thinking about nuclear reactors and the dangers thereof.
NE OUBLIE
Nuclear
Ern, forget the nuclear reactors in Eden-Monaro, you are not going to get one.
However, you could be like Camden and get a Muslim school, against the wishes of the locals. Now there is a bomb waiting to go off.
Muslim schools - the horror!
Hi Alan. I saw the story on the news and boy, wasn't there a sensible debate going on there?
One woman sputtered, 'If I was wearing a hijab I could be hiding an AK-47 under it!'
1.3 billion Muslims - all terrorists, apparently. Even the kids in a school in Camden. Where the entire NSW syllabus will be replaced by lessons on Jihad and bomb-making.
Freedom of religion
Alan, why am I not surprised that you do not support freedom of religion?
Freedom of Religion
Religious Nuts
Alan, all religions have their share of nuts.
Cheers John
Howard is already kicking people away from the lifeboat.
Under Howard our international reputation has been severely damaged. We have been "kicking people away from the lifeboat" for some time.
Water,air,plants,animals, and fish stocks in inexorable decline.
Nearly 1 billion hungry people in the world, and all we want is more tax cuts so we can get more and more toys. Will we notice that our lifestyle is costing the Earth?
We need to be part of the Kyoto process. Howard is wrong
When the world meets to make the crucial decisions to combat the threat of climate change, Australia needs to have a seat at the table. Howard is ignoring the interests of Australia in favour of his own ideological fantasies. We need be at the heart of the process not part of the problem.
Monbiot on Cormack McCarthy
It's not always that I agree with George Monbiot, but http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/opinion/opinion/the-grim-outlook-of-a-novel-idea-the-collapse-of-civilisation/1079025.html is worth a read. Also pleasing to note: the Canberra Times, which used a long time ago to to be one of the best papers in Australia, if not the best, has at last got itself a half-way decent website.
Alternatives
Climate change is real. There are viable alternative methods of producing electricity at least. Time that we got on with changing our ways.
See: Solar takes off with US power supply deal. ‘Two of America's biggest power utilities have unveiled plans for a multi-billion-dollar expansion of solar power supply, backing the argument that solar energy can indeed become a viable alternative to coal-fired electricity.
What makes the announcement more significant is that the utilities are confidently predicting that their solar power will soon be providing baseload electricity - that is, day and night - at prices competitive with coal.’
Read Minds?
How does Gareth Eastwood know whether or not I'm in a boardroom? How does he know I'm not changing a tyre? More importantly, does he know his own mind?
False analogies
Bill Avent, we’re not in a boardroom and we’re not changing a tyre.
Re “What I have in effect said is that a larger population is bound to leave a larger environmental footprint.” No you've changed your tune by removing an assumption of overpopulation, I can agree with your new statement.
Re “I won't bother to elaborate on that. It is abundantly obvious to anyone with a brain.” Assuming having a brain enables a person to read minds.
one way or the other
Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society" .
Maybe we could put a bit more effort into the war thing. It may be our only hope.
Then again something may crawl out of the lab and knock over a billion or two.
Never fear, for mother nature, of which the human condition is a component, tends to finds ways of correcting excess – one way or the other.
How vs how many
John Pratt, I don’t think removing the baby bonus will make much difference to the Australian population let alone the world. I agree that there is no real justification for having the baby bonus, there are easier and cheaper ways for the government to balance Australia’s aging population (i.e. immigration).
Economic growth that is driven by increased productivity (i.e. getting more from the same resources) is good for us all, economic growth is what creates jobs and lifts people out of poverty. Maybe we need to split economic growth into that portion derived from population growth (which is of no net benefit) and that derived from increased productivity (which is a benefit). I don’t think you’d have a problem with economic growth if it required no additional use of resources. Surely finding ways to grow the economy without using additional natural and human resources, would be a legitimate goal?
Do you seriously support introducing a virus into the water supply that will make people infertile?
Eliot Ramsey, I guess this means you don’t think there is a way to curb the world’s population?
Bill Avent, if you identify a problem but can’t even suggest a potential solution you’re just wasting everyone’s time. The forums and blogs of the internet are full of people claiming various problems exist (‘population too high’ ‘population too low’ ‘density too high’ ‘density too low’ etc etc), only those that go onto suggest a solution or alternative are making a meaningful contribution.
The flat tyre example is a poor analogy as it is an obvious problem with an obvious solution (which or may not be readily available). Population is not an obvious problem, if it was there is an obvious solution (i.e. reducing it), but without an obvious way of achieving this reduction.
Re “if climate change is real and due to human activity, then overpopulation is obviously its cause.” Not it’s not, you’ve essentially just claimed that human activity equals overpopulation. How we utilise the world’s resources is clearly different to how many of us there are.
Personally I don’t see population as an issue at all in Australia. There are some parts of the world where high population growth makes development difficult (e.g. The Philippines). As long as development and food supply continue to outpace population growth (as is currently happening), I think we should worry about more genuine concerns (e.g. the distribution of food and resources).
Wasting Time?
Perhaps I am, Gareth, but a person raising a question to which he has no answer is not. It happens all the time, in conferences and board meeting all over the place. It goes like this: "People, we've got this problem. It is such-and-such. Let's think about it, and see if we can come up with a solution." Maybe you'd prefer the chair to say: "We've got this problem but I won't mention it because I don't have a solution and therefore wouldn't be making a meaningful contribution". Pretty damn silly, that one, isn't it?
My flat tyre analogy is in fact quite a good one, because it fits quite well. Since, as stated, I don't know how to fix it, the solution is not obvious at all. If, because of my lack of expertise, I were to debar anyone from mentioning it, I might avoid having to think about it, but I would deserve to suffer the consequences.
I have not claimed that human activity (except for sexual activity, of course) equals over-population. Here you are engaging in misrepresentation. What I have in effect said is that a larger population is bound to leave a larger environmental footprint. I won't bother to elaborate on that. It is abundantly obvious to anyone with a brain.
Gareth, Of Course There's a Point
… in identifying a problem to which you have no solution. How is a solution ever to be found it if no one is allowed to mention the problem? (Please don't tell me I've got a flat tyre — I don't know how to fix it.)
I don't know that I can take too seriously the notion that resources will run out. We've been hearing for decades predictions that mass starvation is imminent, and it hasn't happened yet. Wastefulness and unfair distribution have always been the problem there; not shortages. But if climate change is real and due to human activity, then overpopulation is obviously its cause. That, and stupid over-consumption of energy by those who think they can afford to waste it.
John, how about we reverse the baby bonus scheme and award privileges to any who opt to remain childless? Of course no such thing can happen until the politicians among us wake up to reality; and they will be among the last among us to do so. Feelings of self-importance are what drive politicians, and one way they can increase their imagined importance is to increase the number of people they rule. Ego is their problem — either too much of it, or a secret lack of it which they must compensate for by pretending to have plenty. Ego, as the song tells us, is not a dirty word. ["If I did not have an ego — I might just use a gun!"] Hence perhaps George Bush et al are just insecure little twerps in denial of their own twerpiness.
Your idea of putting something in the water reminds me of Lang Hancock's idea of lacing remote water holes, not with poison in this enlightened age, but with sterilising agents to reduce, eventually to zero, the number of nomadic Aboriginal people wandering about on their country, which he for some reason found reprehensible. I expected a major outcry when I heard that reported, but there was none. I guess people were accustomed to his irrational rantings by then, and considered this one not worthy of response.
The American solution to the problem seems to be to keep wars going on territory not their own, and contain world population that way. The Chinese way is more benign, and pretty successful, too. Condemned as draconian, though, by America and its fellow travellers. What a weird, weird world we live in…
The mercury in compact fluorescents is good for you
Gareth Eastwood says:
Eliot Ramsey and/or John Pratt, what measures would you suggest be taken in order to curb global population growth? Not much point identifying a problem without proposing a solution (unless of course you believe there is no solution).
It's pretty grim, isn't it?
When you think how China has actually taken the most determined steps to control its population, and despite that is now the world's greatest greenhouse gas emitter.
Nor is it a Kyoto signatory state. Nor is it ever likely to be.
Ironically, it's the older developed nations in Europe whose populations are going down. And mostly they're still not meeting their Kyoto targets.
And in this country, suckers everywhere are parroting the 'ageing population' mantra, and to even mention reducing 'population growth' is to be instantly labelled a 'racist'.
So, no, I cannot see the Greens advocating reduced immigration and single child households, can you?
In fact, the Peak Oil nitwits in my neighbourhood have been holding town hall meetings advocating we follow Cuba's example as a country which has "successfully" dealt with fossil fuel reliance.
Yeah, right. It had no choice when Russia cut off their oil supplies. And they're the second poorest nation in the Carribean after Haiti.
Even their president is dead.
And what do they want? Access to American investment funds. And Venezeulan oil.
Since population grows exponentially, then resource consumption has to go exponentially the opposite way just to stay even.
In the long run, if you don't cut population growth, then every technology - every single type - is non-recyclable and contributes to resource depletion
Take 'environmentally friendly' energy efficient lightglobes for example:
"There are environmental effects: the mercury can enter the food chain via bacteria and that could be, for example, accumulated in shellfish," he said.
"And of course we had the notorious Minamata Bay problem in Japan in 1953 where people were severely poisoned and got a nerve disorder called Minamata disease from eating the shellfish and the fish from that part of the food chain.
"So it's potentially extremely serious and it's not a pollutant that we should be willingly putting into the environment."
In fact, the mercury from just 100 compact fluorescents would pollute to dangerous levels a water volume equivalent to Sydney harbour.
Just 100 globes.
The Green response? Correct disposal.
Like, you mean correctly dispose of every compact fluorescent? Forever? Hundreds and hundreds of millions of them?
Imagine instead of mercury we were talking, I dunno? DDT? radioactive waste? Chlorine?
"Oh, that's fine. Just be sure to dispose of it correctly."
If the Greens - or anyone else - were serious about climate change, population control would be at the forefront of their policy.
Population
Get rid of the baby bonus.
Gareth Eastwood, in Australia one way to reduce our population growth would be to get rid of the baby bonus.
The idea of continued economic growth is flawed. We should immediately stop all child endowment and baby bonus payments. Why do we pay people to have babies? This puts more demand on housing and infrastructure including schools. With global warming we may end up a net importer of food.
The "P" word
Here's what nobody's much prepared to admit. This from a report on the United Nations' Global Environment Outlook-4:
"Put bluntly, the report warns that the 6.75 billion world population has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available".
Thats why we don't vote for Howard
Eliot, good to see you can now see the problem. The continual growth policy championed by the Howard government is a pipe dream. So you going to vote Green now?
Regards, John
Emissions increased by 38%
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/australia-scores-badly-on-emissions/2007/10/31/1193618975747.html
Turnbull and Howard keep saying we are leaders in climate change and they are not joking. We have increased emissions by 38%, more than that for the 200 million plus people in Britain, France and Germany combined.
This is what has been allowed to happen because we refused to ratify Kyoto and got left outside the tent and unaccountable.
It's truly shameful.
Be Aware voters in Eden-Monaro.
Surely it is obvious to everyone that the apparent backflip by the Howard government on Climate Change is only a convenient way to excuse his policy of a nuclear Australia?
Several backbenchers in Howard's coalition have stated that nuclear reactors will not be accepted into their electorate!
What sort of a statement is that? It cannot be honoured no matter what they say if Howard wants it there. Or more to the point, if the commercial interests so decide.
Howard re-elected is a mandate for nuclear reactors in your backyard, and the world's nuclear waste will be dumped in our nation probably in South Australia or the Northern Territory.
In our electorate of Eden-Monaro, the ALP candidate Mike Kelly (Colonel RAR retd) has confirmed his adherence to the Labor policy of clean energy free of nuclear reactors.
Conversely, when I emailed the sitting Liberal MP, Gary Nairn, he was non-committal and on the nuclear reactor sites. He replied:
There has not been any public debate on the issue, only studies by Howard appointees.
At the forum in the Narooma Golf Club on 14 October last, I tried unsuccessfully to raise the subject by a question to all of the four candidates - Independent, Green, Australian Labor Party, and the Liberal sitting member Gary Nairn.
However, there were so many questions that mine didn't get a hearing, but the GetUp forum was very well organised.
However, going by Mr. Nairn's reply and his history of robotic service to Howard, we must seriously consider that the Eurobodalla area of the Eden-Monaro electorate, of many lakes and beaches, is a prize target for the foreign investors.
A vote for Mr. Nairn is a vote for Howard and a vote for nuclear Australia - of that I am certain.
NE OUBLIE.
Nuclear power
Ernest, I live about 30km from a nuclear power plant and it really isn't such a big deal.
France gets about 80% of its power from nuclear sources and the people appreciate the benefits that nuclear power brings. As PBS reports:
This Wikipedia entry reports a similarly positive view of nuclear power in France, particularly in terms of its environmental benefits:
Nuclear power is an option which reduces dependence on foreign oil, lowers greenhouse emissions significantly and is good for the environment in terms of the pollution released into the atmosphere and the waste products that result from the process. Further, in France the nuclear waste is reprocessed and the facility that the government built to reprocess the waste now has customers in Europe, Japan and the US which means money flowing into the economy.
I think you are right that a vote for Howard is more likely to deliver a nuclear Australia than not. I can only hope (in vain?) that the pollsters are proved wrong and this technology makes its way Down Under and soon.
French exceptionalism and nuclear power
Comments regarding the popularity and success of nuclear power in France require critical examination. The state owned French monopoly nuclear power producer Aveco is in the business of promoting their technology as a 'green' solution to power production. Global warming creates new global markets!
Generally, the suggestion is made that French 'exceptionalism' lies at the heart of the success of nuclear power generation in France. There have been no major accidents in France, there is widespread acceptance of the industry, indeed there appears to be a kind of national pride in French nuclear capabilities. At a time when the rest of the EU and the USA has canceled reactors and are generally winding down reliance on nuclear generation, the French are content that they have things under control.
The reasons cited for French nuclear success are:
the existence of a sophisticated and technically superior french engineering culture;
the central role of the French state in providing integrated services;
strong state regulation;
monopoly provision of of nuclear power services.
An entirely typical account is available from CBS at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/60minutes/main2655782.shtml
At an ecological level the major problem appears to be that French reactors are water cooled and discharge coolant into rivers and lakes. During heatwave conditions the coolant can superheat fresh water to levels that are ecologically dangerous for aquatic life. This problem emerged during heatwaves in 1983 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0813-05.htm
There are ongoing difficulties that continue to attract attention http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29441
The matter of waste disposal, however, is of greatest potential alarm. The French have opted for waste enrichment rather than disposal which creates weapons grade plutonium. At the level of propaganda the French are only too happy to 'store' waste for future 'recycling' http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html. In reality, there is only so much weapons grade plutonium that one nation can produce without creating a certain degree of anxiety about nuclear proliferation. The real story is that vast amounts of French nuclear waste are shipped annually to Russia. Details about quantity and the safety of storage are difficult to determine because they are protected by French state information blackouts http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466
In Australia we are aware that the push is on for nuclear power production as a 'green' alternative for providing base load electricity. For an extended technical account of why nuclear power is not cost effective and not carbon neutral see Ian Lowes 'Quarterly Essay' here http://www.quarterlyessay.com/qe/currentissue/
Undoubtedly the nuclear industry in France has been better behaved and more successful than anywhere else. The French state is considerably stronger than most other EU nations and has managed to resist neo-liberal attacks on the provision of state services and regulatory capacity. It is the role of the French state, not the nuclear industry, that accounts for the success of nuclear power production in that country. By comparison the weak role of the state and regulatory bodies in the USA and GB have contributed to a history of disastrous leaks, accidents and cover ups. One of the problems with the close association between the French state and nuclear power production is that criticism of nuclear power can be portrayed as anti-nationalist sentiment within France. Remember the French devotion to testing on Muroroa? For them, despite the ecological facts, it became a matter of irrational national pride which culminated in the murder of crew on the 'Rainbow Warrior' by French state security services.
Nuclear power cannot be seen simply as a neutral technology. In reality, no technology is neutral; there are always particular patterns of social relations that attend technologies of production. The Australian 'retreat from the state' and a preference for 'market solutions' means that nuclear power production is even less desirable than it ever was. The political and social conditions to do it safely and efficiently do not exist in this country.
Margo: a reminder to all webdiarists that there's a spell checker for comments - icon 3rd from the left, above.
Think and Reason for the real Truth.
Howard's outburst against Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett regarding Labor's attitude to Climate Change is truly amazing!
He claims that the two Labor MP's had done the "most unbelievable back flip in this election so far" on Climate Change!!! Fair dinkum?
Right up to the beginning of the election campaign, Howard was still claiming that Al Gore was a "peeved politician" and Climate Change as a danger created by humans, was a lot of garbage.
Then he did a mini back flip to cater for his policy of a Nuclear Australia - remember?
The peoples of the world (especially Australia) are fully recognising that the ignorance of major carbon emitters, over at least a decade, has already been a costly absence of Duty of Care by those irresponsible governments.
With the well practised calm when lying and deceiving, Howard now claims that Labor is copying his "Climate Change".
This, even though the ABC report on Peter Garrett's statement doesn't agree with that printed in the Financial Review, Howard claims that it is the most "unbelievable back flip" so far in this election campaign! Good heavens, what next?
This only supports my argument that Howard's "New Order" policy is to accuse their political opponents of doing what THEY are doing themselves.
Considering a side issue of Howard's claim that HE did not promise to keep interest rates at "record lows", even though his presidential addresses to the nation had that very sign on the lectern in 2004, shows how unbelievable are any of his statements made without appropriate questions.
Returning to Howard's outburst against Peter Garrett, to divert attention from his split with Malcolm Turnbull on the same subject, he addressed the issue of the Kyoto conference in Bali.
Even though, as one of only three Nations that have not ratified the Kyoto Treaty, the Howard "New Order" has surrendered our right to vote at those discussions.
During his back flip claims, he stated that: "Our country will enter into a New International agreement provided....".
If we replay the carefully chosen words of the carnivorous fox, it is obvious that his statement was not referring to a New Kyoto but to the Bush Administration's anti-Kyoto alternative.
You cannot believe anything Howard promises or preaches.
As the Koorie leader observed about Howard: "An old snake sheds its skin and will then have a shiny new skin - but it is still the same old snake"!
Let's keep our eyes on the real issues - Climate Change of course then WorkChoices; Education: reduced federal funding for Hospitals: Health: Security; silencing of opposition and the trend to outlaw Unions, but only for workers.
NE OUBLIE.
Labor commits to a madatory 20 percent renewable energy target
At last one of the major parties has had the courage to set a renewable energy target. This will give a huge boost to the renewable energy industry. For those of us who believe that Climate Change is an ethical issue, we now have a clear choice on election day.
Ah, the optimists!
To all irrationally optimistic people above.
I believe I read recently that sale of 4WD's has gone up 25 percent in both Australia and the US.
Rely on world 'leaders' do anything about global warming? Were you all off on some other planet while the APEC circus was in town?
Choppers and jets constantly screaming around overhead, 50 vehicle motorcades, the police presence, the heavy machinery used to erect and then demolish the fence ...
Nothing to do with 'security', everything to do with 'mine is bigger than yours'.
I do love the optimism though! What basis the belief that we have 40 or 50 years to tackle the problem?
Coal miners' jobs could cost others their life.
Alan Curran, if we continue to protect coal miners jobs it could cost other Australians their life. If I was a coal miner I would not want to have my job at the expense of someones life. It is time we took global warming seriously.
Me Too
Ian, me too, voting for Labor in the lower house and Greens in the Senate, will get rid of Howard and his climate change sceptics and it also sends a strong message to Labor to act on global warming. I think what we are going to see in the near future is the end of the Liberal Party. The parties of the future will be the Labor and the Greens. The Greens are the true opposition. The extreme right wing of the Liberals would feel more comfortable with the Hansonites and the centre right would be better served by the Labor Party.
Me too
John Pratt, Should Bob Brown get his way with the deals he is doing with Rudd, who is going to tell the coal-miners and timber-workers that their jobs had to be sacrificed so Labor could get elected. I think Brown should take a trip to China and India and see what these two countries are doing about global warming. Even if we cut our greenhouse gases here in Australia, it will be cancelled out 10 fold by these two countries. If barmy Bob thinks that if we ratify Kyoto that is going to solve all the problems, he is living in a dreamworld. As China and India grow, as they will, the whole world will be affected and they will thumb their noses at us all.
Margo: you mean barmy Malcolm, don't you, Alan?
Forget coal miners' jobs- this is about their lives.
Alan Curran, it would be better to tell the coal miners and timber workers that they will have to retrain for work in sunrise industries such as alternative energy than to explain to our grandkids that we stood by and did nothing as the world over heated, economies collapsed, millions died, many species went extinct, millions were displaced due to sea level rises.
Who knows what the effects will be? The very survival of the human race is in jeopardy. The rich have the resources to reduce our emissions. We have caused the mess, we must lead the world our of it. If we prove to the world that reducing GHG emissions through efficiency is profitable, if we encourage new technologies to limit our carbon footprint, the developing world will follow. If not, we are all out of a job and most of us will be dead.
Alan, you just don't get the seriousness of the situation.
Jobs
John Pratt, it is not my job to tell the miners and timber workers to retrain, and I'll bet Rudd does not do it either.
I get the seriousness of the situation, I just do not believe that as long as China and India grow and use more and more cheap energy resources (coal) whatever we do will not even make a dent in things. Just what is a country like Australia going to do if China decides to build 100 nuclear power stations, with all the dangers of leaks and meltdowns? Perhaps Rudd will send them a nasty email in Mandarin.
Allan, perhaps now the Indian reactor/uranium deal has fallen over, Bush and Downer could offer Hu the same kind of contract?
Jobs? Or life on the planet?
Hi Alan,
This coal-fired power plant thing is a scam. The Australian government is pushing coal for the money, and it doesn't give a crap about the ethics, the next generation, or anything else. We could be enjoying baseload geothermal electricity now, except for our government's idiotic and self-destructive position on renewable energy.
The US, China and India are planning to build nearly 850 coal-fired power plants by 2012. This is the "commodity boom" that the Liberals would have you swallow tonight, along with the daily news. Watch out you don't puke it up, when you realise all we're in it for is the money and we don't give a shit for the future.
Australia is not interested in doing anything about Kyoto because we're greedy, short-term, planet-destroying schmucks. Australia is in it for the MONEY!
These cheap shysters (in Big Gov and Big Biz) are willing to trade the future of the planet to sell our dirty coal reserves to anyone interested, just to show a short-term profit and keep everyone employed. Lazy, selfish, stupid, short-term opportunists, one and all...
We're going to have to grow up soon, and forget about trading off the planet's misery, or we're going to reap what we have sown. Retraining and renewable energy is an absolute must. The time is coming. The heat is on. And we don't have that much time...
Our turn to show we care.
If we have any ethics at all with our current knowledge of the effects of global warming, we must make sure that when we vote in four weeks' time the party we vote for must be ready to sign Kyoto and to cut GHG below 50% of their 1990 levels before 2050. If not we will have the deaths of millions on our hands. We are facing a holocaust worse than any we have ever before. We have condemned Germany for a lack of conscience during WWII. Now it is our turn to show we care.
Our turn to show we care
Hi John,
I couldn't agree more. The only possible way I see to get there is a vote for Labor in the House and the Greens in the Senate. Except for Garrett, who has been muffled for the election, the Greens are the only people who have taken this, and another bunch of nasty issues, seriously. Give Labor the House, but give the Greens the Senate. That's the way I'm going, and I don't care who knows it. Anything less looks like a long-term death sentence... :(
National Party biofuel policy, a crime against humanity.
The National Party wants to double production of Biofuel.
The use of Biofuel to reduce GHG emissions and as a replacement for fossil fuels has been called a crime against humanity by a UN expert. This highlights one of the problems we will face as the cost of fossil fuel soars. We must reduce our energy demands now.
The only ethical solution is to reduce our demand: we must mandate energy efficient vehicles. We can no longer let our lust for fast and powerful cars cause millions to die of malnutrition.
Where's Hollywood when you need it?
Eliot old chap, after the disastrous handing of Katrina, GW would have had to be a total moron not to do better this time; no matter what colour, creed or mixture of American.
But what I can't understand is how come the governator didn't simply put all those nasty fires out all on his own. Felt rather sad seeing him on the telly behaving human and looking benign.
A mighty wind over New Orleans
Hey, remember all the hysteria and lies about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? You know, the racist lies about black people raping and murdering women at the football stadium and alligators eating people in the ninth ward? How hurricanes like Katrina were going to be commonplace now because of global warming? How New Orleans' fate was going to be repeated elsewhere? How the city would never be re-occupied? How the Nine Network reporters bravely entered the Convention Centre and saved the white girl from marauding, gun toting locals? Though nobody else could get in or out of the place?
I wonder when the clap-trap merchants will get into action over the bushfires in California?
Suppose they're still trying to work out how to blame it on George W.
The Debate
Flannery interview.
John, people have indeed got their priorities wrong. On the looming dangers - Tim Flannery interviewed on DemocracyNow!
Time, money and other resources are a-wasting.
Climate change is a matter of life or death.
Forget the "War on Terror" climate change is threatening the very survival of the planet. This new report is plain and clear we will destroy the planet unless we act now. We need immediate action. Forget the economy we are fighting for our lives. We need a war like economy to clean up our mess. This generation will have to make sacrifices to allow other generations to live.
Ethics of Global Warming
Great speech... but rather vague on specifics...
The specifics become extremely real and very personal when you're standing up to your knees in sea water seeping up through the ground as an entire country is experiencing its highest recorded high tide, and you're talking with worried locals, some of whom are flooded out of their homes. Global warming didn't cause this, but it makes it worse, as I have experienced first hand in Tuvalu early in 2006.
As global warming's gone mainstream, countries like Tuvalu have disappeared from the radar and the debate, but they were pleading with the Howard Government years ago to act decisively on global warming. Successive Tuvaluan governments were ridiculed, ignored, or dismissed as dupes of an environmentalist, anti-capitalist conspiracy.
I'll only take Howard and Co seriously on global warming when they sincerely apologise - but, as Australian Aboriginals know only too well, "sorry" isn't in their vocabulary -, and compensate peoples like Tuvaluans for what will be analysed as a catastrophic failure in prudent public policy to not act decisively on global warming when countries like Tuvalu were warning about its effects, as they were, and are, experiencing its insidiously creeping and escalating effects. The Tuvaluan view is that global warming is 'creeping terrorism' being done to them by the developed, polluting world.
And for heaven's sake stop calling the phenomenon 'climate change'. This term was cooked up by right wing US PR "genius", Frank Luntz as part of global warming denier's strategy to 'spread doubt'. He should have copyrighted the term so, when he later recanted and joined the vast scientific majority, he could legally withdraw it and stop it being used in the context of anthropogenic global warming.
The Debate