Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

For the good belly laugh. I needed that just right now as I settle in for a long night's work.

Cheers

Anyone who has been around ecological politics sees the re-emergence of the population issue on a routine basis.  It is a no brainer.  There are simply too many people at present for all of those currently drawing breath to enjoy the benefits of industrialised modernity in a global ecological system that is closed. 

At a global level there are too many North Americans.  They use too much non-renewable energy and consume far too much in the way of resources.  Their lifestyles are way too ecologically expensive. 

At a national level the management classes occupy a similar space - too expensive, don't contribute enough even in the way of taxes let alone socially beneficial production.

Of course, if you hold that there simply are too many people regardless of the distribution of resources then the way is open to you to do the decent thing and reduce the world's population by one person.

Anthony Nolan: "Full employment in the earth repair industry would be sustainable growth."

Population growth where people don't consume any resources, grow any crops or take up any space that might be used by anyone or anything else would be sustainable growth.

Scott: In agreement for a change and I'd better start counting posts.

Until now Australia, like the United States, has absented itself from a carbon policy. Some may have viewed this as clever "free riding" on the exertions of others, but that view was short-sighted and wearing thin. A global system will come, and the laggards will face sharper economic dislocations than those who have taken a running start.

In the US, for example, the financial sector has basically stopped financing conventional coal-fired powerplants. Nuclear power is also a huge question mark for market financing, given public worries and the lack of an agreed national strategy. The automotive industry, long betting on cheap oil and a lack of public interest in climate change, is flat on its back. Australia will spare itself the risks of backing into a stalemate on energy technology and infrastructure investment by charting a course consistent with long-term climate change mitigation......

I don't subscribe to every detail of the green paper. I would have leaned more heavily on upstream carbon taxes than downstream carbon permits as the way to put a market price on carbon with least administrative difficulty and most long-term predictability. I am more sympathetic to nuclear power. But Australia has taken a huge step forward to protect its economy, its fragile climate-stressed ecology, its long-term technological leadership and its geopolitical role.

Jeffrey Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a special adviser to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, on the Millennium Development Goals. He is author of Common Wealth: Economics For A Crowded Planet.

Jeffrey Sachs in the SMH says that we are making the right decision by taking steps to limit our GHG emissions by introducing the Carbon Reduction Trading Scheme. He points to the opportunities, Australia will be able to take hold of by being in the forefront of the changing global economy.

We can lead the change and we will bring the rest of the world with us. This is not gloom and doom, it is the future. A wonderful future of economic wealth and a green planet. The sooner we get with it the better.

"Clearly the market is shifting to a consumer taste towards smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles and also vehicles across the patch more fuel-efficient and that's how we're going to go about finding our future," he said.

Ford says it will now be speeding up plans to build fuel-efficient cars.

The high price of oil is shifting us to more fuel efficient cars. The sooner we put a price on all GHG emissions the sooner we will see our emissions fall.

Isn't the market great?

It depends on how and what you define as growth. Full employment is growth. Full employment in the earth repair industry would be sustainable growth. Tree planting, reforestation, cleaning the waterways. Limitless possibilities. Good clean outdoor work. Compost. Wonderful stuff as Peter Cundall says. Should be spread on everything really. Needs armies of people to do it. Maybe turn the central west of NSW into what they once were (wetlands) again.

Sustainable industrial/capitalist growth or (ahem) industrial/socialist growth gave us Lake Baikal and the Great Lakes of the USA. Phew. No thanks.

Billaburra old mate, I agree. The Buddhist in me looks at our land and sees change and suffering. I've journeyed out there and would argue that the climate has done less to decimate a land, that has provided life to abundant variety of fauna and flora for yonks, than the interference of you know who over such a brief period of time.

Human beings have really stuffed this country and it was because of our arrogance and ignorance, not the climate.

The climate will always be changing and with change there will be always winners and losers. Some will suffer, others will exploit the opportunities.

The deserts of North Africa were once fertile forests, carbon collectors and supporters of animal life. That all ended up beneath the earth and eventually turned into oil which we all now use.

I have no doubt human beings are destroying this planet, but I still feel that carbon has less to do with it than the manner in which we have exploited and poisoned our environment.

This planet will be around for a long time yet; maybe humans and many other life forms wont be. If we end up topping ourselves I don't think Mother Earth would miss us anyway.

I was a dinosaur once and now I'm a bird with beautiful wings; should the dinosaur in me feel sorrow, or should the albatross in me feel joy?

John Pratt, I've now read your linked article. Purely out of interest why don't you replace the words "climate change" with the word "Iran"? I think It'll show this guy's argument in a whole different light.

Actually, the appeals to emotion, and repressed guilt, are rhetorical devices, best used as the final hook by the hucksters wearing overly large Rolex watches, otherwise known as televangelists.

Justin Obodie: "But not in the last 10 years apparently."

Empiricist!

We need to be reminded that the 2007 report of the International Panel on Climate Change said: "The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate change has improved … leading to a very high confidence that global average net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming."

The panel defined "very high confidence" as at least a nine out of 10 chance of being correct. This conclusion represents the view of the overwhelming majority of practising climate scientists and peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject....

The consequences of defeat in total war may be slavery, which is still preferable to the annihilation of civilisation and most of the species on the planet — the possible consequence of going beyond the climate change tipping point.

Students of history could argue that there is not much difference between the action of Western leaders in the '30s who ignored the build-up of fascist forces in Germany and Japan and the behaviour of governments today, whose approaches range from environmental symbolists who appease the big polluters (such as the Rudd Government) to the overt deniers (typified by the Bush Administration).

Kenneth Davidson in this morning's Age.

The planet is faced with the threat of catastrophe. In Australia the debate still goes on with the government saying we should do the bare minimum by 2010 and the opposition saying we should put it off until 2012. How will history judge these leaders? Will they be the Neville Chamberlains of our generation?

Mr Chamberlain declared the accord with the Germans signalled "peace for our time", after he had read it to a jubilant crowd gathered at Heston airport in west London.

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2008 was 60.8 degrees F, which is 0.9 degrees F above the 20th century mean of 59.9 degrees F.

For those who still believe the Earth is cooling, don't let the truth get in the way of your fantasy.

John Pratt's post concerning Dr Bob Birrell, who I know very little of personally, apparently concerns the relationship between "growth", rapid immigration and population increase, and the environment.

Is Birrell connected with Sustainable Population Australia or any other dry-green groups?

Am in dispute with an amigo over whether or not population increase is sustainable, given the mess the country seems to have put into following the ascendancy of "growth" at any cost economics. Would rather see something serious (finally) done to fix environmental and social and education infrastructures first, rather than blundering into yet more population increase on the verge of a recession and before sustainability has been assessed, beyond its significance to "developers", Macbanks, construction companies and bent politicians.

Reason I write this is, got into strife some years ago when I mistook the refugee crisis for an underhand neo-lib attempt at increased migration by stealth, to keep unemployment high and wages and conditions down for the majority. My argument then, as now, is get the preconditions fixed first, then worry about bringing appropriate numbers out after things are set up to accommodate them.

I believe the savage demolition of Australian environment by greedy, moronic "developers", has compromised this country's capacity for radical population growth in the future.

Which is not to say that we could not fulfil our humanitarian obligations to the third world poor in a more efficient way, actually, by radically upping targeted, genuine aid for places like Timor L'Este and New Guinea, say (rather than just aid as just means for exploitation of poor countries).

If some folk thus think me a "racist", because I think the life boat shouldn't be overloaded to the point of capsizing, then so be it.

David Roffey: "And, if you aren't too hot on truth, you can say that this shows a cooling trend, even though you're still talking about most of the hottest years on record, and the rolling average goes steadily up from 1998 on."

It's, a fair question, though, one would think. I mean, manmade emissions certainly have grown since 1998. If one is to believe the warmists this should result in continual rising temperatures. It clearly hasn't.

People are asking Australians to accept a diminished lifestyle. The least they could do is point out the truth of what this will mean for most of them. They could also point out the truth that Australia's efforts may result in nil achievement globally - or even make things worse - and that's certainly not going to save the Australian landscape if indeed warmists are to be believed.

If the climate change people were for real or at least want doubts taken away, they should concentrate on cutting "pollution" - something only a complete cretin could disagree with. My contention is they don't do this because it changes the debate away from enforced government stand-over tactics, and away from enforced poverty. Wealthier nations demand higher standards of lifestyle - this means less pollution - no rich person ever wants to live in a toxic swamp - and let's face it, they don't.

A society can only be "rich" with economic growth - it cannot come about any other way - that's why the need for "global apocalyptic doom" exists. The spin in fact is no different to that put into use by multitudes of religious cults over thousands of years.

PS. If Mr Duncan is planning a political campaign he is on the right track understanding that people's monetary living conditions don't need to be destroyed to have a cleaner country. In fact their monetary living conditions can (and should) be improved and the country still be cleaner - people in fact will demand that very thing. The tide is turning, and it will only turn quicker, as more of this insane scheme moves into common understanding.

1998 was the second warmest year on record. Amazingly some sceptics have discovered the fact, apparently hidden by some scientists, that there is only one year warmer than the second-warmest, and all the other years are less warm than the second-warmest, even though they are the fourth and fifth-warmest, and so on. And, if you aren't too hot on truth, you can say that this shows a cooling trend, even though you're still talking about most of the hottest years on record, and the rolling average goes steadily up from 1998 on. Utter bollocks, but it's good enough to fool Michael Duffy, as almost anything from that side is. Here's the full graph for Australia (the global one is similar but slightly less variable from year to year). You can see how really cool the last bit is for yourself.

And the good Dr Gray. From where I stand it's no' a good look to be ageist, but it is a fascinating observation to make that almost all of the scientists who are pinups on the sceptic side haven't actually worked on the science since 1990 (Dr Gray is 86), which makes their last formal involvement in studying this stuff being well before almost all of the current scientific work was done. It wasn't like that in my day, I can tell you. And another multi-layered conspiracy that tens of thousands are keeping secret from you, by gum. Next, how scientists are covering up the evidence on leprechauns (have they looked under every leaf at the bottom of my garden? No, they haven't, and until they do, I'm not going to accept that they might not be hiding under the other one, it;s just a cover-up).

... in relation to global ecology. Neither term needs explanation as they are in and of themselves readily comprehensible:

• Prudence
• Intergenerational equity

A prudential attitude to global ecology is required. It implies a "what if" attitude towards potential negative consequences. If we err on the side of ecological caution that means some economic/material losses for current and future generations in the interests of sustaining the ecological conditions of existence for a multitude of life forms, not just humans.

Intergenerational equity means not consuming non-renewable resources or "natural" resources at such a rate that either the former are too rapidly exhausted or that the latter are so diminished as to be incapable of self re-generation. By the former I mean energy resources and the latter I mean forests, rivers, seas and soils and so on.

These are key principles. Acceptance of these key principles is a reasonable acid test for deciding whether one is dealing with an adult or deciding whether one is dealing with someone who is so pathologically focussed on their own immediate needs and gratifications that they are clearly little more advanced than an infant. A big, needy, resource consuming infant. There are a lot of 'em around.

That is what capitalism runs on, of course. People whose sense of self is so feeble, so entirely pathetic that they cannot even imagine substituting consumer gratification for something more substantial like the sense of having generously gone without so that other species, unseen people and future generations might have a viable planet.

"The planet has been getting hotter in the last 50 years"

But not in the last 10 years apparently.

"There is more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than at any time over the last at least tens of thousands of years"

According to a Dr Vincent Grey:

"This statement is a lie. 90,000 measurements published in peer-reviewed journals since 1850, some by Nobel Prize-winners, have been suppressed by the IPCC because they do not agree with this statement. (Beck 2007). Stability of carbon dioxide in ice cores thousands of years old is questionable. (Jaworowski 2007). Recent measurements of carbon dioxide are confined only to exceptional circumstances over the ocean, and do not include measurements over land. (Manning et al 1994).

Dr Grey does not appear all that convinced regarding the global warming thing.

Methinks the only way we will truly understand the complexities of weather and climate is to get the O'Mighty Mama (OMM or God in human terms ) to tell us how it works.

We aint trying to understand the internal combustion engine here - we are trying to make sense of something that is way beyond the comprehension (at this point in time) of humans, especially the punters.

We collect data, write code, create models and those models make projections (people are paid to do so and like most of us want to continue to get paid).

And that's what we get - erections, er, projections , and very expensive ones at that.

At this point in time I doubt whether any of these models can cope with reality. I was reading something recently that stated water vapour was only just recently included in the sums. I wouldn't have a clue how it all works and wonder who really does.

It is still debatable if human activity has in fact affected the climate (and if so to what degree) and we are still trying to understand how the relationship between carbon, climate, sun spots, panda bears and the butterfly works; relationships that do not exist in solitude but in chaotic synergy with all that exists in the heavens and earth.

When OMM tells me humans have fucked the climate I'll believe it, unchallenged; until then it will take some very clever dude who can explain to me in words of one syllable, or show me how it all works.

And by the time I'll be sleeping with the fishies.

One thing for sure, we may be able to change our carbon toe print but we will never be able to stop climate change. OMM will make sure of that.

Scott Dunmore: "Paul, I don't doubt your intelligence but when are you going to start thinking outside of capitalist dogma?"

Well, it's been around a long time. Probably since the one caveman decided to swap a shell for a stick - rather than just beat the other guy to death.

Your point three; think about it. Can economic growth possibly be endless?

Well, no.

Economic growth will end one day; the same as the earth will eventually end (you fellas have a specific date?). So what? Your point is?

If people wish to live their lives on the edge of apocolyptic doom, that's their choice - and there's thousands of cult religions to meet their needs (including socialist environmentalism). The only time such things concern me is when they try and force the "Kool-Aid" onto me and mine. I doubt I'm Robinson Crusoe in those feelings.

If people wish a life of poverty best talk to someone else. It's something I've thankfully avoided and something I'm keen on others avoiding (only if they want to of course).

A good start:

1. Understand Australia: Australia is a vast and isolated land with a small population. It cannot be compared to Germany or any other European nation for that matter. Doing so makes as much sense as comparing an apple to an orange. One would think this to be self evident.

2. Understand the Australian economy: It's plainly obvious many don't or seemingly are content deluding themselves about it.

3. Understand why economic growth is a major goal: Without economic growth Australia simply cannot enjoy many of the things it now takes for granted - even expects as a natural right. Take a look at third world nations and the old communist bloc to understand where sustained periods of negative growth ultimately ends.

4. What Australia wishes to achieve: Apart from apocalyptic visions (most extremely tenuous), nobody has yet given an insight into what it'll cost, and what it's meant to achieve. Mr Rudd won't even give a target figure on emissions that he can judged on - and he can't guarantee that China simply won't take up the slack or increase it. It's actually fairly pathetic.

Plan:

Australia already has at its disposal all it needs to implement change without either hurting economic growth or Australian lifestyle. Australia has a massive surplus - and there simply isn't any excuse to have such a surplus. By using incentives through the tax system, people will change their behaviour where they can. People will not be able to change behaviour, even with punishment, if it's impossible. I think China, India and the United States have made this point clear.

Simply punishing people is lazy socialist dogma - which throughout history has ended in abject failure - no doubt this plan will also fail. The carrot will always be more effective than the stick. Who wants to be a millionaire isn't who wants to lose a million dollars!

Well done, David. The kinds of simple but powerful arguments you make here should be included in any Federal government campaign explaining action on climate change and the emissions trading scheme.

Fiona: Welcome to Webdiary, Darren.

Yes, thank you both for that irrelevance.  What is your solution?

The point is, what do you propose as a plan to redress the mess (if there is one)?  What do you do with the displaced coalminers?

A couple of weeks ago we had dinner with old friends of mine and my parents.  The friends have two delighttul and very intelligent daughters.  One has just started reading medicine at Newcastle and the other is in year 12 at a selective High School.  When I broached the obvious (that the only way Australia could have any effective role in reducing emissions was to phase out coal exports) she immediately made the intelligent point that such a policy would destroy the economy of the Hunter Valley.

The only positive I can see coming out of the destruction of the economy generally is that I might be freed from reading John Pratt's posts. 

Now, if either of you has a practical and  practicable solution to the "problem"  could we hear it articulated please?  And don't give me this trading or capping crap.  Tell me the effect it has on everyday Australians.

Malcolm, you say

"No-one I've seen in this forum has said it would not be a good idea toreduce emissions caused by human activity. What most of us on thisside of the fence have said is that it should be done in a way thatdoesn't destroy our lives or livelihoods."

If we do not reduce emissions we will destroy our lives and livelihoods. For example and a taste of the future see the Murray Darling basin.

Dr Craik said that below-average rainfall and above-average temperatures were forecast for the next three months.

"Regrettably, the drought is getting worse," she said.

"Until there is significant rain and run-off, the prospects for irrigation and the environment in 2008-09 remain grim."

Climate change expert Professor Ross Garnaut last week warned the Murray-Darling system was in crisis and Australia's food bowl could be devastated by 2100.

Most economists say the sooner we act the cheaper the price of change.

Putting a price on carbon will make all of us look for alternate ways of reducing our emissions. This can be seen already as our driving habits and choice of vehicle has changed due to an increase in the price of fuel.

Higher petrol prices are now having a clear measurable effect on Australian driving habits.

The latest figures show oil imports falling at the fastest pace in more than four years.

Petroleum imports in May were 28 per cent lower than a year earlier.

Why should any business be allowed to pollute the atmosphere at no cost?

Putting a price on carbon will force the polluting industries to reduce their emissions and make industries that do not pollute more competitive. I don't understand how anyone can object to this.

It is not up to the government to come up with a blueprint just putting a price on pollution will bring about change.

Just as we gave up using the streets as a sewer in the middle ages we must now give up using the atmosphere as a sewer.

By 2050, when Australia plans to have cut its total emissions by60 per cent, the population will have risen to just over 30 millionunless immigration policies change radically, said Bob Birrell,director of the Centre for Population and Urban Research at MonashUniversity.

"I just can't see how they can realistically aim for thesetargets," he said. "My main concern is that business doesn't seemto be aware of the consequences of the population rise and there'sno discussion about it."

The report concludes that even a tough emissions trading regime,with a high carbon price and no new coal-fired power stations,would fall far short of the Government's emissions reduction goals,unless Australia's population had stabilised at about 22 million by2050.

"When the Government announces its cap for the proposed 2010emissions trading scheme, Australia's major polluters will receivea nasty surprise," Dr Birrell said. "They will discover that forevery increase in Australia's population and consequent increase ingreenhouse emissions, the cost of the limited stock of emissionpermits will also go up."

Every new immigrant that calls Australia home will make it harder for us to reach our emission targets. We need to stabilize our population because every new Australia will mean higher fuel and electricity prices due to a higher price for emission permits.

David R: well, I think Dr Birrell has probably been misquoted in the middle para above, since the last para shows he does understand the scheme: clearly if there is a cap, the price will go up faster if population increases - but there is no reason to assume that the cap will inevitably be breached as a result - it won't "fall far short", it will get more expensive, until either the price of energy suppresses demand or the price of finding low-carbon alternatives is cheaper than the permits.

David Roffey, this really is batshit [and any moderator who wants to edit that out might take note of the fact that I have been described in the article as deranged].   No-one I've seen in this forum has said it would not be a good idea to reduce emissions caused by human activity.   What most of us on this side of the fence have said is that it should be done in a way that doesn't destroy our lives or livelihoods.

You still provide no evidence whatsoever that, if warming is occurring, it is solely due to human activity whether human or associated to it via agriculture.

What "GHGs" are you talking about?  Water vapour is a GHG.  Flatulence likewise.  And the more people like you keep spouting, the more water vapour there is in the air.

Now, I'm still agnostic but, unlike you, unlike Rudd, unlike Wong, unlike anyone else I know including the flat-earthers, I have put my money where my mouth is and have put out bold, difficult policies that are designed to replace coal-based power generation with solar.  What are you on about lad?   Tell us your solution and I don't mean simple chemistry.  Give us a plan that solves the whole problem without destroying ordinary working families as they are now called.  Green, White, give me a rest - no more paper - let's get a blueprint.  And could we pull together for a change?  Might just be one huge wank but the sperm have to go somewhere.

David R: answering the easy one, the GHGs specified in Kyoto , and thus the ones controlled by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, are: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. There is an argument in Garnaut (p59) about also including chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, but these are covered by the Montreal Protocol, and therefore should be phased out by 2030 anyway. Water vapour and ozone also have greenhouse effects, but aren't primarily human in origin, and water vapour at least is complicated, since much of it forms clouds, which reflect energy from the sun as well as retain heat below them. On the other easy one, where you say "back up your claims", my initial reference to further evidence is as at the top, ie Garnaut, chapter 3 in particular, and then the references on from that (and in the case of references to IPCC IV, the references on from that, too!). PS: I didn't say warming is solely caused by human activity (it isn't), but that the unprecedented growth in GHGs is mostly due to human activity, and that GHG growth is 1) causing a lot of the warming. 2) going to cause a lot more in future.