Comments on: Hamilton: Climate change should inform every budget decision

By: Michael T

Michael T — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Actually, Clive there is a correlation between WORLD population growth and emissions. So by importing some more people, we are merely transferring emissions from one location to another, not adding to global emissions. Our gain will be someone else’s loss.

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

For Dave, counter intuitively my understanding is that most of our coal is exported to Japan and maybe India, and a relatively smaller proportion to China. Not sure if that will continue to be the case. Not sure about iron ore, probably high proportion to China. There was a discussion about this by an industry figure and Mark Colvan on ABC PM show about 2 months back re ‘commonly held belief as myth’. As for expansion of ports and roads promoting greenhouse emissions - this remains true with Port Botany and a $5 BILLION truck tunnel to service new super sized container tankers with indeed high ghg embedded products of high proportion from China. But as you imply the boom exports of coal to where ever will become blood money as wild storms take their toll in an increasingly variable/energised weather profile.

By: Clive Hamilton

Clive Hamilton — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Michael T. As I pointed out in the article, when someone moves to Australia their greenhouse gas emissions approximately double. On average immigrants to Australia come from countries that have half of the per capita emissions of Australia. It is not simply a transfer but results in a net increase in global emissions.

By: Eric Smith

Eric Smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Hear, hear!
I have been pushing this line in my family and circle of friends for a while now, and people fail to see why. But if the government taxes big cars, while at the same time making petrol cheaper, this has a net effect on commuter emissions of precisely zero. All policies must take account of green house emissions and their effect on them.
This is why the government’s infrastructure fund should build ports (for ferries to island holiday destinations), rail (to replace road freight, helping to bring down grocery prices by replacing expensive fuel with cheap electricity) and pretty much anything except roads.

I say again, hear, hear, Mr. Hamilton!

By: Jonathan Moylan

Jonathan Moylan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Clive, Michael T’s comment was the same as mine, which you responded to. I agree that half of the world’s emissions occur in the minority world (the “developed” world). Therefore, our response to climate change shouldn’t be to stop migration to keep people in the Third World and therefore keep their emissions down - our response should be to reduce our emissions. That means exporting renewable energy instead of coal, that means decarbonising our economy as quickly as possible by switching to 100% renewables (yes, it is possible to get renewable baseload power), that means reducing aviation (especially food aviation), that means energy efficiency.
It also means that we in the minority world who have contributed most to climate change should pour more money into majority world climate change mitigation, as they are suffering the most from CC and rising carbon dependence (global food crisis, Burma cyclones, rising Pacific tides, oil conflicts etc). Our climate response should be just.

By: Michael T

Michael T — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

(Today marks 565 days until the Copenhagen post-Kyoto conference)

I have to say that this is the first time I have been disappointed by an article by Clive Hamilton. Climate change is not a national problem, it is a global problem. Yes, population is a very important factor in fueling climate change, but migration does not of itself augment global climate change (except for possible aeroplane emissions). Migration is a positive thing and gets us thinking about being global citizens.
Wayne Swan’s budget was nightmarish for the climate. A $20 billion fund has been set up to expand our coal exports and build more roads (and develop high-speed broadband). $140 million will be subsidising the coal industry’s last-ditch attempt to save itself - “clean coal” (which will not be available by the time our emissions need to peak in 2012), but not one extra dollar will be going to implement renewable technologies.
We are facing a climate emergency, and both parties are hurtling there head-on.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

ex-frikkin-actly! “…we will know the magnitude of the task has truly sunk in when every major government decision is taken only after consideration of its greenhouse implications.” How true, but our governments will only adopt this sensible approach when the media, and we the people, judge every government action first on its greenhouse implications. But of course this is not happening. Instead we read pages of ‘analysis’ that ignores THE most important issue facing us today. As Kevin Rudd’s cat says, “What a disaster”.