Comments on: Garnaut’s target so low, the sea level will rise above it in a year

By: robert

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

“It is no use saying, “We are doing our best.” You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary” - Winston Churchill

But “we” are not even trying to do our best, we’re just doing what is ‘reasonable’ and ‘balanced’.

For farksake! If Winnie had followed the advise of those who feel we should be ashamed of trying to exercise a bit of leadership, we’d all be speaking German and not enjoying Seinfeld’s weird new Microsoft ad.

The fact that we are the largest per capita carbon polluters puts us in the position where the only moral and ethical thing to do is to show some leadership.

By: Cathy

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

Bernard, you’ve been in the business long enough to know that politics and policy is just a game. I know it’s positive to keep faith but since when has any party, politician or government been trustworthy. Everyone - even Garnaut has clearly got the message about erring on the side of caution - or pay the penalty.

By: Narelle

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

The government elected to take a lead in tackling this massive problem now look to have accepted the death of the Murray River and the loss of the Great Barrier Reef as some kind of collateral damage in maintaining life as we know it at any cost. In doing so, of course they are eroding the foundations of that way of life … this really is a triumph of cowardly compromise.

By: Bernard Keane

Bernard Keane — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Sigh.

The table I was linking to is Table 9.1 on p.47 of the report.

(http://www.garnautreport.org.au/reports/Garnaut%20Review%20-%20Targets%20and%20trajectories%20-%20Supplementary%20Draft%20Report%20-%205%20Sept%202008.pdf)

By: Ted O'Brien

Ted O'Brien — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

How much did the sea level rise last year?

How much will it rise this year?

By: Bernard Keane

Bernard Keane — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

There IS a link missing Evan and we’ll fix it on the website in a jiff.

By: Mark P

Mark P — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I think we all know the missing link is James K

By: Jack

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

Why the angst people ?

The world changes, always has, always will. The world may or may not be warming, it may or may not be man-assisted.

IF it is man-assisted, well, we have all implicitly made a faustian pact - scientific advances, less disease, more comfortable lifestyles and so on in exchange for a little heat. I don't imagine that the the people screeeeching about the end of times are living statue-like in caves and have avoided leaving "a carbon footprint" - so if greens & fellow travellers are now unhappy with the deal / or are feeling a little guilty / or feel like leading from the front - then the only responsible & logical thing to do for the good of the planet is to top themselves ! I can see Bob Brown introducing an optional "green the globe" euthanasia program into the senate next week.

By the way - talk around australia being a "per capita" offender is based on a fallacy - it fails to take into account government action / cultural attitudes towards population control. If you want per capita improvement then Australia can easily achieve through a mega-baby boom !

By: Bernard Keane

Bernard Keane — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Fuggit.

It’s a bad day.

Here’s the link cut off in the previous comment

http://www.garnautreport.org.au/reports/Garnaut%20Review%20-%20Targets%20
and%20trajectories%20-%20Supplementary%20Draft%20Report%20-%205%20Sept%202008.pdf

By: Pamela

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

Garnaut’s response is sensible. He has found a way to balance Australia’s “need” to show leadership and reduce ghg emissions without crippling the economy. Keane should be ashamed for implying that Australia can solve this global issue on its own.

By: Tom McLoughlin

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

This planet is doomed. Why oh why did I do a zoology degree. If only I had done literature I could have remained blissfully ignorant of the 2 billion year old story of evolution on this planet about to be decimated.

By the by if you read the Hansen paper on exponential increase in ocean levels from a tiny 1 mm per year at an increasing rate you get to about 25-30 metres sea rise (like all good exponential progression is wont to do) by about 2100: Just like doubling a rice grain on the second square of the chess board and so on. Like gravity, exponential rate of change is a cruel master. In this case very f*c*ing cruel.

By: Mark Duffett

Mark Duffett — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Dr Andrew Glikson (Crikey editorial today) extrapolates a worst case scenario from palaeoclimate studies, however there are reasonable grounds not to expect this to come to pass. See the (currently ongoing) discussion at

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/03/a-warning-from-the-ghost-of-climate-past/

By: soil carbon

soil carbon — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Internationally recognised soil scientists (IPCC lead authors) have calculated that changing to proven sustainable management practices on the planet’s 5 billion hectares of seasonally dry grazing land could remove almost 7 BILLION tonnes of CO2e from the atmosphere every year for the next 20 years.
Reducing future emissions is just half of the picture - removing the excess already up there is the other half.
We can do something about this- see http://www.soilcarbon.com.au for more information

By: JamesK

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

Rudd has f-cked with Garnaut’s head?

By: JamesK

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

Thanx jeebus I had thought “willfully ignorant” was an oxymoron but then you went on to say: “Why not set up a national bond offer for energy infrastructure in the style of the T1, T2, T3 share offers?”…… and then I thought may be not……

However nanoseconds later I resolved my confusion and realised that it was simply that jeebus is an opinionated airhead……although I would have thought that was an oxymoron too but evidently not…..

By: jeebus

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

It’s disappointing to see the issue of climate change so thoroughly muddied by people who have read a few articles and declared themselves scientific experts. I’m not going to waste time refuting willfully ignorant fools like JamesK and Jack, but I will say this to the current government - stop behaving like cowards. Australians voted for you because you offered vision and pledged solutions, but your myopic focus on taxing away the carbon economy is a very poor way to frame the national dialogue, and only panders to the skeptics. We know it’s going to be expensive, but polling continually tells you that Australians are prepared to pay the investment costs in transitioning to a clean economy. Why not set up a national bond offer for energy infrastructure in the style of the T1, T2, T3 share offers? It could be an exciting way to rally the population around this vital investment in their own future.

Regardless of how you plan to raise the money, the people are only interested in how that money will be tied to tangible investments that solve the problem.

By: Tech

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

“We are too late” - to go for the agressive target we need, Garnaut said.

Why is that? Because Howard and the Greenhouse Mafia made sure of it for the last 10 critical years. And now they’re doing it again!

How come we to;erate this? Because the main media won’t condemn either Howard or their fossil fuel mates.

So we are condemned to repeat history.

By: Jack

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

jeebus: I like facts. I like logical action taken on facts. I dislike spin, I dislike "wheel-spinning".
I like to giggle at earnest idealism....I also like your "wilfully stoopid" tag !

I am very concerned for the believers getting hysterical about climate-change. Because if their fears do materialise then the nightmare will only get worse.

The real elephant in the room is population growth - 6bn plus peoples and counting. Whether the believers like it or not the developing world does not give a fig about the sea level going up a metre over the next 100 yrs because they are really, really HUNGRY.

And the scary thing is Australia can do nothing about it. Reason being, these 6bn plus people also want decent housing and a medicare card. And if some carbon hits the skies then so be it.

We must set the example I hear you say - the developing world demands it. Well, besides appearing very "19th century colonial", the developing world will respond with - thankyou for setting the example & making basket-weaving your only economic activity - but we will keep developing our economies until we have reached the same level of development as the Western world. We believe we have the same rights to pollute as you have done UP UNTIL 2008 !

*sound of uncomfortable silence as the believers work out that greenhouse concerns - right or wrong - don't matter to the billions of people just after a square meal every day*

Where I see some hope for those worried about climate change is that while wants are unlimited, resources are not - cold comfort for those who are less fortunate than most Australians and go hungry every other day though...

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Jack: Of course the ‘elephant in the room’ is the world’s populations’ constant reproduction. But how is one to reach the impoverished to educate them in birth control? It is impossible because the world’s churches tell everyone to multiply themselves into extinction.
It is unthinkable to deny the aspirations of the people mired in despair, or the right to a decent life. It is ironic that by constant breeding the ‘rich nations’ will end up as impoverished, and the poor nations will end up…poor. The planet, of course, will be reduced to the level of the outskirts of Cairo. It is all ‘La ronde’, with the planet the over-worked engine. Sooner or later the engine will give up. And no one gives a stuff.

By: Evan

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

Bernard, there's a link missing up the top:
"The costs of these options is shown here (LINK ) and demonstrates the importance of an international agreement. Notice the carbon price under the 5% option, in the event there’s no international agreement -- $52.60 a tonne in 2020."

EB