Hamilton: White paper runs up white flag
|
In normal circumstances the Government’s announcement to cut Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 5-15 per cent over a decade would be a significant policy move. But circumstances are not normal. The climate emergency demands a political response that transcends the usual approach of balancing competing interests to minimise political pain. Yet the White Paper reflects the Prime Minister’s repeated claim that his task is to weigh the demands of industry against those of environmentalists. When Kevin Rudd told Kerry O’Brien last week that he would not be caving in the “extreme environmentalists”, he was not just defining a “moderate” space to occupy, but casting doubt on the climate science. He was saying that we should take the conclusions of the scientists — that the industrialised world must cut its emissions by 25-40 per cent by 2020, with the developing world following soon after — with a grain of salt. The scientists are not extremists and nor are the environmentalists. In fact, they are both restrained. Publicly, the scientists display the usual professional caution, although privately they are panicking. The mainstream environmental organizations, concerned to protect their access and maintain “relevance”, are pushing a “moderate” position. A policy that reflected the science would be one that swept aside the pleading and bullying of the fossil-based industries and pursued nationally the emission cuts that will best advance the global response that is needed to protect us all from climate catastrophe. Yet it is precisely the pragmatism of political trade-offs that the White Paper pursues. It mirrors the fundamentally conservative “realism” of Ross Garnaut that plays into the hands of industry obstructionists. It is now expected that Arctic sea-ice in the summer will disappear entirely before 2015. The weakening of the albedo effect and warming of the Arctic Ocean will have a heating effect up to 1500 kilometres away thereby increasing the rate of melting of the permafrost with its vast stores of frozen carbon. That’s a tipping point we really don’t want to get to. The only bright spot in the politics is the continued commitment by the Government to begin the emissions trading system in 2010. Delay makes no sense for anyone. The economy will be coming out of recession at the beginning of 2010 and business will be looking for good investment opportunities, so why not direct it into clean energy? The certainty provided by the ETS will stimulate investment and economic growth. The Opposition’s proposal to delay the scheme’s start-up to 2012 makes no sense economically or environmentally. It would only create uncertainty, undermine confidence and delay the recovery. Join a Crikey liveblog to discuss the Government’s ETS White Paper here. |
|
|
|
15 Comments
They know a damn sight more than Clive Hamilton and other liberal elite pseudos and their beloved Bill of Rights and other sundry means of telling us AND forcing us to do what is ‘good’ for us….
http://www.leondelaney.com
If the revenue from what amounts to a new tax is paid out as compensation to those most affected by the imposition of that tax, why impose the tax in the first place? If the problem is the impact of pollution from traditional sources of energy, shouldn’t more of this money go into developing alternatives? Yes, there is investment in renewable energy sources, but the point here is that, like so many other aspects of the plan, the compromise delivers a diluted result. As long as the existing energy sources are propped up with compensation, the incentive to develop alternatives is undermined.
And that’s the big failure from this plan. You will hear a great deal from the government about getting the balance right, but the truth is that this is a compromise which will please no one. Now that might be OK in politics, but when it comes to science, that just doesn’t work.
read more at
http://www.leondelaney.com
Typical non-entity response from the small minded
JamesK you continue to be a boring, know all. You have the right to comment, you do not have the right to be a ’ my poop doesn’t smell, stuckup, brain dead fool and inflict the world with your moralising. Do us a favour take a trip to mars, venus or anywhere, you idiot.
I agree with this comment in principle Clive:
“The climate emergency demands a political response that transcends the usual approach of balancing competing interests to minimise political pain. Yet the White Paper reflects the Prime Minister’s repeated claim that his task is to weigh the demands of industry against those of environmentalists.”
But it will never happen, and we have no right to complain. You can’t have a democracy and complain about populist politics. The system explicitly demands it. By the people, for the people, even if the people don’t know what’s good for them…
Coming from you Ev, that point (which incidentally I agree… with but then…..apple pie is generally good) is laughable. Check the above comments. I made an opinion that contradict your ASSUMPTION without argument that people don’t know what’s best for them….a very very common inane characteristic of leftist such as Hamilton and yourself.And note Ev I did it without personal vilification. And because I made that single observation I have been personally abused and I have then responded on two and now a third occasion.
Apply your simplistic ‘line of reasoning’ to yourself Ev, you clown.
At least Pete Bondurant is not pseudo…he’s just an out and out pissant.
JamesK - grow up or piss off. Take yr simpleton culture war elsewhere.
and MichaeIT - This minority report (“minority” being the operative word) was produced by the same odious prick that worked for Rush Limbaugh and invented the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” disgrace. His name is Marc Morano and is a one of the usual supsects in the denial industry. I wouldn’t trust anything that knob has placed his grubby hands on. Like all the othe discredited lists of “skeptical” scientists, they’ll all end up being retired engineers, geologists and physicists with no expertise in climate. You wait.
But back on topic - I’ll take Clive on his word that the White Paper is a cop-out but really wish I understood it better. I’ll make my judgement when I know I understand how it actually works. I heard that too many free permits were the reason that the european scheme has failed and big polluters are raking in the cash by handing on permit costs to consumers even though they got them for free. I hope we aint heading down the same path.
It is less of a White Paper and more of a White Flag raised in defeat to the victorious fossil fuel industry lobby.
It feels like we have been betrayed by the second prime minister in a row.
Yet again, I feel ashamed to be an Australian.
We now absolutely depend on 100% of the world’s top climate scientists to reach an agreed, peer reviewed recommendation on what the world’s emissions reduction target should be, well before Copenhagen.
Hopefully the IPCC scientists will sit down with Jim Hansen’s group asap and nut out an agreed position or we’ll just have a repeat of this nonsense this time next year……./Chris
Your impracticality has long disqualified you Dr Hamilton in my eyes. You appear to be one of those who believes in moral posturing as a way to influence the leaders of several billion people whose output of greenhouse gases will determine what happens to our climate if “the” science you believe in is right. Having got interested in the science too, in which I understand that neither you nor the equally preachy Tim Flannery have relevant qualifications I wonder whether you know anyone who will give an answer to doubt raised by David Evans because of the “Missing Signature” of CO2, by the sheer implausibility of the suggestion that additional small forcings (of the order of less than 15% if CO2 goes from 380 ppm to 760 ppm) will cause alarming consequences, and the doubts recently raised about the actual source of the last 50 years’ rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. On top of that the way the IPCC models include evaporation and precipitation is in need of explanation to the sceptical layman who can’t find the answers those who say that there is an emergency insist are to be found somewhere.
You’ve done it again, Clive. You refer to ‘the science’ 5 times, and ‘the scientists’ another 3 times, leading the reader to believe this is a dispute between science and non-science, yet 650 scientists have now signed the US Senate minority report on global warming.
Yeah JamesK, I’ve been putting up with your comments for a few months now. You’re nothing but a pointless troll. I wish these comments were moderated so we could have a decent discission.
At the very least people, can we play the ball, not the man? Discuss the issue not the person. Back your statements with facts and leave the venting to the pub on a friday.
Pete Bondurant should take a look at the select list on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming . Includes not only climatolgists but also paleogeologists like our own Bob Carter.
I would gladly trust a physicist or an engineer to think their way through this, and since when has being retired disqualified a scientist from credibility?
I agree that the targets are way to low - however, what fascinates and frustrates me more is that not one Green group from the ACF, Friends of the Earth, Tim Flannery or any other “environmentalist” is out there promoting and lobbying for a high profile Natural Fibre Industry in this country. One of the fundamental reasons behind climate change is the chopping down of trees. If we had a Natural Fibre Industry of industrial hemp, bamboo, jute,seisal etc etc we could turn around our reliance on timber and create so much employment. NF processing plants could be built (with State and Federal grants) on existing mill sites, mill workers could be retrained to work between the two - timber and NF. Being a non edible product it could be irrigated with recycled water. Industrial hemp is one of the miracle products on this planet - yet NO ONE is talking about how this industry could contribute to Climate change. Go figure.
Your impracticality has long disqualified you Dr Hamilton in my eyes. You appear to be one of those who believes in moral posturing as a way to influence the leaders of several billion people whose output of greenhouse gases will determine what happens to our climate if “the” science you believe in is right. Having got interested in the science too, in which I understand that neither you nor the equally preachy Tim Flannery have relevant qualifications I wonder whether you know anyone who will give an answer to doubt raised by David Evans because of the “Missing Signature” of CO2, by the sheer implausibility of the suggestion that additional small forcings (of the order of less than 15% if CO2 goes from 380 ppm to 760 ppm) will cause alarming consequences, and the doubts recently raised about the actual source of the last 50 years’ rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. On top of that the way the IPCC models include evaporation and precipitation is in need of explanation to the sceptical layman who can’t find the answers those who say that there is an emergency insist are to be found somewhere.