Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
As global crisis deepens, Australia’s emissions rise
|
The orthodoxy has taken hold that the economic
“The truth is,” Shanahan concludes, “the global crisis is costing jobs and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.” Needless to say, as with every press article arguing the case against doing anything about climate change, Mitch Hooke and his ever-worsening prognostications were liberally quoted. I was all set to believe it — after all, it’s comforting to think we can wait a bit longer before getting serious about climate change. But then — reluctantly — I decided to do some checking. After all, when it comes to interpreting numbers, Shanahan’s record is not exactly spotless. Fortunately, this morning the Climate Institute produced the very latest data on the impact of the economic slowdown in Australia on growth in carbon emissions. Carbon emissions INCREASED in the December quarter by 800,000 tonnes, which was about the level expected if the economy had grown by its more usual annualised rate of 2-3%. As we all now know, the economy contracted 0.5%. The global crisis isn’t cutting greenhouse emissions in Australia. In fact, there’s no evidence that emissions — which are primarily generated by households and businesses using electricity and fuel — have been affected at all, except perhaps that they have not grown by as much as they might have. Relying on the economic crisis to delay action on climate change is, at best, lazy thinking for a species inordinately good at inventing reasons to avoid unwanted tasks. Even before the economic crisis, when the economy was in danger of overheating, there were plenty of people who thought we should wait a bit longer. Shanahan refers to “outdated and full of obfuscatory green garble about new-age jobs”. If he doesn’t believe any new jobs will be created in a low-carbon economy, maybe he should talk to the tourism operators who will have to close when the Barrier Reef is destroyed or Kakadu is flooded, or the farmers and irrigators in eastern Australia who will run out of water — or have already done so. They aren’t jobs that might be created in the future, but jobs that exist now, and won’t exist in the medium term because of the impact of climate change. The only obfuscatory garble is coming from the Big Carbon rentseekers and their media supporters. |
|
|
11 Comments
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas says that science does not shout……. Well Harvey in spite of scientific revelations during the past week…such as, the IPCC 4th report seriously underestimated likely sea level rises….In spite of revelations that zoo plankton are losing up to one third of their shell density due ocean acidivication….I would happily amend my words to “speaking in raised voices”…….. Dr Harvey M Tarvydas # 2… scientists are people like you and me….They may have children and grand children….sometimes they feel the need to speak with a “raised voice”……Dr Harvey M Tarvydas # 3….”CO2 is not a pollutant. It and O2 are beautiful the gases we could call the gases of life.”…”Man may have corrupted natures recent historical balancing of the two.”….. No Harvey, man has, and is corrupting the recent balancing of the two…..to the extent that atmospheric CO2 levels by the end of this century could easily be more than double those of pre industrial times.
Science wants me to shout this today.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It and O2 are beautiful gases we could call the gases of life.
Man may have corrupted natures recent historical balancing of the two.
Psychology, psychology, psychology is everything.
It couldn’t have been called corruption when man was ignorant.
Thanks Cavitation for that analysis. Sometimes BK who is certainly a real activist in these matters, puts out stuff like the Climate Institute statement as absolute gospel, while dismissing the writings of the likes of Dennis Shanahan as being idiotic.
But in this whole mess, I simply repeat the question - can someone please tell us what Wong’s ETS will do to reduce the effects of climate change. Or even reduce global warming!! Methinks nothing!!
The Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu will only be saved by a global effort to reduce carbon emissions, not by any unilateral emissions target set by Australia….. It is time discussion here and in other forums focused on how any emissions trading scheme set up by Australia fits into a global context…..With the economic crisis ever deepening, it may turn out the 5 to 15% emission reduction the government currently has on offer is at the higher end of commitments at Copenhagen…..Despite what the science is now shouting at us, a global co-ordinated response seems further away than ever…..The science may be calling for 25 to 40% reductions by 2020….Unfortunately to shift the mindsets of people and their governments, world wide, will probably take a lot more Katrinas and Black Saturdays.
God! How right-wing scribes love the word obfuscation.-I am not referring to you Bernard. Perhaps they think their readers will think. ‘By Jimminy he a clever man!’.
You should have a competition for the amateur who can come up with what goes down well at the Oz.
I wasn’t criticising Richard McGuire’s comment. A phrase he used inspired my diatribe into science philosophy.
Again I say science is not shouting but humans (genuinely concerned) are shouting the science.
My concern for science is that as (science) the non-shouting victim of human exploitation (generally, and it could happen in relation to this issue) humans shouting the science become attached in the end to the noise not the science and what I have witnessed again and again (over 4 decades) is good science buried by the ‘experts’. They were shouting something else at the time.
For example, say I discover some new science which if adopted will just totally make the CO2 problem disappear, after much prolonged current shouting which should have gained appropriate serious attention and acclaim, Richard (here representing my idea of the shouters), will not be at the front line shouting that the new science be taken seriously. Here lies the problems science faces in a relationship with humans. I can give many famous (but unknown to most) examples of this kind of abuse to humans who are especially in tune to/with science (quiet, sorrowful, poor little buggers).
Pet hate - 4wd’s blocking up the roads. As the price of fuel comes down the number of 4wds and large vehicles on our roads increase. What’s the answer? All those people with fuel guzzlers should get on the train or bus every day of the week. Maybe I should get on the train ( and sell that 3rd car that I don’t really need)
Richard McGuire’s contribution is worthwhile but contained a phrase that needs redress albeit seemingly pedantic on my part.
“Despite what the science is now shouting at us”
Science doesn’t shout. It’s humans in a media bus using science (as a megaphone) that are doing the shouting. In fact science doesn’t have a relationship with us it’s we that forage for a relationship with science.
So are you listening to science or the shouting? Sometimes we can shout it just as we imagine science would want us to.
The data published by the Climate Institute is confusing, but I dont think it shows what Bernard says it does. The graph appears to show the growth in carbon emissions for the “12 months ending” in December 2008 (see Fig 2 in the report). It seems to be showing that carbon emissions grew by 2-3% over the whole year - whereas the financial crisis only kicked in properly very late in the year. I dont see where the quarterly data comes from, which is mentioned in the press release. The “2-3%” increase is compared to what? If it is quarterly data, it should be compared with the same quarter a year ago, since carbon output has a seasonal component - people run airconditioners in summer. Summer is now the main period for maximum electricity load, and is also the “driving season”. Until we see the data broken down in some detail, the press release should be read with some skepticism, I think.
Stop polluting the waterways and the atmoshere. If you pollute you should be punished.
The ETS is a croque!
Wake up to this monster taxation scheme everybody!
As a very competent Dr I can diagnose insanity.
As a scientist with an achievement list I can say in relation to your …..
“Carbon emissions INCREASED in the December quarter by 800,000 tonnes, which was about the level expected if the economy had grown by its more usual annualised rate of 2-3%. As we all now know, the economy contracted 0.5%.” …….. till now it was correct to assume
Growth means increase emissions then
Contraction means less
But someone counted there to be more when it should have been less
So before we unravel the self evident cornerstones of logic
Tell me
Who’s counting?
Do they have a license to count?
Do they know what they are doing comprehensively or just in spasms when it’s easy?