The CPRS is pointless. It’s Copenhagen that counts
|
The Senate debate about the CPRS is getting close, and with views as diverse as those of Steve Fielding and Bob Brown it’s likely to be a cracker. Unfortunately, while there might be plenty of heat in the debate, whether the CPRS gets up or not will make no difference to global temperatures. That fact has nothing to do with the tired observation that Australia only accounts for 1.5 per cent of world emissions. When you realise that there are 192 countries in the world, which entitles you to around half a per cent each, 1.5 per cent is actually quite an achievement. And when you factor in that we account for only 22 million of the world’s 6.7 billion people you get a clear picture of just how good at polluting we Australians really are. The reason that the passage of the CPRS will have no impact on the world’s emissions is simpler than that. The fact is, the CPRS is irrelevant. It is irrelevant to the level of Australia’s emissions in 2020, and it is irrelevant to the world’s emissions in 2020. Both of these levels will be determined at Copenhagen or soon after. The treaty that comes out of Copenhagen will make no mention of the CPRS or its pathetic targets. Why Malcolm Turnbull would stake his leadership on something so meaningless defies logic. So if the CPRS is so pointless, what’s all the fuss about? Unfortunately, it’s the old story of money, with a little bit of spin thrown in. But before analysing the farce surrounding the CPRS, let’s remove some misconceptions first. The first thing that needs to be cleared up is that the CPRS targets have got nothing to do with the targets for Australia that will come out of the Copenhagen negotiations. As with Kyoto, Copenhagen will result in a series of different targets for different countries. Australia’s target will be determined by international arm twisting. Our negotiators will be in there arguing for the kind of pathetic targets to be found in the CPRS while other countries will be trying to drag us into the range supported by the civilised countries. The end result will be driven by diplomacy, not the passage of domestic legislation. The second misunderstanding is that Copenhagen is about creating an international emissions trading scheme. It’s not. It’s about setting targets for countries to meet. How they meet them is up to them. Individual countries can implement domestic emissions trading schemes if they want to but they are also free to have a carbon tax or introduce Stalinist command and control policies. Countries who want to pollute more than their entitlement can trade with countries who want to pollute less. But Copenhagen is about developing targets for countries, not telling them how they should get there. Thirdly, the world doesn’t give a damn whether the CPRS is passed or not. In Australia we are often told that the passage of the CPRS is somehow central to keeping the whole international push to tackle climate change on track. Without the CPRS the whole thing might crumble. Yeah right. The big countries will sort it out between themselves, the only issue for Australia is which side are we running cover for. So again, what is all the fuss surrounding the CPRS about? Let’s start with the money. Once Australia agrees to binding international targets at Copenhagen then something is going to have to change in Australia. Either we can reduce our emissions or we can spend a lot of money buying permits from other counties. The big polluters don’t want to do either as both would cost them money. What the CPRS does is give the big polluters certainty – certainty that they can keep polluting, certainty that they will get lots of compensation, and certainty that the carbon price won’t rise above $40 per tonne. The point that has been missed in the Australian debate is that if the deal out of Copenhagen means Australia has to reduce emissions, but the CPRS has already assured the big polluters that they don’t have to lower their emissions, then something will have to give. That something will be the Australian taxpayer. If we are silly enough to give the big polluters ‘certainty’ while uncertainty about the outcome at Copenhagen remains then it will be the taxpayer who has to make up the difference. The taxpayer will have to pick up the tab for buying billions of dollars worth of credits from other counties while the CPRS gives a ‘right’ to the big polluters to carry on increasing their pollution. You can see why the polluters are keen on rushing the scheme through. And now for the spin. The Treasury modelling of the CPRS tells you all you really need to know about the CPRS. First, Australia’s domestic emissions will be no lower in 2019 than they were in 2008. Second, the carbon price will be so low that no coal fired power stations will be forced to close down. Third, all of the ‘reduction’ in emissions will come from importing permits from other counties. Put simply the CPRS talks a good game, but it just doesn’t deliver. The ‘clean energy revolution’ associated with the CPRS does not result in the closure of a single coal fired power station. The ‘transformation’ of the Australian economy does not even include higher petrol prices. And the ‘international leadership’ shown by Australia includes one of the least ambitious emission reduction targets in the developed world. I can think of lots of reasons why Malcolm Turnbull might not want the leadership of the Coalition, but his party’s hostility to the CPRS wouldn’t be one of them. Dr Richard Denniss is Executive Director of The Australia Institute www.tai.org.au. |
|
|
|
27 Comments
First can I say that, you are right Dr Denniss, the Copenhagen Conference and the targets which emerge from it are the most relevant factors in this debate. However, I would like to point out why this does not mean that the CPRS is irrelevant.
My problem with your thesis is illustrated by what I believe to be two inconsistent comments you have made:
“The fact is, the CPRS is irrelevant”
and
“Our negotiators will be in there arguing for the kind of pathetic targets to be found in the CPRS”
The CPRS is very relevant because, if Australia goes to Copenhagen with locked-in CPRS legislation it does two things:
1. Australia can convincingly argue that a global agreement is a pre-condition before it can even think about cuts of anything greater than 5%; and
2. Australia can not legitimately go beyond the 25% cuts in emission which its legislature has (“presciently” and “proactively”) agreed upon.
The CPRS legislation may not be relevant for the right reasons, and this is what the Coalition fails to understand, but it allows the Australian negotiators to bring to the table at least some semblance of a justifiable range of cuts – consensual, settled and legislated emission cuts.
Without this legislation as one tool for negotiators, Australia’s negotiated emission cuts are pretty much at large. This means we could be exposed to greater cuts or agree to even more pathetic ones. And neither side should be comfortable with that.
This legislation is very relevant and I say, pass the bloody thing and lets begin those first baby steps to structural change. The CPRS first step may be a dribbling, stumbling stagger but it (to extend the analogy way too far) will build the (low emission) muscle for the heavy lifting and long walk ahead.
I must say I’m much more impressed by Dr Denniss’ contribution than those of his predecessor.
@KIT, that’s a rather cynical approach, to support locking ourselves into any kind of flawed system in the hopes that it will mean less concessions given at Copenhagen. Sounds too smart by half.
Great article, Richard, you’ve hit the point dead on. Rushing the CPRS is putting the donkey ahead of the cart. The Americans aren’t going to move on carbon emission legislation until late 2010, and if they decide on a different system to the one we implement, we’ll be in a real pickle.
The biggest problem of all, as you point out, is that the government is setting up a system that appears to reward polluters for doing what they are doing while dumping the tax burden onto the plebs. On top of that, by allowing companies (banks) who barely produce or consume carbon to buy and sell credits, they’re dooming the whole thing to the kind of price manipulation we see in the oil market.
The price of oil can triple in the space of a year, resulting in a massive tax hike on the whole population that goes straight into bank profits. How would carbon credits be any different?
Your other question asked why ex-Managing Director of Goldman Sachs, Malcolm Turnbull, is willing to stake his leadership on setting up a carbon trading system in the face of party-wide revolt? I think that question answers itself.
Jeebus, what do you hope of getting from the Copenhagen ‘cart’ that a locked-in ‘donkey’ will deny you? That is, when the Copenhagen conference finishes, what announcement will be made that will fundamentally change the form and/or content of our CPRS? The answer is that there is nothing in the CPRS which is inconsistent with the outcome of Copenhagen, whatever that outcome will be. Global agreement, no agreement, big cuts, small cuts… it doesn’t matter.
The Coalition says wait till Copenhagen, but the only point in waiting is delay. Emissions trading has been reviewed and reviewed and is the most economically efficient way to cut emissions – we can argue over the targets and we should be but we first have to stop arguing over the mechanism.
My point above, is that the CPRS legislation is not irrelevant to Copenhagen, but that doesn’t mean it’s the real game – its targets, targets and targets.
I can tell you, big polluters are very much enjoying the fact that real and enforceable legislation could be delayed, maybe forever. I wonder what the next Coalition-inspired delaying event will be? “We should wait for the US legislation to pass?” or “China, yes China is making a decision about emissions at the Communist Party’s 325th Politburo Standing Committee session in 2020, let’s just wait and see what emerges shall we?”.
“…It’s Copenhagen that counts…”
Wrong.
In the interests of keeping participants in the debate fully informed where would one - say a government MHR or senator facing a vote on this ‘scheme’ - get accurate (real-time) information about:
* the implementation cost of the proposed scheme;
* just what exactly is being proposed (energy transitions, timelines, etc.);
* the economic and social impacts of the proposed scheme;
* the short, medium and long-term effects on Australia’s balnace of trade, exports and international competitiveness
Rounded to the nearest dollar and percentile is acceptable.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Even the GST was fully costed out before it was voted on by Joe Public.
Why should one vote for a “trust us” scheme where the details will be “sorted out later” and befroe anyone else has done the same analysis for their own countries?
So we can brag about being first?
That’s wa
I get the feeling alot of this is a phoney argument between King Coal ALP and King Coal Coalition (including intra factions).
That the Greens have the intellectual, scientific and moral credibility but it’s all too hard. People like all their stuff. And nothing will change until enough people can see, and touch and put there hand inside the wound so to speak. Or to put it another way, the hurricane hits Brisbane, or maybe Sydney.
And by then it will be way too late. So much for physics and genetic pre-determinism (endless population growth). My sick old mother always used to get sh*tty as a devout Catholic whenever I suggested something was fate, as if it was something wicked like reincarnation (a billion or so people actually believe in). There is no such thing as fate she would bark.
Well putting all that to one side dangerous climate change really is fate and sooner than we expect. There will be mass mortality, and misery, disease from parasitic insects and broken infrastructure. There will be mass forced im/migrations, and civil wars over water and arable land. It’s going to make Children of Men look like a documentary. And your vote won’t make one skeric of difference, nor endless UN hot air.
Suck it up.
damn straight.
The CPRS will do more harm than good. It won’t reduce emissions, it won’t have us burn less coal, but it will transfer billions of dollars from the Australian taxpayer to the big polluters.
The Rudd Government has completely caved in to their masters in the fossil fuel lobby. They are failing on climate change while trying to pretend that they give a shit.
“…There will be mass mortality, and misery, disease from parasitic insects and broken infrastructure. There will be mass forced im/migrations, and civil wars over water and arable land. It’s going to make Children of Men look like a documentary…”
Or the trailer for “2012”, which you have clearly plagiarised in your hilarious attempt at portraying the impending appocalypse.
Did you at least get a writers credit?
@Kit, as David mentioned, Copenhagen does not endorse any kind of carbon reduction plan, whether that plan is a convoluted CPRS, or direct taxation of emissions. So why use that as a deadline to ram this utterly flawed crap through parliament? The Americans aren’t getting round to it until next year, so it’s clear we have time to think about it.
Why can’t we just directly tax carbon emissions? It would have the same effect in terms of price signals encouraging people to use power efficiently or invest in solar panels, and because the tax goes to the government, it could be used to subsidise the poor, and cushion the investment in low carbon.
What does a CPRS give us? Yes, we get the same price signals as power bills go up, but who is collecting this ‘tax’? It’s not the government. It’s whoever the power company bought their carbon credits from. In other words, any number of money men who shuffle paper around the carbon market, stockpile credits, and create artificial supply and demand.
A CPRS is government mandated taxation collected by bankers for private profits, as opposed to a carbon tax which will at least be collected by the government and redistributed back to the tax payers in some form.
@MarkDuffett You know, Richard Denniss and Clive Hamilton used to work together at The Australia Institute and have co-authored several papers together. I suspect their views aren’t all that far apart. Indeed, in the very article you linked to Hamilton writes:
He doesn’t defend the CPRS, he’s defends the concept of carbon trading. The primary difference between Hamilton and Denniss is (in these articles) one of style, not substance.
Lots of discussion, ideas, CPRS, carbon tax and other elaborate meta-schemes to reduce carbon emissions. Seems to me that a political/economic solution is not around the corner for all the hot air expended on them.
Our best hope is that the science is wrong otherwise we’re f**ked.
Sadly, the science is holding up despite the barrage of vested interest attacks.
Dennis’ outline seems cogent & credible to me. Bring on an energy tax, pure & simple but it should feed into every other activity in society. The GST was supposed to replace other taxes but, because of political pusillanimity (of the Oz Dem leader - cursed be her name which, thankfully I’ve forgotten), not to say states’ GREED, it didn’t.
Make petrol/diesel $10 per litre and tax coal at $100 per tonne in power stations and watch society shift its priorities, voluntary or perforces, and quarantine the consolidated revenue to fund alternative energy.
“Who dies with the most toys, wins” is the dumbest credo ever spawned by the forces of darkness but it still guides the majority of the population. Those who stepped out of the system 40/30/20 or even 10 years ago have long wondered when the faeces would interface with the air movement devices. It won’t be .ong now.
Dennis,
The CPRS is important. Its the mechanism by which we will achieve any cut we sign up to internationally. Without a mechanism agreeing to a cut is an empty promise. Both are as necessary as each other.
And whats more, the CPRS targets aren’t ‘pathetic’, its actually a cut of 5-25% on levels we had about 10 years ago depending on what the international agreement is. the 5% is only the cut if theres no decent international agreement and we go it alone. Keeping in mind our emissions have 1. Increased since 10 yrs ago, 2. our population is continuing to rise (and our emissions with it), the 5% cut is not as ‘pathetic’ as it might first appear. It must be compared to what would have otherwise happened if we continue as we are, which is a huge increase on 2000 levels by 2020.
CPRS is nonsense. Peter Walsh sums it up all too nicely:
President’s Report 2009
Peter Walsh
The Kyoto junkies’ creed is that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels will, unless this is reversed very quickly, lead to runaway global warming which inter alia will destroy the Great Barrier Reef and threaten life on Earth. They proclaim this doctrine to be a scientific certainty.
The fact that the planet has known much higher levels of CO2, twice in historical time and at least eight times in geological time blows away all the scientific certainty and is therefore ignored. Nobody knows for certain what caused previous warming events, but it certainly had nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. And the two historical events during the Roman and Medieval periods were accompanied by a warmer and wetter world and higher levels of human welfare, is rigorously ignored by climate catastrophists, and their media cheer squads, and by the self serving IPCC. It is almost beyond belief that this repudiation of real science and evidence has been uncritically swallowed by the self proclaimed ‘Intellectual Elite’.
A prominent journalist previously regarded as balanced and competent published in August an opinion piece which said:
“Turnbull is under assault from Labor as well as the climate change ideological right wing because he spearheads a national centrist stance that backs an emissions trading scheme and wants to make a contest over models, not over climate change belief”. (The Australian August 12 2009).
Paul Kelly did however make, accidentally perhaps, a very important point: The Kyoto junkies wallow in belief but ignore factual evidence. Until they change any national Government should spurn their disastrous advice.
The veneer of the Enlightenment is very thin and fragile.
In the late 1980s Global Warming became a favourite topic for the ‘chattering classes’ who recognised it as a viable excuse for sabotaging the economy.
‘Global Warming’ has since morphed into ‘Climate Change’. Why? Because the Earth has been cooling for nearly 10 years. The emphasis therefore was moved by opponents of economic growth to Climate Change which, because it is more nebulous, offered more opportunities for activists to peddle their junk science and terrify the masses.
Led by the ABC the media obliged and brainwashed the people to the extent that anyone who questions the Junk Science is branded a ‘denialist’, the moral equivalent of those who deny Hitler’s Holocaust. Climate change activist Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute has demanded these denialists be charged and put on trial. Hamilton is no fan of liberal democracy.
I confess to being a denialist from the beginning, not because I have any scientific expertise, but because the Vikings grew cereal crops in Greenland for several centuries. The climate then had to be much warmer than it has been since about 1500AD. In geological time there have been at least eight or more warm periods none of which were caused by burning fossil fuels and boosting the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Climate change zealots become denialists by claiming the Medieval Warm Period was an aberration confined to the North Atlantic. As usual, no evidence is produced to prop up their claims. Any evidence which contradicts their global warming — -sorry climate change — -hypothesis is ignored.
These ‘denialists’ dominate the International Panel on Climate Change — -the IPCC.
Twenty years ago a very senior Australian Public Servant had been, during his career, Secretary of two core Departments, and also served overseas and had also been exposed to the mindset of the (mostly) Third World careerists attached to various Agencies of the United Nations.
His assessment was that most people who work in UN Agencies are seduced by the UN First World lifestyle which their own Third World countries cannot afford. They become defenders of all the United Nations sub-branches and agencies, whether they are functional or dysfunctional, corrupt or clean. (And in keeping with the all stick together culture, the IPCC chief came from a Third World country).
The IPCC record is disgraceful, even by UN standards. It habitually concocts evidence to prop up its predetermined conclusions.
A few examples:
The Mann ‘hockey stick’ graph sloped gently downwards for nine hundred years but rose sharply at the beginning of the 20th Century, a dramatic change which was attributed to increasing CO2 emissions. The authors of this graph refused to hand over the data behind their conclusions until forced to by the US Congress. When the data was subjected to expert scrutiny it was shown that the hockey stick was a fraud. The computer programmes which produced the hockey stick result produced the same hockey stick when supplied with random numbers. When this was revealed the fraudulent graph eventually disappeared from all IPC publications. No explanation or apology was provided.
In recent years the global warmers have repeatedly claimed that atmospheric CO2 was approaching a catastrophic ‘tipping point’ leading to ‘runaway’ greenhouse gases which would destroy the planet as we know it. That is not just a barefaced lie, it stands truth on its head. Every additional unit of CO2 has less impact than every previous unit, because it is measured on a logarithmic scale.
The IPCC has adopted the practice of listing among the scientists who support the IPCC’s conclusions, scientists who are strongly opposed to those conclusions. Perhaps the most scandalous was the case of Dr Paul Reiter, one of the world’s leading experts on tropical diseases and malaria in particular. The IPCC claimed that increasing global temperatures would increase the incidence of malaria and other mosquito-driven diseases. Reiter, in commenting on these claims prior to publication, pointed out that these claims were nonsensical and should not be made. The IPCC ignored his criticisms and went ahead with its claims, but at the same time listed Paul Reiter as one of the authorities supporting them. Reiter demanded that the IPCC delete his name from their list of authorities. They ignored him. Only when he threatened legal action did they finally delete his name.
Much the same treatment was meted out to Dr Chris Landsea, a leading American expert on cyclones and hurricanes. Part of the IPCC storyline is that global warming has led to increasing hurricane activity and loss of property. The re — insurance industry has bought this story and has become an active rent-seeker in the global warming cart. There is no connection between hurricanes and CO2 concentrations, none; but Dr Landsea also had to threaten legal action to get his name removed.
The IPCC and its cheer squad debauches language in a manner of the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. The pigs were the smartest and most self serving of all the animals. Sheep were the most stupid. In the early days of Animal Farm the evil pig Napoleon taught the sheep to baa aha ha out ‘two legs good, four legs bettaah haa’. When the pigs decided to wear dinner suits and walk on their hind legs, Napoleon taught the sheep to baa ha haa out ‘four legs good, two legs bet aar ha’.
The Rudd Government’s spin doctors have picked up the technique, labelling the Government’s planned (and disastrous if it is implemented) Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Thus, carbon dioxide, a trace gas without which there would be no life on Earth, morphs into a ‘pollutant’.
The Kyoto junkies, as part of their brainwashing programme, assert that renewable energy, solar and wind, are suitable for base load power. That is another bare faced lie because the Sun shines far less than 50% of the time, and the wind does not always blow. The only reliable alternative for base load power is nuclear. It will be more expensive, but it would do the job. And of course a motley collection of ignorant zealots will demand that nuclear power be banned entirely, and gutless politicians will probably comply.
Al Gore, champion charlatan of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ will probably approve. He lives in two or three MacMansions which require a huge volume of electricity to supply the air conditioners. He also flies around the globe in his private jet aircraft. He offers no apology for the self indulgent consumption of energy. He claims he offsets it all by buying ‘carbon credits’.
About five centuries ago assorted Popes sold ‘indulgences’ to the wealthy and powerful. This allowed them to live in perpetual sin without endangering their immortal souls. To the best of my knowledge, those who say climate change is the greatest moral issue of the twenty-first century have not censured Gore for his profligate waste of fossil fuels or his self serving humbuggery. If I was a religious man, I would thank God in my prayers for ensuring Gore failed to get the Presidency.
It is almost beyond ‘reasonable doubt’ that the Kyoto hypothesis is a hoax, for which the Rudd Government and Turnbull Opposition have fallen. They do not acknowledge either that in historical time Vikings grew cereal crops in Greenland or that the geological history records many prolonged warm and cold periods when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than it is now.
In a rational world the response would be to wait for at least another decade to see whether the present global cooling period continues.
That however would prevent our ‘Dear Leader’ and others from fulfilling their adolescent fantasies — -saving the plant by reducing carbon emissions by 25 per cent by 2020 and by 60 per cent by late 2050. The mechanism for doing this is a Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme.
That is the worst possible option, because such schemes cannot be honestly audited.
That is why they appeal in Australia to the same sort of spivs who set up the present global recession — -the Freddy Macs, Fannie Mays, and their imitators with their ‘securitisation’ and fraudulent trading systems which wiped out any equity. Such a Carbon Trading system will make historical frauds like the South Sea Bubble and Tulip Bulb Boom seem benign.
The alternative energy rent seekers are already demanding a captive market for a mandatory renewable energy component plus capital subsidies and operating subsidies.
A tax on carbon is a much simpler and more efficient means of reducing CO2 emissions. It would be paid by a small number of firms, electricity suppliers, petroleum suppliers and aluminium smelters1 etc who would pass the tax on to their consumers. The number of firms directly paying the tax would be relatively small, administrative cost low, and evasion almost impossible.
Last, but by no means least, it will provide a much better exit strategy when the Kyoto hypothesis is recognised to be the fraud that it is. The tax could simply be abolished. There will be a structural hangover, but mild in comparison with abolishing a deeply entrenched and corrupt Carbon Trading Scheme.
1. Actually they wouldn’t pay because aluminium smelters would be exported to Third World countries.
Good grief! I knew Peter Walsh was a cranky old bugger, but I had no idea how far out he was on the wacky scale when it comes to denialism.
I have now come to the view that we need to trash the CPRS largely for the reasons Mr Dennis states. I’m buggered if I’m going to be subsidising every huge carbon polluting coporation under an ETS that simply rewards them. I fear that the point on Copenhagen is well made, I expect that it will make a pathetic target decision, but to the extent that it even remotely stretches Australia’s current position we’ll all be paying through the nose to buy large companies out of any pressure, probably via dodgy overseas offsets or something.
I just hope that in poleaxing it the political pressure continues to build to actually do something significant here in Aust but who knows given current opposition mentalness and current government business as usual-ness. Here’s hoping Greens at least get balance of power in the Senate at the next election and can somehow horse-trade that into some more strategic moves on greenhouse abatement. Failing that can we please just make sure that twerp Fielding doesn’t get back in, he really needs to find another hobby!
@MartinCJones er, yes, I did know, that’s why I referred to Hamilton as Denniss’ predecessor (i.e. as exec director of the Australia Institute). And it was mainly their styles I was talking about; I found Denniss much more cogent and less over-the-top, and all the more convincing for it. Not to mention that Denniss’ opinion (notwithstanding the subtlety of his differences with Hamilton) more closely resembles my own.
oh dear Ramble. not another world is cooling for 10 years claim. You might as well be arguing. yesterday was 21C today is 20, we’re all going to freeze by next month. It makes about as much sense. A couple of outlier extremely hot years about 10 years ago and people think the world is cooling.
Maybe if we have a heat wave tomorrow and then it goes away that argument will work too. The world’s been cooling since last week they’ll all say.
Climate change deniers need to understand the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE.
Doctor:
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
We’re not a big “polluter” in the sense that you make us out to be. You’re either a propagandizing liar or a nincompoop to say that. We have various industries here that are high in emissions because we have an absolute advantage that use a high energy content, such as aluminum. Mining and semi processed mining materials contains high energy content. If we gave up all these industries some other country like China would take it up and they would invariably be far more polluting in terms of the global envelope.
You also refer to our power companies as big polluters. Every time you flick on a switch you’re the one polluting , not them. So man-up do the right thing and fess up to your own polluting habits instead of blaming others, as it would be the courageous thing to do. I won’t be holding my breath though.
I think TEE is on the right track and has come up with a winning CPRS .
All climate change soldiers ( of which there seem to be significant majority ) need to do is reduce their own ’ carbon-dioxide footprint ’ ( i know it’s normally called a carbon footprint but i think that’s actually a different substance.) by say 50% .
This will make up for the minority of us apathists who do nothing but will still reduce demand from from those big polluting power stations, fuel companies etc enough to save the world.
As TEE says it’s the individual end user that can control energy usage so go to it our saviours.
Stop writing about it - get cold,hungry and stationary and Save Mankind..
You know we’re worth it.
James, I think the Clive Hamilton article which Mark Duffitt pointed to is worth a read. It may may you re-think individual action.
Some old comments to comment on…
Most Peculiar Mama: The modelling you seek is in the Garnaut Report. That’s what the point of it was.
Ramble: Who the fuck is Peter Walsh and where did he study science?
Tee and James: Your idea has some merit but not very much. Domestic use of electricity is 29%, of total energy is 11%. If 100% of people went to 100% carbon free power we’d knock about 11% off out total CO2 emissions. This doesn’t include agriculture emissions either. That’s why it needs to come from the top. In reality, we really just need to replace as many coal fired generators as possible. Individual action just can’t do enough.
Yes that may be right Evan,
but surely you true believers can try and set the example for the rest of us .
After all isn’t that what you want Australia to do for the Rest of the World with Rudd’s equally useless CPRS.
I think a 100% reduction in you and your peers CO2 emmissions will set a benchmark none of us could ignore.
Please advise when you start and provide updates for our inspiration.
Well James, I’m at 100% already. It’s not hard. Ride your bike to work and pay 20% extra for your power. Done.
And therein lies the problem in your plan. Myself and others have been doing this for years. I think Greenpower is very close to 1 million customers. But you didn’t know this already, so how can we set an example?
Hence my belief this needs to come from the top down. At least we agree that the proposed CPRS is rubbish, but current debate suggests a stiffer scheme wouldn’t pass anyway.
I think what we actually need is a Green Junta to take control. Probably the only way genuine change will be activated.
100% ?
Are you still breathing out Evan?
Sigh.
Is that really your response? Do you need to be bought that much more up to speed or was that just a flippant internet comment?
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Psychology, Psychology, Psychology is everything.
Hi Doc, Dr of what, not psychology.
Firstly, I have a personal connection/relationship with Stalin but I suspect you use his name in a processed way.
Secondly, I would like to remind everyone that thinking and feeling is chemistry (in your brain/flesh) so science is infinitely important to all of us.
Thirdly, the new Nobel Peace (Hope) Prize demonstrates that some smart and influential people are capable of conceiving human psychology beyond the ‘horse and cart’ relationship. (Hope for Peace - at least we may be able to do that as a human race). Create an influence for peace rather than a man for peace (the later will always have more particular enemies).
Psychology, not scientific facts, will solve Global warming . The former directs human consciousness and intelligencewhile the later are being used as chess pieces in a game by allsorts of politicians (even disguised ones with a Dr in front of their name) to affect the former.
To start a psychological process toward a goal is smart. To rely solely on the belief that reasonable men can solve complex problems using just reason is naive and serves only hypocrisy unless you know exactly who is in the room.
Australia has plenty of smarts and an appalling quantum of almost sub-human dopes (the old soldier- convict thing) and just too many who can’t tell them apart.
Catorgorize yourselves countrymen.
Ramble - Could that be the Peter Walsh I’m thinking of - the former finance minister in the Hawke government and co-founder of the right-wing Lavoisier Institute? Clive Hamiliton identified him as one of Australia’s climate change “dirty dozen.” Is he the one? If so, I met that guy in the 70’s in the company of disgraced former state minister, Julian Grill - both Western Australians. Dare I say it though - that Peter Walsh would not know a VOC from a sock? And do you Ramble?
Richard Denniss’ article holds my interest - mainly from a long-term interest in environmental toxicology. However, I am disappointed that he has referred to a command and control regulatory system as “Stalinistic” which puts a somewhat sinister connotation on this method of enforcement. Let’s face it, if Joe Citizen drives around in a bombed out car with a smoky exhaust pipe, he’ll soon be put off the road. If Joe Citizen thinks he can light a bonfire in his back yard, he would quickly be prosecuted. No so for the polluters who hang out in the big end of town. Is the Stalinistic command and control enforcement method appropriate only for Joe Citizen and not the industrial grim reapers?
Irrespective of the CPRS, the multinational polluting corporations in Australia have trashed these arid lands (and beyond) with impunity. Class actions and protests abound around the planet against the actions of our “big” Australian industrialists.
And irrespective of the CPRS, our precious groundwater is contaminated with pesticides - atrazine, chlorphyrifos, diazonon, demethoate, fenimiphos, maldison, aldrin chlordane, DDT, dieldrin and heptachlor. No longer potable. Ten years after detection, with one specific spill, the pesticides are still present. Our rivers are contaminated with heavy metals, PAHs, phosphorus and organochlorines. In 2003, a mass fish kill occurred in the Swan River - 300,000 dead fish! In 2004, 2.5 million litres of raw sewage poured into the Swan! The Swan is on life support! So is the Canning and Helena Rivers - major tributaries to the Swan and agricultural run-offs continue with impunity.
As a result, regulation by persuasion has been a dismal failure, despite the EPA Act, legislated in 1972 which has been abused and corrupted by bureaucratic rent boys to industry. The industrial grim reapers have not responded to “persuasion” nor do they intend to. Considering that state governments are presently issuing licences to pollute with relish and we now have the added burden of a renaissance of uranium mining (perhaps some 30 new projects?), the expansion of the Olympic Dam project, new gas hubs, the creeping white death of dryland salinity (engulfing the equivalent of 19 footy fields per day in WA) increased populations etc etc, the “Stalinistic” command and control method of enforcement should be mandated but the sycophants to the big polluters - avaricious politicians, senior bureaucrats, chambers of commerce and their side-kicks, lobbyists and “free” marketeers know which side their bread is buttered and we are reaping what they have sown and shall continue to do so, with or without a CPRS. - So be it.