Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Australia, you have 3 days to get your act together on climate change
|
The Prime Minister recently said that a plan to unlock public and private sector financing in low carbon industries will be critical to the global deal in Copenhagen. He said, “what must be discussed sooner rather than later, is what are the options for what is called within the debate, climate change financing arrangements, for the poorest economies. … It has to be dealt with.” Last Friday at a halfway point in the current Bangkok climate talks, Australia’s top climate envoy said negotiators needed to move from “walk in the park” speed to a “sprint”. While Australia continues to take small steps forward, many observers and other delegations eagerly await for our political leaders to break into a stride. The international negotiations currently underway in Bangkok have again highlighted that the issue of financial support for developing countries is one of, if not the, main hurdle for Australian and other diplomatic efforts to produce a new and more ambitious global deal on climate change. With just over 60 days until the Copenhagen climate summit (and seven formal negotiating days left) the issue is how the post-2012 climate agreement will unlock the hundreds of billions of dollars of public and private money needed to support developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. Unless the finance question can be resolved, there will be no agreement in Copenhagen. Australia is well aware that the finance issue is crucial, and on Monday during the negotiations the government provided a taste of what it has in mind. In essence, Australia has proposed establishing a “facilitative platform” to link developing countries’ needs with financial support. This is not a bad idea, but is only one step on a long track and will not help build the political momentum needed to achieve a deal that is in Australia’s national interest. Most notably, Australia hasn’t stepped forward on the scale of finance that is needed by developing countries and the mechanisms that can be put in place to generate this finance. Australia’s failure to adequately address these two big issues that are crucial to the trust building process within the negotiations did not go unnoticed, with Bangladesh politely responding to the facilitative platform proposal as one which “reflects some elements [of a finance package] but misses most of them”. Australia’s continued stalling on the scale of finance needed and mechanisms to raise the money is disappointing and is holding back progress in other areas. Meanwhile, other countries are being more proactive. This includes a statement by the UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, recognising that around US$100 billion of public and private money will be needed annually by 2020. The European Commission has arrived at similar figure and has signalled the need for €22 - 50 billion globally from international public sources by 2020. The finance question is also being tackled head on in the US through the Waxman-Markey Bill, which proposes to set aside 7% of permit allocations for activities in developing countries, including to support clean technology, protect forests and adapt to unavoidable climate impacts. According to one estimate, these provisions would generate around US$5 billion a year by 2020. Unfortunately no such provisions are included in Australia’s CPRS – a matter that The Climate Institute and others have consistently pushed for. The CPRS is just one of the mechanisms available to Australia to generate finance for developing countries. Specific proposals that should be explored are the Mexican proposal, the Norwegian proposal, the allocation of domestic emission trading auction revenue and market mechanisms for international aviation and shipping emissions. There are three full days left in Bangkok for Australia to find its feet on finance and break into a sprint towards Copenhagen. Ideally this would include:
On finance, the echoes of the starters gun have long since gone but Australia and other developed nations are not far down the track. It’s time to break a sweat. Will McGoldrick is from The Climate Institute. |
|
|
18 Comments
Yes - it is all becoming clearer now. From Denniss yesterday and now McGoldrick today , we can see that boring Penny and Spinner Kev07 are just pumping out words to wedge the opposition, instead of doing what Governments should do - that is DO SOMETHING about pollution and renewable energy.
This CPRS is a complete wank, and until Penny and Kev 07 start to produce real policies to deal with both the economic factors of Carbon Pollution, and how to deal with the costs of climate change that they say is already with us, they just have no credibility both in OZ and overseas.
How is it that they just can’t understand? So quick to wedge - so slow to produce anything that is meaningful.
Is the Climate Institute only now realising the enormous fiscal cost attached to this stupid and unnecessary scheme?
Politicians and business have known this forever.
What they also know is that without a plan you have bupkis…just a lot of motherhood statements designed to appease the gullible “DO SOMETHING!!!” crowd.
Neither Rudd, Wong or even the Climate Institute can produce a forward plan.
Any plan.
Nor can they provide any proof that such a plan would even work.
And that’s the biggest joke of all.
The proposal seems remarkably thin on specifying what “clean technology” is to going to help the developing nations eliminate carbon.
Research and development of energy <em storage technology would allow carbon fuels to be replaced by the installation of solar-and-storage and wind-and-storage. Currently we have the inadequate propositions of solar-and-gas and wind-and-gas, which will not allow us to converge on a zero carbon world by 2100.
Similarly the development of a non-proliferating nuclear fuel cycle requires research and demonstration plants. Australia is already signed up to the GNEP, but it needs funding.
Such R&D monies should be spent in Australia, for the ultimate benefit of the developing nations.
However, “buying permits” from developing nations is a barefaced doublespeak for “business as usual”. Similarly any nonsense about “protecting the forests” cannot possibly affect the level of atmospheric CO2 in 1000 years, nor will it save the forests. Let us give a big raspberry for any transfer of raw cash outside of our jurisdiction.
What do you propose ‘Mama’?
Err Roger, the recent bushfire tragedy in Victoria according to a press report this week suggested this was equivalent to one year’s industrial production of CO2 nationally. Sounds about right to me.
And when you realise that the vast majority of forest here is chipped for paper, and landscape burnt for regeneration growth, or in South East Asia just burned for say palm oil plantation, then saving forests is bound to be a substantial saving to emissions.
It is also why in the NT and WA there is increased interest in Indigenous ‘cool burns’ in suitable eco-systems and mosaic to prevent wildfires, which similarly greatly reduces emissions - scientifically measured.
Lastly ANU have reported credible science on ‘green carbon’ in forest far outweighing storage in say timber (as distinct from chip to paper to landfill and methane production).
So no, actually saving the lungs of the world, just as biosequestration in agriculture, is a serious part of the solutions.
Oh, just to add speaking of financing of developing countries in this area - given they have much lower per head of population emissions methinks they will continue to be offered re-insurance coverage by the wealthy Europeans like Swiss Re, and Munich Re etc alot longer than we in Australia with our world beating output.
And when/if re-insurance is withheld from Australia/King Coal the global game of musical chairs involving our economy will also stop and we won’t have a chair.
Ben Carew, don’t ask Mama what she would do. She/he/whatever would prefer that we carry on as normal and just run out of fossil fuels in 50 years time. Then we’ve got no energy source and we will have stuffed the climate up. But Mama doesn’t believe that burning all the fossil fuels on earth would make one jot of difference to the climate.
Btw, Mama, has your claim that the climate change science will be brought down by McIntyre’s 12 Siberian trees eventuated? We’re all waiting with baited breath for the whole thing to come crashing down. Don’t disappoint us now with your prescience!
“…What do you propose ‘Mama’?…”
As with any serious business proposition, I expect to see a realistic estimate of costs, contingency budgets, transitional impacts and risk mitigation pathways, key milestones and a timeline to completion.
But most of all I’d like to see what I get for my money.
It’s “Investment 101”.
Doesn’t matter if it’s a business, goverment or PPP.
Can the AGW=ETS proselytes provide this?
Can the government?
If not, why the hell should I vote for it?
Especially BEFORE the rest of the world even DISCUSSES a plan.
Do that just goes beyond stupid.
Would you apply the same logic to building a house?
“…Then we’ve got no energy source and we will have stuffed the climate up…”
Even a year 8 geography student could point out your gross naivety on both counts.
“…climate change science will be brought down by McIntyre’s 12 Siberian trees eventuated…”
Do keep up Greg.
Even Keith Briffa himself, when confronted with McIntyre’s analysis, has said: “My colleagues and I are working to develop methods that are capable of expressing robust evidence of climate changes using tree-ring data.”
Oops. Sounds very much like fix is in.
And on one of the oldest scientific cons around…if the data don’t ‘fit’ the model, change the data.
That’s gotta hurt even a die-hard climate zealot like yourself.
Why don’t you direct your scientific queries to those like Briffa who in selectively choosing data that specifically supports their ‘hypothesis’ appear to have successfully perpetrated perhaps the biggest scientific fraud in history.
It certainly has you, Al Gore and the IPCC fooled.
I’m not a die- hard climate zealot, actually Mama. I would be thrilled if climate change was shown to be non anthropogenic. Then we’d have a lot more time to figure out what to do when fossil fuels run out. My reading of the scientific evidence for man-made climate change is that there is enough evidence to make it morally unacceptable to do nothing about climate change. You, on the other hand, insist on waiting for some little tidbit of data in a vain hope that we are not affecting the climate. You need to get real.
You get all wrapped up in what Briffa said or what so and so said in these to-and-fro’s, but you miss the big picture (as I have pointed out to you in previous threads) that there is nothing in these scientific spats that will bring down the hundreds of other strands of evidence. I told you to go and read the realclimate post on the Yamal issue which show all the “hockey sticks” that don’t even have the Yamal data in them. Have you done that? No, I’m sure you haven’t - do you ever read any arguments that you don’t agree with?
Ever heard of the Garnaut review, the Stern Review?They will tell you what you will get for an Emissions Trading Scheme. The costs, the mitigation, carefully weighing up the costs of doingn something and doing nothing. All you could possibly want about the effects of an ETS. But because the conclusions of those studies don’t match what you’ve decided is the truth, you ignore them.
who cares man made climate change is fucking bull shit.
Agreed Greg.
Mama and MIA (interesting that the 2 vocal flat earthers don’t use real names) your contributions to the debate have not been at all compelling, and you have both routinely ignored plenty of info that could answer the hypotheticals you continually pose. As Greg said; the modelling has been done, the costs are calculated; the science stacks up and these nonsense disections over the method that Mann used 20 years ago to draw a graph are of no consequence at all. The data supporting the AGW hypothesis is ridiculously compelling and the only way you’ve been able to rule it out is with some crude argument about how the IPCC is involved with the UN and therefore inadmissable. Hopeless.
Put your money where your mouth is and stop running interference. Invest in coastal real estate and Australian rice farms and see how that goes for you.
“…Ever heard of the Garnaut review, the Stern Review?…”
Experienced climate scientists are they?
Their ‘reviews’ have been thoroughly dissected and and largely dismissed as political propaganda.
“…read the realclimate post…”
Briffa admits his research is incomplete.
He also offers no explanation for excluding the entire tree data set.
“…The data supporting the AGW hypothesis is ridiculously compelling…”
Really. Where is it?
Tree rings, sea temperatures, atmospheric concentrations of CO2; polar ice extents.
NONE of these are conclusive proof and least of all definitive and sadly that’s the best argument you have.
“…stop running interference…”
You can’t even agree on ONE dataset to support your delusory fantasy.
Hopeless.
We don’t NEED to agree on a data set. That’s what the IPCC does, and I’m buggered if I know why you’ve decided there need be one set. Why not many?
Garnaut and Stern are not scientists and don’t ever pretend to be. They’re economists, and as you requested earlier, they have performed financial analysis of the consequences of carbon emission and the most efficient ways of achieving reductions. They are fully costed out to 2050 or something.
Can I ask it the other way around. Which piece of data would be conclusive proof that humans are fiddling with the climate by releasing ancient carbon?
“…That’s what the IPCC does…”
The IPCC used Mann’s (now discredited) hockey stick as the foundation for their AGW hypothesis.
Why hasn’t the IPCC acknowledged their error or the deficiencies exposed in his dataset?
Both the Stern and Garnaut ‘reviews’ predated the GFC (funny how they never saw it coming either) so are largely irrelevant.
“…fully costed out to 2050…”
Stupid is as stupid does…such an analysis has LESS THAN ZERO credibility.
Ask Kevin why he hasn’t formulated a 2050 budget yet.
“…Which piece of data would be conclusive proof that humans are fiddling with the climate by releasing ancient carbon?…”
What’s your datum point? Ya gotta have one ya know.
Atmospheric CO2 content has been much higher than what it is now; predating human habitation.
So what does that prove?
Here’s what it proves:
Atmospheric CO2 content has been much higher than what it is now.
Everytime you cut a tree down you release “ancient carbon”. What’s your point?
Like all believers you are looking at the cause, not the effect.
You can quote all the bought-and-paid-for ‘scientific’ peer-reviewed garbage you like.
But you still can’t tell me WHY observed CO2 concentrations are rising.
You THINK it’s human occupation because that’s what you are TOLD to think.
But you have NO real proof that is the sole driver.
Hilariously, you ignore the more plausible scenarios because it doesnt fit your Fabianesque political agenda.
“…I’m buggered if I know why you’ve decided there need be one set. Why not many?…”
If your argument was so strong on evidence it should be easy for you to refute the skeptics…but you can’t.
Instead you dismiss those who question your dogma as trolls and flat-earthers.
The bloody graph isn’t the foundation of the hypothesis. The reams of observations are! Mann’s graph is just an aglomeration of this information. Since when was a graph a hypothesis?
The difference between projections and budgets is somewhat akin to the difference between weather and climate, which you and your cohorts still seem unable to grasp. What difference is a 6 month blip in financial cash flows going to make in 20 years? SFA is what. The analysis would have included some such blip; it matters nought when it occurs, such a long run would be averaged over time.
>What’s your datum point? Ya gotta have one ya know.
No idea what this sentence means.
Observed CO2 is rising because we’re burning more coal. It’s pretty simple. And not really even worth discussing further. Do you have a better hypothesis?
Your contributions have shown a worrying misunderstanding of the fundamentals of how science is done. An observation is made, then a theory created to fit the observation. This theory gets shown to other people and they give an opinion on the methods and conclusions. Then, until this theory is DISPROVEN, it stands. The theory has not been disproven. No alternative that better represents the data has been provided.
So then Mama, please educate me to your theory. If humans aren’t making the CO2 go up, what is? Which data are you using to support your theory, which disagrees with much of the science in the world at the moment.
“…Observed CO2 is rising because we’re burning more coal…”
Wrong.
“…If humans aren’t making the CO2 go up, what is?…”
Don’t know.
Could be any number of things, but humans burning coal would be the least impactful.
You ask for the cause yet see only the effect as ‘proof’ of a human influence.
Explain then the significantly higher pre-hominid atmospheric CO2 concentration levels?
Explain the observed fact that temperature and CO2 levels are not related in any way?
Explain why - given there is no temperature co-dependancy - an insignificant increase in atmospheric CO2 will be ‘catastrophic’ to planetary life?
“…Your contributions have shown a worrying misunderstanding of the fundamentals of how science is done. An observation is made, then a theory created to fit the observation. This theory gets shown to other people and they give an opinion on the methods and conclusions. Then, until this theory is DISPROVEN, it stands…”
This is the most ridiculous and fallacious statement you’ve made to date.
To use your logic:
I can make up anything I like: THE “OBSERVATION”.
If lots of people agree with me I am not wrong until someone provides proof that I am: “THE THEORY”.
Until then - despite failing to provide any proof of my “observation”, “THE THEORY” stands unchallenged.
And you accuse skeptics of being flat-earthers!!!
Here’s a ‘scientific’ refresher for you:
AGW is “the theory”.
You have to PROVE “the theory”.
“The theory” is then challenged for plausibility and accuracy.
If an overwhelming body of EVIDENCE supports “the theory” it gains broad acceptance.
Single-year ice observations; 10-year temperature observations; climate ‘modelling’ (which can’t even replicate historical records using the same methodology) and 100-year ‘treeology’ are not ‘real’ evidence and they definitely do not conclusively support any ‘theory’.
The time frames are too short to be indicative of any ‘trend’ - even you know this.
But OK, I’ll play….the following are basic simple science:
Since 2001 the world has cooled, yet CO2 levels continue to climb.
Explain “the theory” behind this observation.
Have the IPCC computer models accounted for this? If so how? What forward adjustments to “the theory” have been made using this factual historical data?
Explain also the lack of correlation between observed, increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and its traditional (heating) role in sustaining the greenhouse effect.
CO2 has a finite absorption capacity that is rapidly approaching saturation. Has the greenhouse effect become more pronounced during this period? If not why?
Why do you choose to ignore the peer-reviewed and published evidence in the geological record of Earth’s history?
Is it because it disproves “the theory”?
And please, no links to the fact-free Big Government shills at ‘realclimate.org’.
There’s some statements in here Mama that need referencing. Why is it wrong to say observed CO2 is rising because we’re burning more coal? I thought that was pretty much nailed.
Also, have a read of this:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Seems you missed some highschool science; this handy web page should help you get back up to speed.
Why would humans burning coal be the least ‘impactful’? It’s the major difference in the last 200 years.
It was higher in the past because the Earth was a very different place. More volcanoes helped. Ditto the respiration of bacteria. I fail to see how this has anything to do with the debate anyway.
I didn’t make it through your scientific method scenario because it falls at the first hurdle. Sure, you can make data up. But then the peer review would bare that out pretty quickly. I stand by my statement; theories can only be overturned by being disproven, not by being repeatedly proven.
Oh, and thanks a lot for this absolute beauty of a line:
“Single-year ice observations; 10-year temperature observations; climate ‘modelling’ (which can’t even replicate historical records using the same methodology) and 100-year ‘treeology’ are not ‘real’ evidence and they definitely do not conclusively support any ‘theory’.”
So, the idea that the Earth has been cooling for 10 years has no value then? Too short an observation period?