The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
20-20 vision needed on 2020 vision
|
Wow, the Kool-Aid must be coming in by the tanker load to the Crikey bunker. How can a publication that places so much store on economics turn around and publish ludicrous claims that the US must cut carbon emissions 100% by 2020 and the rest of the first world by 2030 and China by 2035? How many people have to die from shutting down civilisation before the climate fascists will be happy? Crikey houses within its four walls the Eureka Report. I assume most if not all the staff there are well versed in economics and would look at a statement such as “America must cut emissions 100% by 2020” and know that it will end in complete economic collapse, untold wars, and the eventual death of millions if not billions of people. The climate debate as fostered by Crikey in 2009 has gone off the rails and is no longer a credible force for meaningful debate. It has joined the ranks of the political nutters. It’s this extremism to the debate that is leading to so many people just turning off. Humans are not as stupid as the hard left and hard right so often abuses them as being. Modern humans are well equipped with a BS meter and when they read claims that we will all be ruined if we don’t cut emissions by 100% in 10 years — they can clearly see that this is polemic rubbish that most people will just roll their eyes and think this is crazy talk and stop listening. This is the problem with the approach of the green left to this topic. It could be seen yet again in this week’s rant from the Australia Institute. Paragraph after paragraph of assertions that contain not a single objective statement. Just endless subjective perversions of the debate by non-scientists armed with PHDs in the Liberal Arts. My own background in politics is the green left from the late ’70s. I was there on the anti-uranium rides, the anti-whales sit ins, the save-the-forest blockades. And today I run a renewable energy business and a mainstream science and technology news service that reports the news and leaves it to the reader to decide. Old-fashioned and boring I know, but I can sleep at night knowing I have not debased science and economics with the nonsense that equally fills the blogosphere of the loony right as it does the the wacky left. Crikey is a solid publication that offers great coverage of many topics, but it has to move up the food chain and stop parroting the idiotic assertions of the dark greens that the world is about to end unless we shut down civilisation by 2020 — which, come to think of it, would pretty much end the world as we know it. Maybe that’s the real aim of the climate fascists and their brave and fearless leadership seen in the likes of Clive Hamilton and Christine Milne. Simon Mansfield is the publisher of TerraDaily.com and SpaceDaily.com |
|
|
18 Comments
Well Simon-
you were just given 300 words in Crikey - and instead of refuting your opponents’ arguments, you went on a fact-free rant about kool-aid, green fascists, deep greens, anti-civilisation, how you chained yourself to a tree blah blah. as someone who is not unsympathetic to the claim that climate change stuff is overly apocalyptic and presents probability as truth, i learnt nothing from your argument free diatribe except that you believe the greens to be guilty of argument-free diatribes. can’t say it makes me likely to click thru to your science reports. Did you think you were being handed a lifeline with this piece? Congrats pal, you were the proud recipient of enough rope.
” I was there on the anti-uranium rides” - perhaps if you hadn’t been, we wouldn’t have had this mess to deal with. A different one, maybe, but not such a serious one.
The way we are going, civilisation is likely to collapse within about 15 years under the strains imposed by climate change and all the population pressures that have triggered it. You can only put out so many “bushfires” until the scale of the task overwhelms because there are just too many happening too quickly. The signs are all there that we are heading fast towards such a state of chaos. Denialism of the type displayed by you, Simon, is guaranteed to get us there. It seems you used to care about the world, but you left that behind with your youth.
Quality spray, quite entertaining.
This is getting us nowhere fast. However, I really do like a bit of a spray every so often.
And Guy’s rejoinder is simply magnificant.
Now, tell me again… what was the question?
The fundamental problem in this debate is that politicians are lying to a stupid electorate. The average punter does not appreciate his or her dependence on fossil fuels for their relatively comfortable current standard of living. In selling Kyoto and the ETS Rudd and Wong are giving the appearance of activity without pain because the cost is deferred.
If we are serious about reducing our dependence on fossil fuel, everybody’s standard of living will fall unless technological advances more than offset the reduction in this dependence. However this process will take decades, and there is a natural tendency to share in the this in a long-run this is someone else’s problem.
How often have we been told that the poor will be compensated for the increase in carbon costs so that their sheltered existence will not be affected, and somehow the rich will pay. A long-term equilibrium position without dependence on fossil fuels is virtually impossible without a significant reduction in world population, and massive investment in new technology.
A massive investment in new technology means less for current consumption and a corresponding reduction in living standardsas well as the impact of reducing carbon consumption as a “double whammy”. This means less cooling in summer, colder houses in winter, and probably no more winter grapes flown in from California.
The process of natural selection as expounded by Darwin will in the long run led to a new equilibrium position if we fail to manage this process ourselves. In all probability beetles and ants will probably take over what is left of the world, because based on current experience we lack the political capacity to undertake the necessary correction before it is too late.
Greg, the average punter will seize deferred cost every time, you just have to look at credit card figures, and ‘no repayments for 36 months interest free’ schemes.
The “average punter” includes the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Bob Brown is half serious but even he is afraid to tell the community what medicine is involved in the policy positions he is putting. The rot set in 300 years ago when coke from coal was substituted for charcoal in steel smelting. Europe’s increasing appetite for steel led to improvements in mining technology and the rest is history. Our economic progress ever since it is predicated on the assumption of virtually unlimited energy from fossil fuels. Two thirds of the world’s population is critically dependent on “fossil fuel” including uranium in some form or other and the other one third is still involved in subsistence farming. It is conceivable that we can shift to a totally renewable energy budget, but the economic and social impact will be massive. Once we realise that population growth must be curtailed there will be a massive fall in property values which to date has been underpinned by the growing scarcity of resources in population growth spiral which is out of control. As such a future really looks ugly it is better to ignore it and hope it will go away. This is thepolicy position of most politicians other than what is currently regarded as the” lunatic green fringe” which unfortunately may be the only sane ones in the room
Simon is quite right to point out that some of the measures being bandied about would have expreme consequences on our way of life, and this is not always made transparent when they are advocated. If we are going to even contemplate a zero-emissions society in ten years time the proponents need to come clean about the effects this would have on the fabric and foundations of our society and economy, assuming that it is even possible to achieve that goal, which it ain’t.
I also appreciate that he demonstrates that it is possible to take an independant line on this and not be locked into the L v R adversarial framework. Some of us are very committed to the sustainability movement generally, but ‘cross the floor’ on this climate change fanaticism.
“the anti-whales sit ins” Geez, what have you got against whales?
Guy - I’m not afforded the front row seat Clive Hamilton has been handed on a platter by Crikey.
The issue has been reduced to a continuous whine in Crikey of late lead by Bernard and others who spend every day dredging up the same we are all ruined if we follow the Wong and Rudd way to hell in a hand basket.
I rarely express my own views public or even in my own news services - beyond the occasional comment such as this dummy spit here or in the Herald.
In the last week we have had the world is heading for a runaway greenhouse disaster - with visions of Venus being offered up as some sort of realistic future of planet Earth if we don’t cut emissions. This is a physically impossible to occur within the Earth-Lunar planetary system. Any Earth Scientist with a modicum of planetary science training knows that. So why is it in official European government reports and recited here on Crikey as anything but outlandish fear mongering.
Now we have the totally crazy idea that America must cut emissions 100% by 2020.
Come on, this is simply not physically possible. But it’s offered up as some sort of serious comment about climate science when it’s simply never going to happen.
This debate has become infested with agenda politics of Hamilton, Milne and Keane and the rest of the doomsters; and the science, technology and economics of the debate appear to be the least critical part when it comes to talking about real solutions. And that applies to all sides of the debate. Just because Barnaby Joyce is totally off his rocker doesn’t hand a license to Hamilton and co to be just as stupid in reply. Hamilton and co are meant to be educated professionals with a sophisticated cross disciplinary understanding of the world. Instead they are the mirror to the nutty denialists.
And of course this was meant as a spray, a rant, a primal scream against the planet of doom that we are offered up as the only future.
Personally I have far more faith in our real world responses and that the planet will respond appropriately to the imbalances we are introducing.
But as far as I can tell the debate has basically ended and there are now three camps. The denialists, the doomsters and the realists.
In the meantime, Hamilton is spruiking the climate revolution underground as our only option to avoid the end of planet Earth. Intellectually and ethically that’s just middle class junk politics and will achieve nothing but piss off the bulk of the population who will happily leave tomorrow’s problems to tomorrow to solve as we have done for thousands for years.
With age comes conservatism, and then finally capitulation. Is this objective analysis of the scientific evidence eg safety zone of 350 parts per million of greenhouse equivalent gases, or just another variation on human domination w*nk?
Keep it going champ, bargaining with physics, telling physics to stop being impertinent, that everything is relative like your social status, effectively implying the IPCC is a social construct, and that because you sold out, it must be okay, OK?
Didn’t you listen to the Bob Dylan lyric back in the day - a highway of diamonds with nobody on it? You’re not on it, but here’s the thing champ - it’s not news.
Tom there is no capitulation. But just for the record can you detail five substantive reduction actions that you are willing to sign human civilization up to.
Shall we shoot the global population of bovines first. Or close every second coal power station in China and America. You can choose the first 10 cities in China. I’ll take the next 10 cities in America. Gotta spread that moral hazard around. Better still let’s just exterminate half the human population - shall we do it by letter or age. You can choose.
Clive Hamilton is not the IPCC - he is a paid lobbyist with a political agenda spruiking a political revolution that will end in violence and economic collapse.
Sorry I’m way too young for Bob Dylan. So try another lyric maker for your poetic arrow.
Simon, you must be very young (at least, in the head). Tom and I don’t see eye to eye on everything, but I bet you that we do on at least one, and that is, that glib nonsense is not a valid substitute for analysis and discussion.
You fail to make a positive contribution by playing the man.
Quite likely, your opinions will soften and broaden as you mature… there are many actions available to western civilisations to reduce carbon pollution, eg reduction of useless warfare. Town planning initiatives. Modernisation of building codes. Reduction of (not necessarily elimination of) meat in the diet. Better use of water resources. Reduction of un-necessary travel, especially by air. Use of natural fibres in lieu of synthetic. Reduce/re-use/recycle. Forget trying to grow rice and cotton in Australia. Keep your consumer durables for 20 years instead of four. You know the drill.
Now, Simon, stop being such a wanker and stick with the topic. It matters.
100% carbon reduction might not be your cup of tea or mine, but surely the case for major reduction has been well and truly made and we must, for the sake of the future of this planet, join the effort.
I was going to comment on SM’s “Paragraph after paragraph of assertions that contain not a single objective statement. ” but Guy dun went & dun it.
I did wonder about the US reducing CO2 by 100% by 2020 and assumed it was a typo - meant to be 3020 when we’ll all be using anti-matter to toast our food pills.
My problem with the ecology (as it was once know, waayyy back in the forgotten 60/70s) debate is that most people don’t want their (perceived - as distinct from real) comfort zone changed but can nonetheless see that said zone is causing real problems and someone orta do something ‘bout it. As long as it doesn’t affect my botulburger & cheep-cheep imports.
An old example is the anti whaling protestor, a wearing heavy cosmetic/make-up, soft kid leather gloves & stiff corsetry who drove an automatic car.
Nuke the gay whales and chip the commie trees say I.
Simon, you’re right about one thing, at least. The US is never going to cut its CO2 by 100% by 2020, even if it proves to be necessary. Given this, the fallback position must be CO2 removal of some kind. (what, I don’t know, mass growth of algae in the oceans?) And start building fission reactors *now* if we need them in < 20 years time. Australia doesn't exactly have the technical knowledge for this at the moment.
I just want to leave a reply here to say a big ‘thank you’ for injecting some common sense into the argument.
Though i must say i do enjoy watching Clive Hamilton’s descent into madness. He’s writings from Copenhagen will be nothing but epic.
“His” writings… can we edit previous posts? I guess not.