We will decide how our climate changes and the circumstances in which it changes
|
I hate those little memes that political journalists run where they use one politician to describe another, usually with some qualification. Like Kevin Rudd = Tony Blair or Tony Abbott = John Howard. Except when I use them, when of course they’re far more nuanced and evocative, a feat normally achieved by using a more obscure, and preferably American, politician as comparator. Nonetheless, Tony Abbott has been doing his level best to give substance to the John Howard comparison, dipping into the Howard-era lucky dip of greenhouse handouts for his climate change policy, and dog-whistling to the right-wing conspiracy theorists with an unfilmed meeting with Chris Monckton. As an aside, Abbott is a far more interesting and engaging political figure when he strays out of the Howard shadow – Battlelines, for example, is best when it leaves Howard behind on issues like federalism. Abbott said when he launched that book that the Howard Government’s success was peculiar to its time, a lesson he appears to have either forgotten or changed his mind about. Abbott has a very changeable mind, and that’s not always a bad thing. There was an interesting observation offered by an anonymous Coalition figure during the early moments of the Hanson phenomenon; to wit “Hanson’s a bigger problem for Beazley than she is for us.” That turned out to be one the less insightful observations of modern Australian history, as One Nation proceeded to wreak havoc on the conservative vote and deprive the conservatives of office in Queensland, a situation that remains unrectified many years later. Now of course we have a new version of Hansonism, in climate denialism, and the same observations are being made – that this is a problem for Labor, not the Coalition. And maybe that’s right. Or maybe not. We’ll see. For years the consensus has been that Hansonism, or rather Hansonites, One Nation voters or those tempted to vote One Nation, were mishandled by the mainstream media, which insisted on mocking them and their red-headed leader, when in fact it was a cry for help from a demographic group struggling to cope with a decade and a half of economic reform – older blue-collar workers and members of regional communities that had seen economic opportunity swing away from them and their neighbours, off to newer classes and new forms of economic activity. It wasn’t until after the Tampa and September 11 that these people decided Howard - hitherto associated with aggressive economic reform - really was one of them, and swung back behind him. Even as Pauline Hanson was declaring the Americans might take a long hard look at themselves, her followers, the geriatric army she’d assembled, was turning to Howard – whom they’d derided only a couple of years earlier as “Jackboots Johnny Howard” for his gutsiest and most important reform, the gun control laws. Howard became their Lord Protector, with a sword of righteousness in one hand and a cricket bat in the other, ready to smite the swarthy who had designs on coming here, either to enjoy or destroy our way of life. I’ve always thought Hansonism-as-economic-reform-fatigue was a convincing analysis, but I wonder if climate denialism demonstrates a basic flaw in that thesis. The geriatric army is on the march again, and it’s the same crowd as One Nation (and for that matter the same crowd as the monarchists get). What are they objecting to in the climate change thesis? It won’t affect them, for the most apart. Moreover, doing something about climate change won’t affect them either – they’ll all be compensated. There’s no economic plea for help here. It’s simple, arbitrary crankiness. The crankiness of older, conservative, Anglo-Celtic, lower and middle-income people who grew up in an era when people like them ran things – everything from the corner shop to the Government. What they’re really angry about is that they’re no longer in control. The opening of the economy in the ‘80s and ‘90s began the shift of economic control out of their hands, off into international markets and faceless overseas investors, aided and abetted by politicians who insisted that market forces be allowed to hold sway, that “the markets” prevented them from doing what politicians used to do – prop up local industries and provide gold-plated infrastructure regardless of the cost. Pauline Hanson articulated — to the extent she could be ever said to have articulated anything — their fury at this rebalancing of their economic world. Now, for these people, climate change is the ultimate insult. The idea that the climate is changing affronts their control-centred world-view. And it’s entirely international in flavour – all that filthy Chinese carbon coming here – and the solution is even worse – more markets, more international activity. That’s why they simply refuse to accept it, like they refused to accept the immigration might be economically beneficial, or that economic reform had made Australians richer. There’s no reasoning with such people, because no one can give them what they really want, the sense of control and order they grew up with. The world has changed. Only the people trying to claim it hasn’t get listened to. Spare a thought, then, for Warren Truss and the Nationals, who face the same problem that they faced a decade ago all over again – a large and disaffected segment of their base threatening to walk. Like Tim “bucketloads of extinguishment” Fischer, Truss needs to convince these people he’s on their side, or lose his job. Tony Abbott faces a smaller version of the same problem with his blue-rinse base. Howard got lucky, and was gifted (ironically) foreign-sourced mechanisms for luring these people back into the Liberal and National column while not upsetting – indeed, attracting – more mainstream voters. Abbott, who as yet has only a fraction of Howard’s political skills – needs something similar to achieve the same feat. The geriatric army is on the march – and dragging the Coalition with them. |
|
|
|
20 Comments
Old people don’t like change, whether it is climate change or economic change.
The only sort of change they like is loose change.
I enjoyed that immensely.
“a new version of Hansonism, in climate denialism”
“It’s simple, arbitrary crankiness. The crankiness of older, conservative, Anglo-Celtic, lower and middle-income people”
This is embarrassing. Every day Keane says the same thing. Writer’s tic? And Sparrow twitches in unison.
Climate is the Big Issue. Crikey writers are reducing it to a patronising farce. It’s quite clear that serious doubts about the economics, politics and science of AGW have spread throughout the population. The polls say so. To caricature this opposition as composed of Mad Moncktons, Hansonites and Gold Coast geriatrics is false.
Crikey credibility is fraying.
Why no comment on Penny Wong’s bizarre interview on “Lateline” last night for example? She failed to answer the basic question on ETS costs 8 times…This is live, all-consuming politics, yet Keane et al are ignoring it all in favour of ideological rants.
“It’s simple, arbitrary crankiness.”
Let’s dwell on that for a moment: what stunning political insight.
Now I know why Bernard wears lead underpants. Otherwise he’d float away.
The big weakness in your analysis is caused by your unwillingness to acknowledge that the whole push for Australia to do something big about climate change may crumble to insignificance, and to ask how quickly this could happen: before the next election or next year or the year we are now to expect an ETS (the Howard one in 2012)?
1. The biggest reason for expecting a collapse in enthusiasm, except the same sort of collapse which causes viewers to switch off about wars that have been running for years, is that the case for Australia doing something less nominal than its no-deaths-in-action commitment to the Iraq war and actually hurting our economy more than ridiculous subsidies for wind farms and other fashionable follies have done can easily be seen to be hopeless.
2. If you listen to Monckton and consider carefully the contents and impact of the East Anglia/CRU emails you will see where you should be looking to assess where the scientific case is most likely to crumble and faith in the IPCC as purveyor of the science to be lost.
You could look for yourself at the “Missing signature” papers, the “where has the extra CO2 come from” papers, the Svensmark “Chillng Stars” hypothesis, the Ian Wilson et al. long cycles of sun, moon and Jovian planets peer-reviewed work, Linzen & Choi’s paper on the radiative balance, and, above all, the most recent work on cloud cover if you want to do some hard work assisted by your scientist friends.
But merely listening to Monckton with one of his particularly intelligent and well-educated audiences you would get enough to make you less sure that it was OK just to treat climate change policy as a problem only for the Opposition, or, in the end, a problem for the Opposition at all. (Don’t neglect the Monckton points that he claims to take directly from the IPCC’s output, like gross exaggeration of the amount of CO2 that will be in the atmosphere by 2100, and the minimal temperature diminution even if large cuts are made in CO2, which, increasingly obvious to everyone, won’t happen.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Very interesting and in some places spot on. I have an urge to discuss it all in depth but to this ……
“Abbott has a very changeable mind, and that’s not always a bad thing.” ……..
I will start.
Like the mental behaviour of a psychopath where the story and mind change to best serve the ‘me’ and is strongly characterised by a blatant irrelevance of previous stories, statements or ‘minds’ (mindsets) of that individual.
In fact this is the basis of so many journalists’ and others description of Mr Abbott. Do they not know this?
I knew when I heard and watched him reel of that amazing lie to Kerry O’Brien (7.30 Report) about his archbishop which I have described previously.
Psychologists (competent ones) will tell you that the psychopath with brains is the ultimate con man able to get an amazing following (for their deceit) making decent honest men look second rate.
Be conned by a psychopath it’s delicious till you find out in the end your the victim.
There’s a new truth (new science) about the ‘psychopath mental state’ to which the psychiatrists particularly have gone into denial (that’s why you haven’t heard of it) and that is the new statistics about exactly how common it is.
THE BIG TEST - THE BIG BET
How about organising with Betfair or some other such organisation a sweep or other betting arrangement to see who is willing to put their money up on climate change science and policy?
I would happily put $10,000 into the Crikey-Betfair pot to accept bets from those who want to wager that it will still be the policy of either major party in five years time to take expensive measures to reduce CO2 emissions in Australia in order to help lower global temperatures.
To make sure that people are serious there should perhaps be a lower limit of a few hundred dollars on any bet.
Pending proper definition of the criterion for winning or losing I expect from backers of the consensus to be offered odds so I will generously say that it doesn’t have to be better than 5/4 against collapse of the consensus.
I believe in taking money off believers. Pity they may be on my side of politics and otherwise OK, but I couldn’t help myself making a substantial bet that Howard would lose his seat and several other Liberal ones, of which only two were losses for me, Wentworth and Russell Broadbent’s seat (name forgotten), and, of course, on the overall election result.
It’s just that I can’t help taking people’s silly odds. Actually, if you believe with appropriate sincerity in the Rudd side of the “greatest moral issue of our time” you should be willing to offer me 2 to 1 at worst. Can you organise it Bernard?
From the 7.30 report transcript of Kerry O’Brien’s interview of Prof Michael Oppenheimer who was intended, presumably, to balance or squash the rather inadequate representation of Monckton’s case:
“It’s a complicated problem, but that’s what we elect political leaders for, to take the evidence, sort it out and make sensible policy. We don’t elect people to be daunted by scientific complexity.” That was from Oppenheimer. With those views what criticisms would he have of Monckton taking part in a political debate on the subject?
It’s human nature not to want to own a problem and this becomes more acute as we get older. Older people don’t want problems or changes per se, especially something as grand as the planet, so best to ignore it.
Lord Monckton suggest we do nothing but Penny Wong and co propose we do next to nothing (which is about all they can get away with politically). Collectively we aren’t ready to take the medicine involved in addressing the issue so these arguments will go on for many years, until the damage is evident for even the most strenuous denier to see.
There is a far more widespread and profound questioning of the Climate Change hypothesis, and the ETS, than Bernard suggests here.
Just look at the business community’s response to the Coalitions policy.
Sections of the business community have immediately swung in behind Abbott, notably the energy and commodities groups, sections, like that led by Heather Ridout, are still backing the ETS, but one senses growing hesitation, and large sections are fence sitting.
Abbott is correct when he says that Kevin Rudd reminds him of John Hewson trying to sell the GST.
Who can forget Mike Willesee questioning Hewson about the cake’s ingredients and the GST impact on the price of the cake overall. Some say that interview saw the “unloseable” election go down the gurglar.
Rudd’s ETS is a train wreck gathering momentum.
Note today’s report of the new BBC poll: a big shift since November( !) in British attitudes to climate change etc.
Throw Possum on that poll and see what he thinks…
Looks like most Brits are suddenly wearing Richie Benaud blazers…
@ Frank & Julius - Just some little questions for you two folks who obviously must live on another planet or perhaps never leaving your basements whilst you troll the internet to deny climate change. Do you believe that human beings have caused environmental destruction anywhere in the world? Do you think that the loss of over 60% of the world’s old growth forests has occurred ‘naturally’? Do you believe that all the pollution that spews forth into the skies every second of every day on every continent bar one has zero effect on our planet? it’s frightening to think that these beliefs are out there , beliefs that, if maintained will see future generations suffer the dire consequences of inaction and perhaps a need to set up Nuremberg like trials to make those responsible accountable. It’s obvious you and your ilk have one major belief and that is in money and the unalienable and at any cost right to make it. sickening….
Alexander: you should read the rest of Crikey before guessing what commenters think, not to mention my 8 or so Crikey articles last year on Black Sat. and forest policy etc. So to save you the trouble I’ll copy my post last nite on Sparrow’s rant. Sparrow and Keane are indistinguishable on this topic so it’ll go here just as well.
I’d also be pleased to compare our respective environmental credentials, Alex, not to mention “carbon footprints”. I’m touched by your concern for forests, speaking of which- this morning I turned on the TV and my heart sank: there was Christine Milne banging on about AGW, the only issue recognised by parliamentary Greens. My partner and I knew Milne slightly in the mid-90s in Hobart and admired her, and of course we voted Green (still do). The Cult has a lot of trees to answer for.
“J. Bennetts/Andrew Glikson:
You’re missing the point.
(i) “There is a fundamental difference between polls and science.” There sure is. I wouldn’t so crass as to suggest otherwise. They’re two unrelated things. I’m talking about the political failure of AGW and its proponents. Political failure means that nothing effective can be done about AGW. I’d have thought AGW proponents would be very interested in that. “Where have we gone wrong?”, “who is to blame?” That mob of geriatric Tweed Heads RSL dickheads, or anglo-celts, or Lord Planckton the feral amoeba? Or maybe Keane, Sparrow and Glassjaw Guy aren’t wanking in harmony- the vibes are all wrong? Get some new apologists…Or is it the selfish, gluttonous SUV proletariat?Or is Big Oil greasing the arses of dissident Bumcrack scientists?
Can’t you see how myopic and self-serving all these arguments are? Of course many denialists are just as devoted to the Cult as you are; I’m not even a denialist, contrary to your prejudicial assumption. You’re two sides of the same sect. You are both toxic and dangerous. AGW alarmism and fraud have pissed off the population. Period. Incompetent and damaging AGW economics (ETS, wind turbines…)have pissed off the population. Period. The failure to develop baseload powergen means whatever is done to reduce emissions is farcical- the pink batt and lightbulb mentality.The tossmopolitan solution is in hand…Your political and economic incompetence has led to gross neglect of environmental degradation. This has pissed off the population. Period.
And now your incompetence is handing power to the most repulsive elements in this country (and every other country): why do you think we have a Neanderthal bully like Abbott running the Libs? Why do you think unbeatable Rudd is looking strained- and why is he tip-toeing to the climate change exit?
(ii) “By their own admission those in denial confirm theirs is a war against science, conducted by reference to popular opinion, which is in itself misled by denialists, thus forming a closed loop.” : The only closed loop here is your tautology.
The war is ABOUT science. The climate modellers (scientists?) went to war to protect their hypothesis. It was a dirty war. Read the evidence. All of it. And learn to distinguish between the denialist sect and sceptics. Your incompetence and hubris created all those vile trolls. The AGW cult trumpeted Armageddon. But remember, denialists are not your opposition. Your opposition is now the very populace that you needed to convince. Yet all AGW propagandists can do is patronise and demean those you need most. Too late. You’ve blown it.
What will happen now? Spin, fudging and fakery from social democrat parties everywhere, as they try to disguise their retreat. Expect more sops to AGW like the entire new Lib policy (a handful of trees, a bit of this and that, while their clients rip out the forest). It’s late, maybe I’ll make some more predictions tomorrow, if you ask nicely…”
@frank - vegan, organic food, revegetator, cyclist, solar & wind powered, home grown food, frugal living. As for AGW - deforestation, air pollution, nuclear waste, barren landscapes from monoculture & animal industries - did mother nature do all this or glorified monkeys?
Are you saying Alex that you’re all of those things- vegan etc etc? And I don’t comprehend the next bit- are you saying AGW is responsible for deforestation, nuclear waste etc? You’ve lost me…
@ Alexander Berkman
You have a serious problem for someone who believes in a cause and wishes to persuade others. That is your total inability to listen to others. You are like some Muslim trying to convert devout Christians who starts by accusing them of denying the existence of God.
Specifically, when you impute views to me which are implicit in the following, you are conjuring from your imagination or blind prejudice the complete opposite of my views:
“…troll the internet to deny climate change. Do you believe that human beings have caused environmental destruction anywhere in the world? Do you think that the loss of over 60% of the world’s old growth forests has occurred ‘naturally’? Do you believe that all the pollution that spews forth into the skies every second of every day on every continent bar one has zero effect on our planet? “
One of the less insulting diagnoses of your condition as disclosed by that performance is that you may be so young that I was actually conducting campaigns on such environmental issues before you were born!
Let me spell out for you, perhaps exhibiting the triumph of hope over experience, that there is not just “environmental destruction” caused by humans over most of the world, starting in Australia with the wiping out of the megafauna and the man-fired assistance to the eucalypts and acacias, inter alia, to take over from the origiinal flora, continuing with such excesses as the devastation of forests throughout Europe, the destruction of several horse species in North America, the near wiping out of the buffaloes in the United States, but continuing destruction which most of us would want to stop like the burning of forest in Indonesia to allow for the production of biofuelss and the destruction of Amazonian forest to make way for cattle (inevitably short term as the soil is very poor unlike the volcanic soil in Indonesia or PNG).
On the pollution spewing out every second of every day I note just some of the most notable.
The fluorohydrocarbons which have been the subject of one of the most encouraging examples of worldwide co-operation were destroying the ozone in the upper atmosphere or stratosphere which is a major part of our protection against excessive UV radiation.
Acid rain was a problem for northern hemisphere forests, notably in Scandinavia, from memory - a bit vague (because I had no part in any relevant campaign) - but now seems to have ceased to be a worry. Acid rain, from memory, was/is a product of burning coal and oil with a high suphur content which results in the production of sulphuric acid.
Lead poisoning in and around Whyalla and other sites of lead smelters.
Particulates which make life close to heavy traffic likely to be shorter; diesel fuel seems to be the worst problem now that petrol is generally lead free.
But you are perhaps one of those who have little enough regard for science to regard carbon as a pollutant. Of course it can be in some forms in some places - carbon being able to take the form of diamonds and graphite amongst others which can be noxious. Carbon of course is an essential part of perhaps 90 per cent of the material things which are important to us and CO2 is a necessary part of the process by which most carbon is used to our ultimate benefit. That is not to say that there might not be too much CO2 emitted from burning coal and other hydrocarbons. But to determine that question, which is partly one of economics, and partly a question of whether you care whether Chinese, Indians and African poor people should be able to improve their present standard of living, you have to find out how far the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere affects global temperature, regional variations, and how all that works out in its effects on human beings, not necessarily including only Australians.
May I now hope that you will reconsider the value of rhetorical outbursts which have no relation to facts, and, moreover no relation to facts which were staring at you if you chose to read what others had just written.
********************
Now I see you have referred to revegetation. As I have been planting trees, mostly native Australian and mostly indigenous to the areas where they are planted for my whole adult life and they now amount to many thousands I hope you are doing as well. Though I have a much loved close relation who is vegetarian I am unaware what particular virtue attaches to vegans. I live frugally, and always have - judged by the comments of friends and relations - and I note that eating organic food is not frugal unless, perhaps, it is all grown by yourself. I am quite keen to use solar and wind power but it is so expensive, including expensive to the environment…. (I don’t just mean the resources and CO2 that go into building windpower systems but the damage to the heritage. I have signed a petition against a wind power development which threatens important aspects of a major asset listed and protected by my state’s Heritage body).
As to nuclear waste - from medical waste to spent nuclear cores from power stations - I’m afraid that is just one of the problems of modern people wishing to live better and longer than hunter gatherers, multiplied by *the* big problem.
The big problem that we are unwilling to do anything serious which would help the poorest countries in the world curb their population growth.
frank you mentioned respective carbon footprints -i was using those as an example of what i’ve done to reduce mine as best as possible -goign vegan being what I feel the # 1 thing, as for AGW -it is come about as a result of all the human destruction.
Bernard is right that the important beliefs in the climate change debate have nothing to do with the climate, or scientific observations of it. It is about whether you feel you have to choose from a range of options for the future you probably don’t like, but which are going to happen whether you like them or not,or whether by political action you can somehow force a nice option to appear. Perhaps even a nice future with limitless fossil fuels, infinite natural resources and a climate which is impervious to human action - you just need to vote for it.
Thankyou Bernard ,some of the comments in your article resonated with my own observation .
I should really like to hear the results of any survey that Hugh Mackay may have conducted on community attitudes to this situation that faces us all.
And, unfashionably, I agree with Kevin Rudd :’the greatest moral crisis” is a fair description.
We so want everything to be OK and normal that we will settle for reassurance evry time.
@ Barbara Boyle
Allow me to suggest an alternative pop-psych approach to your
“We so want everything to be OK and normal that we will settle for reassurance evry time.”
We would seriously like not to die, especially not in the next 10 or 20 years while we are enjoying ourselves and want to help those we care about. But we don’t seek reassurance by imagining ourselves immortal or impregnable. Rationally and sensibly we remember that death is inevitable and won’t hurt us when it is over so we might as well get on with living while only doing some fairly obvious things for our health which have almost no conceivable negative results on a cost-benefit analysis. (I may not like cutting down on butter but it is at worst a minimalist negative). The equivalent rational view is that Australia can do b-all to affect climate or global warming so we shouldn’t spend money or hobble money making (and taxpaying) industries when the cost is our reduced ability to pay for first class health care for all Australians or for better universities etc. etc.