Companies

Apr 14, 2014

IPCC puts more heat on Abbott’s anti-science climate policies

The IPCC says action on climate change is urgent but affordable. The Abbott government says it will "wait and see", all the while dismantling the mechanisms that could achieve higher targets.

It is probably not what he is doing right now, but Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott should be wondering exactly how long it is that he can continue with his climate change policy charade.

On Sunday, the United Nations climate body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivered the third of its landmark updates on the climate science, impacts and mitigation options. The chief message of Working Group III, the mitigation of climate change, was one of hope: the world still had time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and although this would require a dramatic and urgent decarbonisation of the world’s energy and transport systems, it needn’t actually cost that much.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

14 comments

Leave a comment

14 thoughts on “IPCC puts more heat on Abbott’s anti-science climate policies

  1. wayne robinson

    The Australian republished an article from the Wall Street Journal noting that a warming world will result in fewer deaths due to exposure to the cold (presumably outnumbering the increased number of deaths due exposure to the heat)?

    Is this cognitive dissonance? Remind me again about how many people die in Australia from the cold compared to those who die from the heat.

    If Australians not doing the right thing in mitigating global warming for the sake of the poor in developing tropical countries isn’t an adequate reason, then selfish self-interest should be.

  2. klewso

    Have the Toady Cheerleaders and Wizzers of Oz calculated what proportion – of future GDP – ignorance will eventually cost?

  3. graybul

    The hyperbole of Government . . “our priority is to act in the National interest.” The IPCC Reports unequivocally reveal truth . . and inevitable impact of Climate Change unless fossil fuels are replaced with renewable. Casting this debate in primarily economic terms denies destruction of habitat for all life forms. Humankind has choice . . live for the day or deny future life forms a future. The Abbot Government MUST act in National/World ‘s interest.

  4. zut alors

    Abbott is only interested in saving money in the latest budget, the future cost of climate change is irrelevant. A statesman would consider the consequences of climate change in the long term. Irrefutable proof that Abbott is a mere politician without a sliver of vision or statesmanship in his DNA.

    What I cannot get my head around is why our PM isn’t lip-syncing the USA as our prime ministers have a solid history of being ‘yes’ men/woman to their utterances.

  5. Scott

    @Wayne Robinson

    Check the “Causes of death” release from the ABS. Every year they detail the list of people who have died from various causes, including exposure to heat and cold.

    As most doctors will tell you, it is actually exposure to the cold that kills more people, even in Australia. And the stats don’t lie.

    Between 2007 – 2012, 93 people have died as a result of “exposure to excessive natural heat” in Australia.

    As for those who have died as a result of “exposure to excessive natural cold”, we are looking at 172 over the same period, almost twice as many.

    That said, both are tiny in comparison to the big killers in Australia, like heart disease and cancer.

    That is why climate change doesn’t get a lot of traction in Australia. It’s not on peoples threat screens…and rightly so.

  6. Mark Duffett

    From the above:

    The IPCC says the decarbonisation of the world’s energy system will require a significant increase in renewable energy sources, and in energy efficiency, and a dramatic reduction in annual spending on fossil fuel extraction and burning

    Here’s what the IPCC actually says: “At the global level, scenarios reaching 450 ppm CO2eq are also characterized by more rapid improvements of energy efficiency, a tripling to nearly a quadrupling of the share of zero‐ and low‐carbon energy supply from renewables, nuclear energy and fossil energy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), or bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) by the year 2050” (p. 15 of the summary for policymakers)

    “In the majority of low‐stabilization scenarios, the share of low‐carbon electricity supply (comprising renewable energy (RE), nuclear and CCS) increases from the current share of approximately 30% to more than 80 % by 2050, and fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased out almost entirely by 2100” (p. 23)

    Spot the difference?

    Nor can it be implied that the reproduced graph somehow indicates the IPCC position as given by Parkinson. From its caption: “Proximity to (the) median value does not imply higher likelihood because of the different degree of aggregation of model results, the low number of studies available and different assumptions in the different studies considered.”

    Despite an IPCC position that is arguably unduly biased to renewables (bravenewclimate.com/2014/04/14/ipcc-double-standards-on-energy-barriers/), Parkinson cannot represent even this correctly. It’s past time Crikey recognised that he is not a disinterested commentator in these matters, and stopped running him as such.

  7. AR

    that has cravingly kowtowed ” probaly, as much as they craved a pat on the head, they also did it “cravenly”, with malice to all and no forethought.

  8. wayne robinson

    Scott,

    I stand corrected. When I was a pathologist, I supervised a post mortem performed by one of my registrars on an elderly woman admitted in Winter one year with hypothermia, thought clinically to be due to overwhelming sepsis.

    ‘Nonsense’ I said ‘it’s been bitterly cold this year. She probably lives in a poorly insulated house. She could also be hypothyroid explaining why she developed hypothermia’ (ironically i was later diagnosed as having profound hypothyroidism, explaining why I didn’t like the cold either).

    Anyway. Cold exposure deaths in Australia are generally in the frail elderly. A cold period increases mortality immediately as some of the elderly die immediately, and also persists in increasing the mortality as some of the elderly, weakened by the cold period, continue to die at a greater rate.

    Heat periods kill immediately and the lethal effects don’t persist after the heat wave.

  9. TheEvilOne

    One can only explain Tony Abbott’s behaviour by strong adherence to 3 ideologies, christofascism of the Catholic variety, unfettered neo-liberal capitalism and hippy punching. The last is especially important, Tony Abbott really really really despises dirty stinking hippies and since doing something against global warming is a dirty stinking hippy issue he has to oppose it. It may be that the dirty stinking hippies are correct and unacceptable climate change is already locked in with inundation of entire nations, mass movement of refugees and consequent wars. But I doubt that Abbott will ever admit that he is wrong, he will blame the dirty hippies for supporting action against climate change and thereby forcing him to oppose it.

  10. Patriot

    doing something against global warming is a dirty stinking hippy issue

    Only to the extent that sitting around doing sweet FA constitutes “doing something against global warming”. Today’s hippies want us all to be unemployed, unambitious bums living in tents/caravans, smoking dope all day and not bothering to bathe or groom ourselves.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...