Apr 15, 2014

The Dirty Dozen: Australia’s biggest climate foes, part 1

Who are the 12 people doing the most to block action on climate change in Australia? With a new government in place, and Australia's emissions stubbornly high, we name and shame a fresh Dirty Dozen ...

Who has been most responsible in recent times for preventing progress in the reduction of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions? The Dirty Dozen — which I originally named in 2006 and updated in 2009 — are the people who have most effectively denied the science of climate change, lied about its implications, lobbied to water down laws, or provided cover for weak policy.

They are doing most to help turn Australia from a reluctant leader into a proud laggard in responding to the most dire threat to the world’s future. Some are well-known — even if their links and tactics are not — while others do their dirty work behind the scenes. Here is my Dirty Dozen for 2014, in no particular order …

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


Leave a comment

31 thoughts on “The Dirty Dozen: Australia’s biggest climate foes, part 1

  1. zut alors

    The title Dirty Dozen Foundation Member sits far more comfortably on Abbott than his desired ‘PM for infrastructure’.

  2. Ken Lambert

    Holy Shit,

    I thought I would have rated above Macca.

    Maybe he could make a baker’s dozen at No 13.

  3. prodigy

    Boer – my family love Macca, so please don’t sweep us up into your generalisation. However, the revelation is concerning. Macca on Gina’s payroll? – I would rather not believe it

  4. David Turner

    I love the ABC but loath and detest Macca , I can’t believe he is still on the Air . False, rude ,ill informed , twat.
    Thank you for outing him , somebody sees things similarly to myself ……relief ….

  5. Rohan

    “Andrew Blot”? A deliberate swipe, or a Freudian slip?

  6. Adrian K

    May be slightly difficult to bring up, but I think the main problem with the anti climate-change lot is.. their Religion.

    This may be the big Elephant in the Room.

  7. beachcomber

    McNamara’s “White Australia All Over” is a revolting waste of public funds. He makes Joe Bullock look progressive and deserves his place in these shame files.

  8. Johnfromplanetearth

    Climate always changes, it’s the arrogance of humans that doesn’t. We’re all just visitors passing through a particularly habitable few seconds in time, and that is all it is folks. In general, humans do better in extreme heat than extreme cold anyway, a lot more of us live around the warm equator than the frigid poles. So it makes sense that global warming wouldn’t be nearly the disaster that, say, a new Ice Age would be. Especially when you take into account the fact that we’ve yet to find crops that like to grow under three feet of ice. A new Ice Age isn’t the stuff of science fiction, either. These cooling periods have happened at least four times that we know about, caused by slight changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun that happen from time to time. It’s never good for humans. Of course, some might call this a draw as we may be trading an Ice Age for living on an overheated desert planet where everyone has to wear suits that make us drink our recycled pee! Name a way to die and most likely colder temperatures increase the odds. Now here comes the freaky part: Scientists don’t know why. One theory is cold temperature puts more strain on virtually every system of the body, and of course the fact that everybody is packed indoors probably helps spread bugs around. Either way, the cold is hard on us humans, so what’s wrong with a milder winter? It’s 2014 and we have 7 billion people living on the Planet pre Putin annihilation. If you’re a farmer in America or Europe, or a multinational conglomerate that owns all the farms, global warming is your friend. As temperatures rise, areas formerly barren, like tundra, will begin to produce vegetation. In addition, increased temps will create longer growing seasons and yields will also benefit from fewer crop-killing freezes. Everybody worries about the future of the rainforest, since we’re chopping it down just as fast as we can run the chainsaws. Plus, alarmists tell us warming changes rainfall patterns and diverts rain away from the equator, scientists have long feared a dryer rainforest would quickly die off. But it looks like the rainforest may be taking care of itself just fine. And by take care of itself we don’t mean “conveniently falling over to make way for a new McDonald’s in Tecoma”

    Warmer temperatures and added nitrogen from acid rain have actually been good for the vegetation in rainforests. And, even weirder, rainforests seem to be doing better with less rain. The theory is that less rain means less cloud cover, and it looks like what the plants lose in water, they gain in direct sunlight. There’s a pretty good chance that this simply means we’ll work to chop it down faster. Humans have hacked away about 20 percent of the rainforest to make room for grazing cows we can turn into hamburgers for McDonald’s, and we’re still wiping out about 1,000 square kilometres a month. So global warming may help the rainforests recover faster, humanity usually just takes that sort of thing as a challenge.

    The Greens of course are much more than an environmental party. They also promote ‘meaningful and smart solutions’ to ensure that ‘future generations of Australians have clean air, clean water and clean soil’.
    Perfect you say. I get it now. Taxing people is pretty smart if you can make people believe that they are actually helping save the environment by being taxed.

    The Greens tell us ‘We have only 10-15 years to use our collective human intelligence to address the crisis of climate change and to prevent catastrophe.’ And what do we mean by ‘catastrophe’. Is that like ‘catastrophic extinction of the silver-crested red-bellied Great Emperor butterfly’?

    The Greens also want to ‘Support the right of people from the age of 16 years to vote’ Yep, they want to lower the age of voting. 16 year olds don’t even know what good music is, who they are as a person, or how to drink responsibly, let alone vote in an election. 16 year olds usually care about politics as much as I care about the career of Michael Bolton. Although I can clearly see the Greens’ logic in this, because young people are stupid, and thus several times more likely to vote for whatever seems alternative at the time.
    Maybe we should start building that gigantic rocket ship and move to Kepler-186f?

  9. AR

    John – OD on cheap chocolate did you? Gotta watch that stuff, full of additives.

  10. fractious

    @ 28

    5 dense paras of urban myths, fiction posing as “common sense” and anti-science, and not a single reference. Your internet moniker would constitute an offence had the Commerce (Trades Descriptions) Act extended to internet pseudonyms.

Leave a comment

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