Global Warming / Climate Change scam

Author Topic: Global Warming / Climate Change scam  (Read 193406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Australia must lead climate fight
« Reply #40 on: July 03, 2008, 10:42:44 AM »
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/07/03/1214950955530.html?feed=fairfaxdigitalxml

PETER HARTCHER POLITICAL EDITOR


AUSTRALIA will suffer more from climate change than any other developed nation and must take the lead in global action to tackle the problem, Professor Ross Garnaut will argue in his report today.

The report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is designed to illuminate the costs of inaction. It is expected to find that global warming is proceeding faster than projected, and that doing nothing will be far more costly than expected.

Like the report by Britain's Sir Nicholas Stern, the Garnaut research is designed to raise public awareness. It is the first of several documents that will enable the Government to design systems to cut emissions.

The Opposition is arguing that Australia should not cut emissions before other countries because this would needlessly punish households and industry.

But Professor Garnaut's report will make a strong case for Australia to be at the forefront of international action to reduce emissions from carbon-based fuels and to stem the felling of carbon-absorbing trees.

Professor Garnaut, an economist from the Australian National University, will list three reasons why Australia will suffer more than any other rich economy.

First, because Australia is hotter and drier, small variations in temperature will have a bigger effect.

Second, because Australia is in a region that contains some of the most vulnerable, poor countries in the world, such as Indonesia and the small states of the South Pacific, it can expect to be affected by their problems.

Third, because the structure of the economy means that export prices will be punished severely by the climate-related slowdown in poor countries.

And the Garnaut report is expected to make the case for Australia to act urgently, even if big developing nations such as China and India do not.

Inaction would in effect be a veto on action by poor nations, Professor Garnaut argues.

The reason is that the existing global framework for dealing with climate change, the Kyoto Protocol, enshrines the principle that developed countries must move first. There can be no real progress in having developing countries make binding commitments to cut emissions until developed nations do the same, the report will argue.

"The task is to make it clear that the developed countries have gone beyond blocking," Professor Garnaut has said previously.

Sir Nicholas has expressed disappointment that the media has focused on a single number in his report, published in October, that the effects of climate change could cut economic output by 20 per cent a year from current levels by 2050 if no action was taken.

Professor Garnaut will go to lengths to emphasise that there are four categories of likely damage to the economy.

Today's report, a draft whose final version is due in September, will quantify only one of these, the conventional macroeconomic cost that can be estimated by economic modelling.

The second category will be the effect on particular aspects of the country. For example, Professor Garnaut has commissioned research into the medical consequences of climate change, including deaths from heat stress.

The third category will be the cost of mitigating the effects of global warming.

The fourth will be a survey of how climate change affects things Australians value for more than just economic reasons - the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, the inundation of the Kakadu wetlands, and the loss of the West Australian karri forests, for instance.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a791365692~db=all~order=page

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 42, Issue 4 April 2008 , page 350   ;D
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Selling climate plan pain
« Reply #42 on: July 03, 2008, 11:51:40 AM »
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23965355-7583,00.html

Dennis Shanahan | July 04, 2008


TODAY the real debate for the Rudd Government on climate change and an emissions trading scheme begins. At the National Press Club in Canberra, Ross Garnaut will release the report he was commissioned to produce on options for carbon trading.

We already know Garnaut's economic assessment will include options that are comprehensive and drastic, as well as dire warnings of cataclysmic climate events if nothing is done.

The Garnaut report will set benchmarks and scenarios in the public mind and define the debate on emissions trading and which industries should be excluded from a cap and trade system of carbon credits.

For the Government, which doesn't release its early response until later this month, the policy and political challenge will be to set its own parameters and avoid being driven by policy extremes on the one hand and populist pressures on the other.

The public is sick of hearing from both ends of the argument. People don't want ideology; that's why they were convinced not to vote for John Howard. Neither do they want simplistic, short-term solutions, and that's why they have turned off initial enthusiasm for petrol excise cuts. They want leadership, from anyone, on anything. Of course, the biggest challenge is to get the economics right. Apart from the inevitable price rises as energy costs increase, a misstep on an emissions trading scheme could have unintended consequences that damage industry and cost workers their jobs.

Just look at the Howard government overhang on forestry tax breaks. There, Liberal and Nationals senators are joining the Australian Greens in the Senate to send legislation (which had already passed) to a committee, where amendments are almost inevitable, to protect agricultural land from investors who are after tax breaks.

Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan are fully cognisant of the tremendous challenge they face in introducing an emissions trading scheme by 2010 in remarkably different economic circumstances to those that existed when they promised to do so last year. For Rudd, the emissions trading schemes could do for him what the GST did for Howard, on so many levels.

Of late, voter satisfaction with the Prime Minister has dropped markedly, falling 17 percentage points in Newspoll since his peak of 71 per cent in April to 54 per cent, which leaves his satisfaction only five or six points ahead of Howard's satisfaction rating when the latter lost government last year. Qualitative polling suggests the public prefers Rudd to stick to his original characterisation of being new and having fresh, big ideas. The biggest issue with which he was identified was the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and commitment to an emissions trading scheme to fight global warming through cutting greenhouse gases.

The latter-day impression of a leader bogged down in micro-management and distracted by various foreign policy initiatives appears to have cost Rudd popular support.

It may be only the failure of the public to be attracted to Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson and the Coalition as alternatives that is preventing a bigger fall in Labor support.

After suffering early wobbles in his first term, Howard picked up tax reform, something with which he was long identified. He floated the GST after a softening up on the need for tax reform and fought the 1998 election arguing for a new tax. That this was the election Labor leader Kim Beazley came closest to winning with a majority of the popular vote in two-party preferred terms is testament to the hazards of adopting such a strategy.

Yet, in the longer term, after arguing against some of his own constituency on national gun reform and implementing a GST, Howard won respect from the electorate for "doing the right thing". Howard's future wins were all grounded on a record of making hard decisions in the national interest while protecting families and jobs. People didn't like him but they respected him. Rudd is liked, but he has to win respect.

For Howard, tax reform was a theme without a great deal of charisma but it was one that was recognised in the timber seats of Tasmania, Victoria and NSW in 2004 and flowed through to the credibility of Howard and Peter Costello as superior economic managers.

When it comes to pushing hard decisions - not the confected, so-called tough decisions of the budget that Labor is using to cover its drop in support - Rudd lacks a theme.

An emissions trading scheme provides him with an opportunity to reclaim a theme as the young outsider in The Man from Snowy River who faces the perilous plunge and brings home the climate colt that got away.

It won't be easy, but that's the point and the test. People will applaud the descent with hairy-nosed wombat holes at every step, but they will cool even further if the man in the saddle sits and manages the way down with the least risk.

This is not to suggest some Mark Lathamesque roller-coaster ride without a seat belt but a calculated risk in the national interest that says: This is where I stand in the saddle.

As shown in the Newspoll survey this week on global warming and the ultimate cost of rising petrol, the Gippsland by-election swing against the Government demonstrates that the closer you get to real cost-of-living increases or job security as a result of an emissions trading scheme, the less politically palatable the choices become. In the by-election - which Labor hoped would not be reminiscent of the Whitlam government's Parramatta by-election in 1973, which had an almost exact swing against the government in a Coalition-held seat of 6.6 per cent - the prospect of an emissions trading scheme was sharply delineated from the warm and fuzzy feeling of general polling.

In a Newspoll this week, people overwhelmingly said they supported an emissions trading scheme to fight global warming and most said they'd pay higher prices to do so. But when it came to paying higher petrol prices to pay to fight global warming, the public was divided. There was no division in Gippsland when it came to the electoral booths affected by brown-coal mining - that is the dirtiest coal - because they all voted against Labor, including traditional ALP booths.

The real political challenge for the Government is to convince people whose cost of living and livelihood are affected by inevitable rising prices. They must be convinced the effort is worth the cost, that jobs will be protected and there is compensation for those hardest hit.

This was the retail formula for the introduction of the GST after the public was convinced it was necessary; unpopular but necessary.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Professor Ross Garnaut - Carbon Trading (Tax) Scheme Draft Report
« Reply #43 on: July 03, 2008, 09:11:07 PM »
Draft Report to be released today at the National Press Club in Canberra

Full National Press Club Address (38 mins) - http://www.vimeo.com/1285371
Q & A (19 mins) - http://www.vimeo.com/1285424


The Garnaut Review released its Draft Report on 4 July, 2008.

http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/garnautreport.pdf

Sky News: Professor Ross Garnaut draft report - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZMb1oA-Qak


In-depth coverage and analysis at The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/index/0,25201,5017586,00.html


The Draft Report describes the methodology that the Review is applying to evaluation of the costs and benefits of climate change mitigation; to the application of the science of climate change to Australia; to the international context of Australian mitigation, and to Australian mitigation policy.

The Report is a stage in the journey toward the Final Report at the end of September 2008.

It follows the Interim Report and the Discussion Paper on the emissions trading scheme released in February 2008 and March 2008 respectively.

The Draft Report generally does not make recommendations, although the tendency of policy analysis is clear. It is closest to recommendations on the design features of the emissions trading scheme, which require business and community discussion of the issues before the completion of the Final Report.

Government climate report coming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzX5RYjwB_8

Garnaut urges emissions trading scheme 'without delay'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sme1vMMMP8



Main points of the Garnaut Report

• By 2050, unmitigated climate change on middle of the road outcomes would mean major declines in agricultural production across much of the country, including a 50 per cent reduction in irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin.

• By 2100, irrigated agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin would decline by 92 per cent.

• Early economic modelling results of readily measurable unmitigated climate change for middle of the road outcomes on temperatures and decline in rainfall – indicate that climate change would wipe off around 4.8 per cent of Australia’s projected GDP, around 5.4 per cent of projected household consumption, and 7.8 per cent from real wages by 2100.

• Professor Garnaut says: “Australia would be hurt more than other developed countries by unmitigated climate change, and we therefore have an interest in encouraging the strongest feasible global effort. We are running out of time for effective global action, and it is important that we play our full part in nurturing the remaining chance.”

• Prof. Garnaut reiterates his support for an emissions trading scheme to cover as many sectors as practicable.

• The Draft Report advocates the full auctioning of emissions permits and the return of all revenue to households and business.

• The Report proposes that half the proceeds from the sale of all permits is allocated to households, around 30 per cent provided for structural adjustment needs for business (including any payments to TEEIIs), and the remaining 20 per cent allocated to research and development and the commercialisation of new technologies.

• The Draft Report states that it would be in Australia’s interest to find out as soon as possible whether there can be a low-emissions future for coal, and to support rapid deployment of commercially promising technologies.

• Professor Garnaut said that he supported the phase-out of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, once the unconstrained ETS was fully operational.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Professor Ross Garnaut - Carbon Trading (Tax) Scheme Draft Report
« Reply #44 on: July 03, 2008, 09:16:33 PM »
Emissions scheme 'to change behaviour'

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23967512-29277,00.html

THE whole objective of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) is to change people's behaviour and it should apply to as many sectors as possible, including transport and fuel, the head of the former government's emissions task group says.

But Peter Shergold, former secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, said even a carbon price of $20 or $30 a tonne would have a relatively modest impact on fuel prices, compared with price hikes so far this year.

Speaking ahead of the release later today of the Garnaut report on emissions trading, he said his report argued Australia needed to move forward with deliberation to set up an ETS in 2011 or 2012.

But the welfare group the Brotherhood of St Laurence warns that even a comparatively low price of $25 a tonne for carbon emissions could have a harsh impact on low income earners.

Opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull warns the Government would be hard-pressed to get its ETS up and running by 2010 as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised.

Today, climate change economist Professor Ross Garnaut, commissioned by states and territories and Labor while in opposition, releases his report.

Dr Shergold's task group, commissioned by the former government, released its report in June last year. He today said this was all about introducing a new system for the next half century.

"What the emissions task group said last year was look, this is about changing behaviour and the way you change behaviour is, obviously, making industries and households more energy conscious," Dr Shergold told ABC Radio.

He said he believed as many sectors should be included in an ETS as administratively possible, including transport.

"Having said that, even if you had a price of $20-$30 a tonne on carbon, it would have only a relatively small impact on fuel price compared with what has happened in the 14 months since I handed in that report."

Brotherhood of St Laurence climate researcher Damien Sullivan said many of the costs of a price on carbon would be passed on to ordinary people and there needed to be a scheme for compensating those on low incomes.

"When the costs are passed on, low incomes households will be disproportionately impacted by the emissions trading scheme. That is because a higher proportion of their weekly expenditure is on goods and services with a higher carbon content," he told ABC Radio.

Mr Turnbull said the Howard Government had been advised it would be difficult to get a well-designed scheme up and running by 2012.

"Kevin Rudd, in the election campaign, wanted to prove he was more green than the green, so he said, I'll start it by 2010," he said.

"He'll push ahead with this and we run the risk of having a scheme that goes off half-cocked.

"It is more important to get the emissions trading scheme right than to get it started in 2010."

University of Melbourne climate policy expert Peter Christoff said a scheme should include a firmly regulated cap.

"Secondly ... this scheme needs to cover as many sectors as possible, rather than simply just being confined, say, to electricity production."

Dr Christoff said all permits should go to a full market auction rather than be handed out at nominal price or free to various producers.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Professor Ross Garnaut - Carbon Trading (Tax) Scheme Draft Report
« Reply #45 on: July 03, 2008, 10:21:33 PM »
No mercy for dirty power, says Garnaut's climate report

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23966376-601,00.html

Lenore Taylor and Adele Ferguson | July 04, 2008


REGIONS hardest hit by the new emissions trading regime would win government handouts and industries investing in clean power would be rewarded, but the landmark Garnaut report on climate change rules out compensating coal-fired power stations.

In his much-anticipated report to federal and state governments, to be made public today, Ross Garnaut will canvass "structural adjustment" compensation for regions such as the La Trobe Valley in Victoria and the Hunter Valley in NSW.

But as Kevin Rudd last night warned of "consequences for the nation" for tackling climate change, big business flagged an impending disaster if the federal Government recommends carbon pricing without compensation toemitters and no transitional arrangements.

Transfield Services chairman Tony Shepherd yesterday warned the Australian electricity market could face an Enron-type collapse and predicted five years of economic growth would be wiped from the economy if the Rudd Government accepted the Garnaut report without transitional arrangements.

And Australian National University economist Warwick McKibbin, a Reserve Bank board director, predicted Australia would suffer significantly greater economic losses than other countries if it signed up to international trading of carbon permits under a Kyoto-based system of targets and timetable.

Professor Garnaut's 600-page report, handed to the Government on Monday, will provide detailed analysis of how climate change will affect the Australian economy and what should be done to combat the issue.

It will assess the creation of an emissions trading scheme, which will allow polluters who cannot meet greenhouse gas reduction targets to buy carbon permits. However, it will not contain specific targets for emission cuts ahead of Treasury modelling that will inform Professor Garnaut's final report in late September.

His latest report will recommend against compensating for coal-fired power stations hit by the Government's new ETS, due to start in 2010.

Despite dire warnings from electricity generators and state premiers about black-outs, bankruptcies and spiralling power bills, Professor Garnaut remains unconvinced by the argument that electricity generators should be compensated for the diminished value of their assets under the new carbon regime.

Other emissions-intensive industries, such as aluminium smelting, are also expected to be hit hard by the ETS. The Rudd Government has not adopted a clear position on the issue, with Climate Change Minister Penny Wong saying only that the Government would address "strongly affected industries" such as power generators.

But last night the Prime Minister said: "We will ensure we provide support to households and business in the transition period on the way through."

In the draft report, Professor Garnaut is expected to recommend the new ETS cover as much of the economy as possible, including the transport sector, and to canvass several options about how it might be phased in.

One option in Professor Garnaut's report will be that the price of carbon could be fixed for a two-year introductory period, until 2012, before a true carbon market kicks in. Another is the offer of assistance for power generators that invest in new technology to lower their emissions, for example carbon capture and storage, coal drying or gasification.

The Rudd Government, which commissioned the report while in Opposition, has set the ambitious goal of introducing an emissions trading scheme by 2010 and will release a more detailed paper on its intentions this month.

The electricity industry made strident representations to Professor Garnaut on the issue of compensation after the release of his interim report in February, but The Australian understands Professor Garnaut remains of the view that all compensation paid should be for actually reducing emissions rather than compensating for so-called "stranded assets".

Energy Supply Association chief executive Brad Page said Professor Garnaut was "confusing two entirely separate issues".

"The issue at stake here is the arbitrary destruction of shareholder wealth through a dramatic change in government policy, which raises questions about sovereign risk, because the policy change could not have been reasonably anticipated," he said. "That is entirely separate from the argument about whether you need extra assistance to bring forward investment in low emission technologies before they become economic in the new carbon market." Some power generators have warned that without compensation they could quickly be rendered bankrupt, and NSW Treasurer Michael Costa, who is seeking to privatise his state's $10billion electricity industry, has urged Professor Garnaut to move away from theory and look at the drastic practical impact of what he is proposing.

Compensation "would be consistent with the democratic norm that just compensation should be provided for acts of government that have significant adverse impacts on a property right", Mr Costa told The Australian through a spokeswoman.

Peter Coates, chairman of giant coal and base metals miner Xstrata Australia, said the ETS would be the most substantial change to the economy in a generation, and the Rudd Government had to ensure it was not too hasty to meet an election promise at business's expense.

"I accept that the Government has made an election promise that by 2010 we have to have this in place but it is a big ask to have everything in place by then. We can't afford to be out there as leaders on this issue and find out that we are by ourselves," he said. "The reality is that we represent 1.4 per cent of global carbon emissions and so we can only be leaders in this, we can't make a difference. It's good to be a leader, but not if it means it causes significant economic damage. We don't want to find ourselves out there as leaders on this and have the rest of the world laughing at us."

But Professor Garnaut's stance is strongly backed by conservationists. Chief executive of the Climate Institute John Connor said "we do not support hand-outs, if anything there should only be hand-ups for new investment in clean energy".

And the Australian Conservation Foundation's Tony Mohr said coal-fired power stations had had a long time to plan for a carbon price. "We shouldn't punish the leading companies who have planned ahead by bailing out companies who have been dragging their heels," he said.

As-yet unreleased modelling by power generators suggests that three out of the four brown-coal power stations in Victoria's Latrobe Valley would close by 2020 and that household power prices would increase by 50 per cent under modest cuts in greenhouse emissions.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Professor Ross Garnaut - Carbon Trading (Tax) Scheme Draft Report
« Reply #46 on: July 04, 2008, 01:17:02 AM »
Cut taxes to soften climate pain: Garnaut report

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23967760-5017586,00.html

Samantha Maiden, Online political editor | July 04, 2008


TAX cuts and welfare reform should be offered to dampen the impact of a new emissions trading scheme, according to the landmark Garnaut climate change report released today.

Kevin Rudd's chief climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, has today urged the Government to pass on the lion's share of revenue raised through the new scheme, which will put a price on carbon emissions when it starts in 2010.

He also warns some of Australia's most celebrated tourist destinations and natural wonders - including the Great Barrier Reef and the wetlands of Kakadu in the Northern Territory - could be lost if action is not taken.

The report paints a bleak picture of the international community's failure to take earlier action on climate change, warning the development of global pacts to create a more level playing field for key Australian industries is an “urgent matter”.

While Professor Garnaut is fighting for the broadest possible ETS, covering as many industries as possible, he also concedes rising petrol prices are already having an impact on consumer behaviour.

Amid warnings that Mr Rudd's 2010 timetable for a new trading scheme is a mission impossible, his report also concedes that “much anxiety” was expressed about the possibility of an unconstrained ETS generating high and unstable prices in the early years.

“While there are substantial advantages in moving directly to the unconstrained operation of the proposed emissions trading scheme in 2010, the review accepts there is a legitimate second best case for a fixed price for permits in the early years,” he states.

Under an ETS, businesses and industries that can not meet mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets will be forced to buy carbon permits to continue polluting. This is likely to drive up the cost of services delivered by any industry bound by the scheme, such as electricity generators.

Professor Garnaut's draft report does not include analysis of specific targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This will be included in his final report, due in September, which will include detail modelling by Treasury on the effects of short- and long-term targets.

Professor Garnaut warns that low-income families will be hit hard by the Prime Minister's decision to introduce an ETS in two years, unless compensation is offered.

“As a general guide, the review has formed the view that around half of the permit revenue should be returned to the household sector, mostly as adjustments to the tax and social security systems that enhance efficiency, with some allocations to promote energy efficiency, especially among low-income earners,” the report states. “There are equity and economic management reasons for concentrating the return of permit revenue on the bottom half of the income distribution.

“This will overcome what would otherwise be regressive income distribution effects of the emissions trading scheme.”

The report also concedes businesses hit hard by the new climate change measures should also secure some compensation.

“The review has formed the view that in the years before there are effective international agreements removing the need for special support for trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries, up to 30 per cent of permit sales revenue could be returned to the business sector as payments to exposed firms, or as a general efficiency-raising reduction in business taxation,” he states.

“About 20 per cent of the permit sales revenue should be allocated to support research, development and the commercialisation of new, low emissions technologies.”
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Professor Ross Garnaut - Carbon Trading (Tax) Scheme Draft Report
« Reply #47 on: July 04, 2008, 08:54:06 AM »


WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Labor's big sell on emissions plan
« Reply #48 on: July 04, 2008, 10:52:13 PM »
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23972000-2,00.html

By Steve Lewis

    * Government to spend big on advertising climate plan
    * Poor should be compensated for extra charges
    * The emission trading scheme explained


THE Rudd Government will unveil an expensive "public education" campaign to try to win support for its carbon emissions trading scheme.

Despite introducing measures to prevent blatant political advertising, the Government is likely to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote the benefits of tackling climate change.

It is understood advertising and public relations firms could be briefed on the campaign as early as Monday.

This could see a national campaign rolled out within weeks, and comes as the Government struggles to educate the public on what a carbon trading scheme will mean.

But it could also leave the Government open to claims that it is raiding the public purse for political purposes - the same claim it made against John Howard.

Federal Cabinet has held numerous meetings to discuss the political consequences of introducing an emissions trading scheme by the time of the next election.

Releasing his Climate Change report yesterday, economist Ross Garnaut warned that the biggest losers under emissions trading would be the poor - and recommended compensation.

Low-income households spend a greater proportion of their income on electricity and petrol, and emissions trading will force up prices of both.

Senior ministers are concerned about a voter backlash once the electorate understands that energy and petrol prices will rise under a new carbon tax.

It is expected the public information campaign will be broad-based, explaining the dire consequences if Australia does nothing to curb damaging greenhouse gases.

One well-placed source said a few advertising agencies had already been sounded out about roles in the campaign.

But the Government will have to tread carefully to ensure it does not breach its own advertising guidelines, unveiled earlier this week by Cabinet Secretary John Faulkner.

Under the rules, the Auditor-General has to sign off on any advertising campaign with a value of $250,000 or more.

Senator Faulkner refused to rule out spending millions of dollars on a climate change campaign when he unveiled the new advertising guidelines on Wednesday.

The Howard government came under attack for spending about $1.6 billion on advertising in its time in power - including more than $100 million promoting WorkChoices.

Labor has vowed to halt blatant political advertising.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline doublethink

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
Re: Labor's big sell on emissions plan
« Reply #49 on: July 04, 2008, 11:14:44 PM »
just imagine how much global warming propoganda is being pumped into the children at school everyday....
its infuriating
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.

Thomas Jefferson - 1787

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Australia's harsh reality: adapt or die
« Reply #50 on: July 04, 2008, 11:18:57 PM »

Rivers run dry … the once-thriving Murray River wetlands at Mildura, Victoria. Under Professor Garnaut's worst-case scenario, the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin could deteriorate to a trickle by 2050. "By 2100, 97 per cent of agricultural production will be lost."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/garnaut-ultimatum-adapt-or-perish/2008/07/04/1214951042626.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1


Phillip Coorey and Stephanie Peatling
July 5, 2008


AUSTRALIANS must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll, economic loss and the eventual destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, the snowfields, Kakadu and the nation's food bowl, the Murray-Darling Basin.

That is the stark ultimatum presented yesterday by Professor Ross Garnaut in the first comprehensive assessment of the impact on the country of climate change.

Arguing that Australia must introduce an emissions trading scheme in 2010 to discourage the use of polluting forms of energy, Professor Garnaut said the more forms of energy encompassed by the scheme, the lower the price rises would be. This included petrol and other transport fuels.

He said the impact on petrol prices would not be as large as that being caused by the present oil shock and argued against compensating motorists at the pump by reducing fuel excise.

Offsetting the price by "a few cents would not destroy the scheme" but "it weakens the message", he said.

His 537-page report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and released yesterday, says: "Climate change is a diabolical policy problem. It is harder than any issue of high importance that has come before our polity in living memory."

He warns that, as well as environmental degradation, taking no action would by the end of the century result in $425 billion being wiped each year from the economy and a reduction in wages of almost 8 per cent.

The report recommends adopting an unconstrained emissions trading scheme from 2010.

This would involve charging high-polluting industries such as coal-fired power stations for each tonne of carbon they emit. They would have to buy permits to emit greenhouse gases and the costs would be passed on to consumers, encouraging them to use less and driving everybody to look for cleaner energy sources.

Professor Garnaut said Australia alone could not have any significant impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions but, unless the developed countries moved first, the polluters in the developing world would not act.

"Any effective remedies lie beyond any act of national will, requiring international co-operation of unprecedented dimension and complexity."

It would be delusional to argue for a delay based on scientific uncertainty and only cost more in the long run.

He criticised the lack of action by the Howard government, saying it should have moved years ago and that Australia had given the US an excuse to do nothing.

The Government will respond on July 16 with a green paper that will indicate for the first time the shape of the scheme it proposes.

The Garnaut report recommends starting the scheme in 2010 but gives an option that would allow a transition to a full scheme in 2013. If there were a transition period, the Kyoto Protocol would define Australia's emissions reduction target and permits would be sold at a low, fixed price. These years would be used to pursue effective international global agreements.

#But the Government is unlikely to opt for a delay and will probably start the scheme in 2010, an election year. Sources told the Herald there were ways to soften the immediate impact of the scheme, such as setting a low initial target to reduce carbon emissions. This would result in a low carbon price and only small increases to energy and consumables.

The report warns that current high prices will create political difficulties.

"The emissions trading scheme is likely to be introduced into an environment of recent and perhaps continuing large increases in fuel, electricity and fuel prices - precisely the goods and services whose prices will be affected most by the scheme," it says.

The price increases caused by the scheme will be lower than those being caused by current factors, but consumers will not know what is causing what.

"Households will not be able easily to distinguish between the varying sources of price increases, while agitators against the scheme will be busy spreading disinformation," the report says.

The Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, said the report "makes it absolutely clear that the time for playing short-term political games is over".

She backed Professor Garnaut's recommendation that all the billions to be raised by auctioning permits should be returned as compensation.

"Every cent of revenue that we gain through the introduction of an emissions trading scheme will be invested to ensure we assist families, households and Australian businesses to adjust to the impact of a carbon price," Senator Wong said.

The report recommends half the money should go to those on low incomes through tax cuts or social security payments.

Another 30 per cent would go to industries disadvantaged against unconstrained international competitors, and 20 per cent would be invested in developing and commercialising low-emissions technology.

Professor Garnaut said bipartisan support was essential.

But the Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, demanded yesterday it be delayed by at least a year so it was not botched.

He repeated that the impact on petrol prices should be offset by a reduction in petrol excise because "$1.70 a litre is a significant price signal for the average Australian motorist".

"To further increase taxes as a result of climate change policies without some other kind of off-set is something that will be opposed by the Opposition".

Professor Garnaut says that in the next 20 years climate change will affect Australia in familiar ways - longer, drier periods, with city people forced to cope with water rationing and country people worried about the ability of the land to remain productive.

But then it will get much worse, he warns. By 2050 the snowfields will be all but gone and the Great Barrier Reef will barely be hanging on.

By the end of the century the Murray-Darling Basin will have collapsed as a food-producing region and people will be moving away. "By 2100, 97 per cent of agricultural production will be lost."

Professor Garnaut said climate change held a serious threat to tourism. "With unmitigated climate change, on the basis of the mainstream science, we won't have much, if any, of the Great Barrier Reef, of Kakadu, of a number of our great environmental assets that are important attractions for international tourists."
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #51 on: July 04, 2008, 11:24:12 PM »
TV screen gas 'worse than coal'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/flat-tv-alert/2008/07/03/1214950997795.html


Ian Sample in London
July 4, 2008


THE rising demand for flat-screen televisions may have a greater impact on global warming than the world's largest coal-fired power stations, a leading environmental scientist has warned.

Manufacturers use a greenhouse gas called nitrogen trifluoride to make the televisions. As the sets have become more popular, annual production of the gas has risen to about 4000 tonnes.

As a driver of global warming, nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide, yet no one knows how much of it is being released into the atmosphere by the industry, said Michael Prather, director of the environment institute at the University of California.

Dr Prather's research reveals that production of the gas, which remains in the atmosphere for 550 years, is "exploding" and is expected to double by next year. Unlike common greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), emissions of the gas are not restricted by the Kyoto Protocol or similar agreements.

Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Dr Prather and a colleague, Juno Hsu, state this year's production of the gas was equivalent to 67 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, with "a potential greenhouse impact larger than that of the industrialised nations' emissions of PFCs or SF6, or even of the world's largest coal-fired power plants".

Concerns have led Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology to avoid using the gas, but Air Products, which produces it for the electronics industry, claims very little nitrogen trifluoride is released into the atmosphere.

Guardian News & Media
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Lethal emissions
« Reply #52 on: July 04, 2008, 11:26:06 PM »
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/lethal-emissions-20080704-31tn.html?page=-1

Shaun Carney
July 5, 2008


Kevin Rudd is going to find emissions trading extremely difficult to sell to Australians in the face of attacks from all sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyBh0tMP_2U

SOMETIMES in politics, the public can get lucky. With the demise of the Australian Democrats in national political life this week, there's been an orgy of retrospective finger-pointing about who was to blame, which has made it all too easy to forget or ignore the country's good fortune in having Don Chipp as a parliamentarian for 26 years. The Democrats were, more than anything else, an expression of Chipp's charisma, political imagination, force of will and skill as an organiser, and they existed in the Senate for 30 years — quite a feat.

Chipp, who died in August 2006, was an engaging and courageous man who left the nation's body politic in a better condition than he found it. In 1977, when Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the Whitlam government was still an open wound on the society, Chipp put himself and the original members of his party forward as a healing force. It is not excessive to describe the party in its early years as a social and political movement. The essential idea of the Democrats was to save the major parties from themselves — to use goodwill and common sense as a brake on the unbridled pursuit of power. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that's one of the things that ultimately brought the party undone. The longer it existed as a broker on legislation, the more it accumulated responsibility for the results.

Nowhere was this more potent — and damaging — than when John Howard played Meg Lees like a violin in 1999 and made her a 50-50 partner in the GST. A stronger, less egotistical leader than Lees might have been able to keep her party together post-1999 but, highly impressed by her newfound importance, she had none of those capacities and, more than anyone or anything, set the Democrats on a course for destruction. But the Democrats were conceived as a party that carried policy arguments as well. As a party that contained a decent proportion of small business operators in its membership, it stood for moderate deregulation of labour markets and responsible environmentalism. When political parties die, it's always with a series of whimpers rather than a bang and this was the case with the Democrats, who suffered the ignominy of two successive federal elections, in 2004 and last year, in which they failed to win a seat.

In the next few years, Australian politics is likely to suffer for the lack of a party such as the Democrats. With the release of the Garnaut report yesterday, the tenor and policy territory for the remainder of this electoral term is set. The political debate will be very nasty and highly desperate. The Rudd Government is going to find itself running against every grievance that can be articulated and a few that cannot. There remain many Australians who do not believe that climate change exists; Rudd cannot expect to win them over. As for those who do subscribe to the presence of climate change, Rudd can also expect to run up against quite a few of them as well.

The Greens, who have replaced the Democrats as the third force in national politics, have learnt the lessons inherent in the death of Don Chipps' party. They are unlikely to stay on board with Labor and go down with the ship, should Rudd's emissions trading scheme prove to be an unwieldy electoral monster. The Greens are a combination of two elements: unyielding environmentalist ideology, and protest at the inadequacies and self-interest of modern capitalism and the major parties, especially the ALP. The contradiction of the second of those two elements is implicit in the Greens' preferencing strategy, which overwhelmingly favours the ALP, except in safe Labor seats with high concentrations of white-collar and young voters, in which case Labor becomes the enemy that must be defeated. Whether this can continue in the future political environment, where an emissions trading scheme will dominate public and economic debate is an interesting question.

The essential shift that's taken place during this decade is the move of the third political force from the centre (Democrat preferences generally ran 55-45 to Labor) to the left (Green preferences mostly favour Labor 80-20). Given the nature of the climate change debate, this isn't especially good news for the Rudd Government. The Greens leadership and the party's constituency, which is 7-10% of the electorate, is

unlikely to be fully satisfied with whatever Rudd produces. If, for example, Greens leader Bob Brown locks in behind a Rudd carbon trading scheme, what then is the compelling point of difference between his party and the ALP?

The potential for the emissions trading regime to mess Labor up is substantial. The Coalition's course on the issue now seems clear. Having originally disputed climate change and then in its final few years accepted it and finally, as the 2007 election approached, sent out some hard-to-ignore signals that it wanted to be seen to be doing things on water and solar power, it is now in retreat. The position being formulated by leader Brendan Nelson and environment spokesman Greg Hunt will look comforting to many Australians.

Politically, the Coalition's key objective on emissions trading is to inflict the maximum amount of damage on the Government. Hunt's job is to fashion an intellectual and policy package that conforms to that objective, while simultaneously giving the impression that the Coalition subscribes to the reality of climate change and the need for action. In the short term, this should be relatively easy. With petrol prices wreaking havoc in the lives of many voters and sending shudders through the global economy, it will not be difficult to argue that a 2010 start date for an emissions trading scheme is hasty and economically reckless, especially when China and India can be held up as recalcitrants undoing our good but ineffective contribution.

Rudd will find himself caught between a climate change adaptation of the Augustinian request for "chastity but not just yet" on the right and, on the left, purists who can always be relied upon to demand more. In the new political order where extreme positions are increasingly common, it could well be that old standby, money, that has the final word. Providing sufficient compensation measures for those disadvantaged by any scheme is Rudd's best — perhaps his only — hope.

Shaun Carney is associate editor.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #53 on: July 05, 2008, 02:22:19 AM »
Low-income families will pay for climate changes

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23972342-2,00.html

July 05, 2008
The Daily Telegraph


FIGHTING "insidious" climate change will batter the budgets of low-income families, the Government's emissions control expert Ross Garnaut conceded yesterday. An Emissions Trading Scheme, which made carbon polluting products such as petrol and electricity more expensive, would add to household bills and be regressive.

But Dr Garnaut, an economist, said the cost to families would be much greater if there was no attempt to mitigate climate change.

Jobs would be lost and changing weather patterns would destroy national symbols such as the Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park and the Murray-Darling Basin. The draft report outlined preliminary modelling of what would happen if action were not taken. It said that "middle-of-the-road impacts" would see national output - or GDP - cut 4.8 per cent by the end of the century, a fall of more than $400 billion a year.

Wages would fall by 7.8 per cent and our spending would drop by 5.4 per cent.

Dr Garnaut urged half the revenue from an ETS - from $3 billion to $10 billion - be spent on helping households suffering from a carbon consumption penalty.

"We have much to contribute and much to lose as we face the diabolical policy challenge of climate change," he said.

Dr Garnaut told the National Press Club in Canberra: "Climate change presents a new kind of challenge. It is uncertain in its form and extent, rather than drawn in clear lines. It is insidious, rather than directly confrontational.

"It is long term, rather than immediate in both its impacts and its remedies."

Dr Garnaut was delivering his government-commissioned draft report on an Emissions Trading Scheme set to start by 2010 - just before the next federal election. An ETS "may have large and regressive effects on the distribution of income", his 600-page report said.

"Effective management of this issue is going to be crucial to the success of the emissions trading scheme," it said.

The report said low-income earners would be particularly hit because they spent a bigger share of their incomes on emission-intensive products. Dr Garnaut said the bottom 20 per cent of income earners spent twice as much on electricity, petrol and gas - as a proportion of their incomes - as the top 20 per cent. His report said the proportion of income spent on transport, fuel, gas and electricity was around 9.5 per cent for low-income households and around 4.5 per cent for upper-income households.

"Emissions pricing is therefore regressive: That is, as the income of the individual rises, the impact will be smaller in terms of the proportion of income," it said.

Dr Garnaut recommended that half the revenue from carbon permits be devoted to compensating households in one form or another, such as paying for energy efficiency measures in the home. He said higher prices might also be returned through social security and through the tax system. Twenty per cent of the revenue could go to supporting research and commercialisation of low emission technology and 30 per cent to protect trade exposed and emissions intensive industries.

Depending on what level the Government sets for permits under an ETS, the total revenue could range from $7 billion to $20 billion.

Dr Garnaut said, while emerging economic powerhouses such as China and India would be pumping out much more carbon pollution than Australia, Australia had to take the first step towards curbing emissions. "There will not be a next step; there won't be progress from the developing countries unless the developed countries have done what they said they would do," he said.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23976700-5007146,00.html

By Piers Akerman

July 06, 2008 12:00am
The Sunday Telegraph


TAXPAYERS should ask Professor Ross Garnaut for their money back: his report is little more than a fearmongering document designed to bolster the age-old socialist agenda of wealth redistribution.

It fails from the basis of science and it fails from the basis of economics but it will, however, warm the hearts of the anti-capitalist doom merchants of Europe and inner-urban branches of the Labor Party with its prognostications.

Nostradamus would be proud.

Like all who have signed on to the view that humans are responsible for global warming, Professor Garnaut cites the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) projections on the rate of climate change as coming from a scientifically based consensus. This is complete rubbish.

The only consensus was between bureaucrats who wanted to agree to a number, the energy-rich Saudis wanted a low number, the energy-deficient Europeans wanted a low number, and they struck a deal which is the basis of Professor Garnaut's consensus.

Starting with that humbug, he then segues to Australia and, with the arrogance of a Belinda Neal, proposes that Australia should be the global leader in a fight against climate change.

King Canute could teach him a thing or two about humility but, then again, Professor Garnaut was handpicked for his task by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the master of agenda control.

The world is coming to an end, he says; Kakadu will be inundated, the Great Barrier Reef will die, the Murray-Darling river system will dry up unless we act now.

Oh, sure. But where does he conjure up this fantasy from when the IPCC's own temperature projections are already falling over? Taken over the past 10 years, the trend line for temperature is flat. If taken from 2001, the trend shows global temperatures falling.

It is as if he is suffering from some cognitive dissonance. Even the thousands of Argos robots which bob up and down through the ocean levels have measured no increases in temperatures as they sample at different depths.

Professor Garnaut's appearance at the National Press Club on Friday revealed him to be the bureaucrat's bureaucrat, which may be why our uber-bureaucrat Prime Minister fell for him in the first place.

He is not, however, as polished as Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes, Minister. Sir Humphrey would not, for example, have insinuated that the adoption of a new tax on industry would make rain fall on the Murray-Darling basin.

He would not have made the mistake of sending out a report which pointed to lower dam levels in the Perth region - which Professor Garnaut blamed on climate change - when those directly engaged in the West Australian water industry know that there is less run-off into Perth's dams now because of the regrowth in the once-cleared catchment area.

Professor Garnaut and his team weren't able to model many important factors because of shaky data, yet he expects us to believe that his predictions of catastrophic consequence should be immediately acted upon.

A few weeks ago, Mr Rudd was congratulated by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his support for multilateralism (the failed UN, that is), and Professor Garnaut is also a believer in such institutions, yet he believes that it is imperative that Australia take immediate action on climate change so our nation can be a role model for our neighbours.

Who knows where they teach this stuff, but the notion of anyone of the failed states in the Pacific, or our great Indonesian neighbour to the north, deciding that we are role model in this or anything is so laughably arrogant that it defies description.

Only a basket-weaving Balmain boy scout could possibly believe that other nations would willingly plunge into economic decline because Australia had set the lead.

The biggest environmental crisis facing us today is the collapse of the Murray-Darling system which has little to do with climate change and everything to do with bad political decisions on water use.

The Rudd government and each of the Labor states put that in the too-hard basket last week and pushed it off for another committee meeting to decide what committee should decide on what action.

Senator Penny Wong, who has shown herself to be nothing more than a more eloquent version of her assistant minister, Peter Garrett, and just as useless, says Professor Garnaut's report demonstrates that Australia must act on the climate issue.

Any reading of this irresponsible report would demand that any action be cautiously approached and taken only after exhaustive research, not Ruddite back-of-the-envelope modelling based on flawed inputs.

As for the haste, help me, what a joke. One bushfire, one volcano, one cyclone would destroy in seconds any efforts of a vastly greater magnitude than Australians could physically undertake over 50 years.

Perhaps Mr Rudd wants this report to artificially stampede Australians, to distract them from their more pressing economic problems - who knows? But it is worth recalling that the last major economic reform this nation underwent, the introduction of the GST (opposed by Labor and Mr Rudd in particular, until he won office), was sold to the public over 17 long years, by Labor Treasurer Paul Keating, Coalition Opposition leader John Hewson and Prime Minister John Howard.

The public knew what it was getting. Professor Garnaut throws up promises of disaster and hopes to generate a wave of fear which would force the Government to take some action.

Forget it, and forget the notion that our near neighbours would line up to cut their economic throats just because we willingly plunged into recession to assuage the guilt of a gathering of gullible Gaia followers in Canberra.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Sunday Show interview: Ross Garnaut
« Reply #55 on: July 05, 2008, 09:12:50 PM »
http://www.vimeo.com/1287787

Update: Well the tossers at Vimeo deleted my account

Professor Ross Garnaut has released a 600-page draft report on climate change, focusing on an emissions trading scheme.

SUNDAY Political Editor Laurie Oakes speaks to Professor Garnaut on this week's show.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=47705.0
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
PM Rudd wants all to pay for climate except him
« Reply #56 on: July 05, 2008, 09:37:02 PM »
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23975740-2,00.html

By Glenn Milne

July 06, 2008 12:00am
Sunday Herald Sun

    * Prime Minister won't pay his power, petrol bills
    * Carbon trading scheme will drive up costs
    * Rudd says he understands pressures families face


KEVIN Rudd wants all Australians to share the pain of increased costs to help save the planet from climate change - except him. The Prime Minister revealed yesterday he would continue to allow taxpayers to pick up his power and petrol bills. In the wake of the week's Garnaut report, Mr Rudd was asked if he would pay for power, lighting and heating bills at The Lodge.

The Sunday Herald Sun also asked whether he would start to pay his petrol bills for his chauffeur-driven car.

Mr Rudd's office responded: "The Prime Minister will not be changing the long-standing practices of previous prime ministers in relation to these matters.

"The Prime Minister understands the cost-of-living pressures that confront Australia's working families, carers and seniors.

"He also understands that Australians want the Australian Government to take action on climate change."

Taxpayers pick up the bill for the car and The Lodge.

The Government is set to introduce a national Emissions Trading System by 2010 that will increase the cost of energy bills and fuel in the name of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Mr Rudd has stressed that for a carbon trading system to work, consumers must be hit with a noticeable price rise in order for them to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Rudd declined to say how much The Lodge and his chauffeur driven car cost taxpayer's last year, referring the Sunday Herald Sun to Government annual reports. According to Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio estimates, the cost of running The Lodge and Kirribilli House in Sydney is expected to be $1.8 million this financial year.

Mr Rudd, whose wife, Therese Rein's companies turned over about $260 million ($250,481,695.57 USD) last year, also has a taxpayer-subsidised nanny for his youngest son and a taxpayer-funded butler paid $78,000 a year.

Mr Rudd earns $370,000 a year, including allowances. ($356,454.72 USD)

Last December, after signing the Kyoto Protocol at the Bali Climate Change Summit, Mr Rudd declared: "We must all share the burden."
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #57 on: July 05, 2008, 11:23:56 PM »
Insiders - Carbon Trading Draft Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJJF0byBqs
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,777
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #58 on: July 06, 2008, 06:16:25 AM »
Oh jees, here we go!



Prepare for a barrage of heatwaves - report

By Cathy Alexander and Amy Coopes

July 06, 2008 05:24pm
Article from: AAP


AUSTRALIA is in for a tenfold increase in heat waves as climate change sends the mercury soaring.
A report by the nation's top scientists has found exceptionally hot years - which used to occur once every 22 years - will occur every one or two years.

Under the worst case scenario, every year would be exceptionally hot.

Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said the report, released today, made alarming reading.

"Parts of these high-level projections read more like a disaster novel than a scientific report," he told reporters in Sydney.

CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology wrote the report, which found droughts would occur twice as often and cover twice the area due to climate change.

The surge in heat waves is predicted to hit from 2010.

The proportion of the country having an exceptionally hot year will increase from just under five per cent each year, to as high as 95 per cent.

"The analysis shows that the extent and frequency of exceptionally hot years have been increasing rapidly over recent decades and this trend is expected to continue," the report concluded.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described the report as "very disturbing".

"What they say in two short points is this ... firstly that when it comes to exceptional or extreme drought, exceptionally high temperatures, the historical assumption that this occurred once every 20 years has now been revised down to between every one and two years," he told ABC Television.

"Secondly, with exceptional circumstances drought conditions ... that they will occur twice as often and with twice the area of droughted parts of Australia included."

Mr Rudd said this was a serious revision of the impact of climate change on drought.

Rainfall is predicted to decline, although the trend was less marked than for temperatures, and some regions will be much harder hit than others.

Southern Australia, Victoria and Tasmania are tipped to dry out most rapidly.

Rainfall has been declining since the 1950s - and about half that decrease was due to climate change, the report found.

The federal government commissioned the report as part of its review of public funding to drought-stricken farmers, called Exceptional Circumstances (EC) funding.

The report recommends EC thresholds should be changed because hotter, drier weather will become normal.

"What's clear is that the cycle of drought is going to be more regular and deeper than ever," Mr Burke said.

"We need to act now to ensure we are better prepared for climate change in the future."

Mr Burke said the government had to take a fresh look at drought funding to farmers.

"If we fail to review drought policy, if we were to continue the neglect and pretend that the climate wasn't changing, we would be leaving our farmers out to dry well and truly," he said.

Mr Burke has promised the review of drought payments will not affect the current round of EC funding. The government has set aside more than $760 million for EC funding this year.

The government commissioned two other reports as part of its drought review - an economic review and a social review. They are not yet completed.

The release of the report follows today's announcement of drought figures in NSW, which put 65 per cent of the state in drought, an increase of more than two per cent on last month.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23977492-2,00.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,777
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #59 on: July 06, 2008, 06:18:42 AM »
Ahh, a petrol tax as well! Good on you Professor Garnaut.



Coalition 'not climate change populists'

July 06, 2008 04:20pm
Article from: AAP


DEPUTY Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has rejected suggestions the coalition is taking a populist stance on climate change.
The Federal Government has called for a proposed emissions trading scheme to be introduced in 2010 - a timeline supported by Professor Ross Garnaut in his landmark report on climate change.
Prof Garnaut also has called for petrol to be included in the scheme, saying failing to do so would send the wrong signal to motorists.

He has attacked the coalition over its call for the excise on fuel to be cut by five cents a litre, saying it would do little to curb demand for petrol.

The opposition, however, says the government should proceed with caution, and is sticking to its guns on petrol excise.

Ms Bishop said the opposition's stance was not about winning votes, but about getting the response to climate change right.

"We support many of the principles in the Garnaut report, but we can't just be unquestioning, uncritical of everything that is put forward," she told Sky News.

Peter Shergold, the former secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under the Howard government, released his report on climate change in June last year, calling for an emissions scheme to be set up in 2011 or 2012.

"Now Kevin Rudd has said it's got to be by 2010. Well, let's make sure we get it right," Ms Bishop said.

"We don't want to risk jobs or damage the economy just for the sake of (ensuring) the prime minister's timeline of 2010 (is) proven correct."

"There is a delicate balancing act here ... and we must be mindful of it.

"That is, sending price signals to businesses and industry that they must be more efficient, that they must look for low emissions alternatives, but also ensuring that we don't destroy jobs and send jobs offshore."

Ms Bishop conceded Dr Shergold, like Prof Garnaut, had called for petrol to be included in the proposed emissions trading scheme.

But she said Dr Shergold had noted that since his report was published, petrol prices had soared.
"He indicated that we need to be flexible and I think it's important that the opposition's position be understood," Ms Bishop said.

"We're saying that there should be no new net tax on petrol.

"(The price) of petrol has increased significantly just in the last six months, so the price signal is being sent and we shouldn't clobber the Australian motorist by making it just unaffordable when there is no alternative."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23977226-29277,00.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,777
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #60 on: July 06, 2008, 06:20:03 AM »
Climate report 'a disaster novel'

July 06, 2008 02:39pm
Article from: AAP


FEDERAL Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has likened a scientific study into links between climate change and drought to the final chapters of a disaster novel.
Mr Burke today released a joint assessment by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, which found that what are now considered to be one in 25 year climate events could become as frequent as once every one to two years.

In particular, the study found exceptionally high temperatures would occur almost yearly, while low rainfall would almost double in frequency from current figures.

The report found about 50 per cent of the rainfall decrease in south-western Australia since the 1950s was likely due to greenhouse gases.

Mr Burke said the sobering analysis had completely re-written the rules for drought assistance and Australia's agriculture generally.

"While this is a scientific report, parts of these high level projections read more like a disaster novel than a scientific report," Mr Burke told reporters.

"What's clear is that the cycle of drought is going to be more regular and deeper than ever."

Mr Burke said events of extreme temperature, which currently occurred once every 20 to 25 years, were forecast to happen once every one to two years coming up to 2030.

The area of Australia declared to be in drought would double and the likelihood of drought would also double, Mr Burke said.

"What this means is that in terms of government policy, we now know what would happen if we did nothing," he said.

"If we fail to review drought policy, if we were to continue the neglect and pretend that the climate wasn't changing we would be leaving our farmers out to dry well and truly."

The CSIRO report is the first in the Federal Government's three stage review of drought policy with the scientific findings to be fed into an analysis of social policy and economic review being undertaken by the Productivity Commission.

The release of the report follows today's announcement of drought figures in NSW, which put 65 per cent of the state in drought, an increase of more than 2 per cent on last month.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23977117-29277,00.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,777
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #61 on: July 06, 2008, 06:20:48 AM »
Climate change fuelling drought - CSIRO

July 06, 2008 02:19pm
Article from: AAP


A NEW "very disturbing" report due today shows climate change in Australia is inflicting severe drought conditions much more often, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.
Mr Rudd said Agriculture Minister Tony Burke would release the CSIRO research report on the impact of climate change on drought later today.

"We asked some time ago for the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology to advise us how do we deal with exceptional circumstances and drought arrangements into the future," Mr Rudd told ABC television.

"They've now presented us with a report and the findings are again very disturbing.

"What they say in two short points is this ... firstly that when it comes to exceptional or extreme drought, exceptionally high temperatures, the historical assumption that this occurred once every 20 years has now been revised down to between every one and two years.

"Secondly, with exceptional circumstances drought conditions, under scenarios within it, that they will occur twice as often and with twice the area of droughted parts of Australia included."

Mr Rudd said it was a serious revision of the impact of climate change on drought and Mr Burke would make that clear in the report.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23977085-29277,00.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,777
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #62 on: July 06, 2008, 07:26:03 AM »
Wong: Every cent for families, business

July 04, 2008 05:01pm
Article from: AAP

THE Australian Government would commit every cent raised from an emissions trading scheme to help families and businesses adjust to paying a price for carbon, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says.

Responding to the draft report on climate change delivered by Ross Garnaut today, Senator Wong said it was in Australia's national interest to take action sooner rather than later.

She said the Government would issue a green paper later this month which would detail the Government's response to the Garnaut report and provide an outline on the operation of an emissions trading scheme.

"But the Government has made a very clear commitment that every cent of revenue that we gain through the introduction of an emissions trading scheme will be invested to ensure we assist families, households and Australian businesses to adjust to the impact of a carbon price," Senator Wong said.

"We will ensure that there are measures in place to assist Australian households with the impact of a carbon price."

In his report Professor Garnaut said it would be hard for Australia to begin an emissions trading scheme by 2010 but delaying its start could be worse. He said transport fuels should be included and raised concerns with calls for the excise on petrol to be cut.

Senator Wong would not be drawn on whether or not petrol would be included in the Government's proposals and said details would have to wait until the release of the green paper.

However, she said the Government would have regard to those issues "carefully, methodically and responsibly".

"We are very mindful as we approach the design of the emission trading scheme that there are consequences for decisions on design," the minister said.

"So if you exclude some parts of the economy the other parts of the economy have to work harder to reduce the amount of emissions that we are putting into the atmosphere.

"We have also said quite clearly that there will be measures in place to assist Australian families, Australian households, to adjust to the impact of a carbon price."

Senator Wong said the Garnaut report was a timely reminder that the world was warming and this was causing more droughts, water shortages and extreme weather.

"We, as a nation, must act on climate change," she said.

"It is in Australia's national interest, it is in our economic interest and it is in the interest of our children."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23968632-5007133,00.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

orangeblue

  • Guest
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #63 on: July 06, 2008, 10:01:35 AM »
"...Firstly that when it comes to exceptional or extreme drought, exceptionally high temperatures, the historical assumption that this occurred once every 20 years has now been revised down to between every one and two years.  Secondly, with exceptional circumstances drought conditions, under scenarios within it, that they will occur twice as often and with twice the area of droughted parts of Australia included."

With Tropical Storm Bertha still several days away from the US mainland, I watched chemtrail spray planes dissolve virtually all the rain clouds above North Florida yesterday.  There was significant precipitation both north and south of our area, but only ugly and chemically retarded clouds hung overhead for much of the day.

I don’t know if they’re using these aerosol bombing runs to influence the path or strength of the approaching storm, but it's a fact this region’s natural weather patterns are severely distorted.  I'm sure other acts of chemical weather terrorism also worsened the recent California wildfires and Midwest flooding.

There has been incredible worldwide weather manipulation for the last decade and now they’re using the fallout in every country to beat the average person over the head with new laws, regulations and taxes.

9/11 is a horrific crime that we must continue exposing, but global weather terrorism is going to directly kill billions of innocent people if we don’t raise awareness now and demand these crimes be stopped.

Weather modification is weather terrorism!

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
PM Kevin Rudd faces climate revolt from N.S.W. Treasurer
« Reply #64 on: July 06, 2008, 10:25:12 PM »
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23979910-5007133,00.html

    * State Labor, unions attack climate plan
    * PM admits it will be tough for families
    * Extreme drought coming 'every two years'


KEVIN Rudd has been warned against rushing ahead with a carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS), with a union boss saying workers should not lose their jobs just so the Prime Minister can keep his.

Mr Rudd is facing a savage backlash from unions and state Labor over the timing of an ETS, which was the centrepiece of the Garnaut Review into how Australia should tackle climate change.  The scheme would raise billions of dollars for the Government through the sale of pollution permits.

As the Prime Minister conceded yesterday that rising electricity, food and petrol prices were an inevitable consequence of the scheme, he pledged that the Government was mindful of the risks to family budgets and to jobs.

But Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes has accused Mr Rudd of being "hell bent" on introducing the ETS by 2010 just to keep an election promise, despite the danger of forcing jobs offshore.

"I would rather see that period of time dragged out a bit to ensure that there aren't any errors in the design," he said.

"If we ensure that the adequate levels of compensation and recognition are given to industries so that they are given ... time to clean up their act ... then no job needs to be lost. In fact, jobs should be created."

The Federal Opposition has also said the ETS should be delayed to ensure it was done properly. Shadow Treasurer Malcolm Turnbull has said the scheme would be "half-cocked" if introduced on the government's timetable.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson said today the environment would be no better off with a rushed scheme.  "Mr Rudd is taking Australia way out in front of the rest of the world and in doing so places significant risk on the Australian economy ... for no environmental gain at all," he said on ABC radio.

"The rest of the world, particularly the big emitters, will not yet be ready (by 2012)."

In his attack on the Garnaut report, NSW Treasurer Michael Costa has backed free permits for electricity generators, saying today in The Australian that "Chicken Little" warnings about the dangers of climate change are no substitute for a rigorous economic and scientific debate.

Mr Howes said an ETS would be little more than a trade tariff "against ourselves" if high-polluting countries such as China and Brazil were not taking similar measures.

In his draft report, released on Friday, Professor Ross Garnaut said Australia would be hit harder by climate change than other countries would be - and therefore needed to act now.  But he also said the government should pressure other polluters to follow suit quickly.

Costs

Mr Costa warns that while the states support the implementation of an ETS, the risks to the economy are severe if the Rudd Government gets it wrong, citing the children's fable of the hen that thought the sky was falling after being hit on the head by an acorn.

"Chicken Little arguments are no substitute for getting right the important details on issues of far reaching consequence, but Professor (Ross) Garnaut himself has said his detailed economic impact modelling won't be available until August," he writes.

"For example, claims from some quarters that the Great Barrier Reef would be destroyed if Australia, which emits less than 2 per cent of global greenhouse gases, does not adopt an ETS are patent nonsense."

The Government also faces growing calls to offer free permits to polluters to stagger the impact of putting a price on carbon, or embrace the Howard government option of a safety valve system that would place an effective cap on the price of carbon, allowing polluters to pay a fine rather than buy more permits once a certain price for carbon was exceeded.

Read more on that side of the story at The Australian.

- with AAP
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Garnaut’s 'Climate Change' pipe dream: India says no proof and no cuts
« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2008, 07:20:37 AM »
All article links here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/draft/

Kevin Rudd’s global warming guru, Ross Garnaut, demands that we slash our gases even though he admits this terrible sacrifice is meaningless without fast-developing countries like China and India doing the same:

    Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels..... China has recently overtaken the United States as the world’s largest emitter, and, in an unmitigated future, would account for about 35 per cent of global emissions in 2030.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/draft-report

Add India’s emissions, and these two fast-growing giants by 2030 will be emitting half the world’s greenhouse gases. If they don’t cut back, nothing we do will make the slightest bit of difference, as even Garnaut concedes.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Earth/India_unveils_plan_on_Climate_Change/articleshow/3180682.cms
Small problem. Last week the Indian Government’s more pragmatic warming advisors released their National Action Plan on Climate Change, which refuses to do any such thing. All that India’s Garnauts will promise is this: http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf

    India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries...

Which means India won’t stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). We can slash all we like, but India will keep its pedal to the metal because, its warming advisors say:

    It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of well being to its people.

Indian’s Prime Minister confirms he will not cut growth to cut gases. So nothing we do will persuade India to choke its growth to slash emissions until it is as rich as we are. Or, conversely, we are as poor as India. Our sacrifice is useless.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/07/07/stories/2008070751520300.htm

But this pragmatism is not the only difference the report has with Garnaut’s (and Rudd’s) utopian fantasy. First, India’s Council on Climate Change insists nuclear power must be part of any push to cut emissions (while Garnaut simply notes it’s not on Rudd’s agenda)

Second, the Indian report casts cold water on two of the dreams Garnaut has for cutting our own emissions. Don’t count on carbon capture and sequestration to catch the gases of power stations, it warns:

    (F)easible technologies for this have not yet been developed and there are series questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories.

As for wind farms:

    (T)he capacity utilization factors are low due to the variations in the wind flow.

But here is the most telling difference between the Indian report and Garnaut’s doom-mongering one that warns of plagues, droughts, economic catastrophe and precisely 1276 more deaths by 2030 in Queensland alone through heatstroke. Unlike Garnaut, who took the “consensus” alarmism on face value, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why, and concluded they couldn’t actually find anything bad that was caused by man-made warming:

    No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.

In fact, they couldn’t find much change in the climate at all. Surface temperature? Not much change:

    At the national level, increase of ~ 0.4c ... over the past century...

Droughts or floods? No change:

    Instrument records over the past 130 years do not indicate any marked long-term trends in the frequencies of large-scale droughts and floods…

Rainfall? No change, on the whole:

    (T)he observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend...

Well, what about those melting Himalayan glaciers that Al Gore showed melting like mad?

    (W)hile recession of some glaciers has occured in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses.

Let’s sum up the difference. In Australia, the Prime Minister’s global warming advisor demands the country cut growth to stop an apocalyptic warming he’s sure is man-made, in the hope that countries like India will do the same and save us. In India, the Prime Minister’s global warming advisors demand the country increases growth rather than stop an apocalyptic global warming they can’t really detect and aren’t even certain would be caused by man, and they offer no hope that India, the world’s fourth biggest emitter, will copy our useless sacrifice. And, of course, China, the world’s biggest emitter, says it isn’t cutting its emissions, either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/business/worldbusiness/01rupee.html?adxnnl=1&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1214907465-xVGhX2bHXq7z/RiI40MHjg

http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=16949


We really are looking like panic merchants and fools. We’ll cut out throats to set an example that won’t be followed by those we seek to impress.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Wait for world on emissions: Nelson
« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2008, 11:16:07 PM »
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23981653-601,00.html

Samantha Maiden, Online political editor | July 07, 2008


BRENDAN Nelson has abandoned support for an emissions trading scheme without international action, warning Australia would be sacrificing jobs by going it alone.

The Liberal leader today appeared to backflip on the former Howard government's commitment to introduce a trading scheme by 2012, but Dr Nelson denied it was a policy change on the grounds that the previous government always argued international agreements were essential.

Dr Nelson predicted that any international agreement would not happen until talks in Copenhagen next year.

He also urged Kevin Rudd to become a "human blowtorch" on the issue of fuel prices at G8 talks in Japan, where climate change will be on the agenda.

"We must put Australia first,” he said today. “If we go ahead of the pack ... we will simply transfer industry and jobs and our standard of living offshore.”

The Government's chief climate change adviser Professor Ross Garanaut has also described NSW Treasurer Michael Costa as a climate change “denier”.

Mr Costa writes today in The Australian that “Chicken Little warnings” about the dangers of climate change were no substitute for a rigorous and scientific debate.

“The NSW treasurer is a well known denier of the science (of climate change),” Professor Garnaut said.

“I'd be very happy to have further discussions with him in Sydney on Thursday.”


WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Wait for world on emissions: Nelson
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2008, 11:23:51 PM »
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23985632-2702,00.html

Nicola Berkovic and Mike Steketee | July 08, 2008

Garnaut hits back at Costa criticism

THE Rudd Government's climate change adviser has rounded on Michael Costa after the NSW Labor Treasurer warned that "Chicken Little" politics were pervading the global-warming debate.

However, three state governments joined Mr Costa yesterday in supporting compensation for electricity generators under an emissions trading scheme.

Ross Garnaut hit back at Mr Costa after his attack in The Australian yesterday, and there were calls from within the Labor caucus for Mr Costa to be disciplined by Premier Morris Iemma.

Professor Garnaut said Mr Costa's position as a climate change sceptic had been known for some time.

"The NSW Treasurer is a well-known denier of the science (of climate change)," he said.

"I'd be very happy to have further discussions with him in Sydney on Thursday."

South Australian Energy Minister Pat Conlon accused Professor Garnaut of being indifferent to thefate of coal-fired electricity generation "to the point of irresponsibility".

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh also favours compensation but rebuked Mr Costa over his colourful attack on the Garnaut report, which argues against special treatment for the generators.

"It is far too serious an issue for name-calling. This is the biggest challenge being faced globally and we need to work together to find solutions," Ms Bligh said.

She backed the Rudd Government's plan to introduce an ETS in 2010, saying that although it would demand extraordinary effort, she was confident Australia could rise to the challenge.

A Victorian government spokeswoman said it wanted to ensure the federal Government understood the impact of an ETS on low-income families, power generators and trade-exposed companies in the state.

After meeting Professor Garnaut in Perth yesterday, West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter said it did not appear Mr Costa would get his wish of free permits for the power industry.

"I doubt whether the ultimate model will be one of free permits," Mr Carpenter said.

"I don't think that will happen ... what Professor Garnaut has suggested is a stepped approach where initially, for the first two years, you have a fixed price for the permits and then after two years the market price will prevail.

"Ultimately, though, for us in Western Australia, we have to understand there are going to be costs in the implementation of an ... emissions trading scheme."

Professor Garnaut said it was not surprising there were dissenting views about global warming, as it was "a complicated issue".

"This is a democratic country and every interest has a legitimate right to put its case and that case will be put vigorously, I'm sure," he said. "What we must make sure of is that we have a strong centre of the public policy process so that the public interest is looked after."

NSW Labor backbencher Steve Whan called on Mr Iemma to give Mr Costa "a boot up the bum" for contradicting government policy.

Mr Whan, the member for the southern seat of Monaro, said Mr Costa's calls for electricity generators to be given free permits conflicted with his Government's policy, and reflected the Treasurer's interest in revenue from coal-fired power stations.

"If I, as a backbencher, came out and contradicted government policy like that, I'd get a boot up the bum," he said. "I think that's what he should be getting from the Premier, as well."

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong also rejected Mr Costa's warnings after he said in The Australian that: "Chicken Little arguments are no substitute for getting right the important details on issues of far-reaching consequence, but Professor Garnaut himself has said his detailed economic impact modelling won't be available until August."

Ms Bligh wrote to Professor Garnaut last month saying there was a case for transitional assistance for electricity generators for the disproportionate burden they suffered under an ETS.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Alarmists use weather to promote global warming hoax - Dr. Tim Ball
« Reply #68 on: July 08, 2008, 02:25:37 AM »
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3850

Dr. Tim Ball
July 7, 2008


Claims that recent severe weather and flooding in the US are proof of human CO2 impacts on global climate are scientific nonsense. They are part of a pattern of keeping weather and climate issues in the public mind.

My grandmother admonished me with, “Your sins will find you out.” It is a maxim that should now befall proponents of the false theory that human CO2 is causing global warming or climate change. Exposure rarely emerges from the original event, but as Watergate showed the coverup bares the truth.

Governments and large segments of society accepted the theory. Most bullied by use of fear but also their lack of knowledge and understanding was also exploited.

Now a combination of events are driving them to raise the threat level and make increasingly false claims. forcing a coverup. The world is cooling while CO2 levels continue to rise. In every record for any period in history temperature increases before CO2 not as assumed. Plans to implement carbon taxes to offset warming exacerbate soaring fuel prices. Effects of policies implemented to replace fossil fuels with biofuels are driving food and total living costs rapidly higher.  People increasingly question the threats as a recent UK poll showed; “The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.” Proponents of the theory that humans are causing global warming or climate change have used fear to push their false belief. Now they’re experiencing fear as evidence shows they’re wrong and the public perceive a deception.

Robert Frost said, “There’s nothing I am afraid of like scared people.” Those who perpetrated possibly the greatest deception in human history that CO2 is causing global warming/climate change are scared. Events are driving them to extreme, unsubstantiated and even ridiculous claims and threats.

One of these was that sea level would rise, but it foundered when the two Nobel Peace Prize winners, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore were in serious disagreement. Another was Arctic sea ice except it returned to long term normal levels last winter and NASA announced the one year anomaly was due to changes in wind patterns.

So they return to their central theme of convincing you that normal weather events are abnormal. An increase in severe weather is a persistent theme, especially in North America. Recently the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research issued a report with projected changes in weather and climate extremes in North America and U.S. territories.

Report co-chair Tom Karl, Ph.D., director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C said, “This report addresses one of the most frequently asked questions about global warming: what will happen to weather and climate extremes? This synthesis and assessment product examines this question across North America and concludes that we are now witnessing and will increasingly experience more extreme weather and climate events.”

Karl has a vested interest in this being true. It is the position of the IPCC and he cites the IPCC as the authoritative body. Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers. Well he was a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports for 1990, 1992, 1995, a Coordinating Lead author and panel member of the 2001 Report and a Review Editor for Chapter 3 of the 2007 Report.
Source: www.ncdc.noaa.gov

There are three major problems with what is being said. 1. The severe weather of this spring across the Northern Hemisphere was caused by cooler weather not warmer. 2. The IPCC and the NOAA positions that severe weather will increase with global warming is scientifically wrong. 3. The records show current weather extremes are well within long term natural variability.

Almost all global severe weather occurs in the middle latitudes between approximately 30° and 65° of latitude. Cyclonic storms, blizzards, severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are created where warm and cold air meets and that is most dramatic along what is generally known as the Polar Front. This world map of tornado zones illustrates the point. 



Source: ncdc.noaa.gov

Here is a simplified diagram of the division between the cold polar air and the warm tropical air.


Source:  Source: Fundamentals of Physical Geography, Briggs, Smithson, Ball et al..

Temperature contrast across the Polar Front is the greatest in a short distance in each hemisphere. This creates the strongest winds as illustrated by the location of the Jet Stream (more correctly called the Circumpolar Vortex) above the surface. It also means the formation of swirling low pressure systems or cyclones that in winter are blizzards.  As the cold air advances it pushes up unstable bubbles of warm air to create heavy rain from large clouds. With enough force these can develop in to severe thunderstorms (cumulonimbus) and under certain conditions trigger tornadoes. These conditions occur most frequently across the central US in what is colloquially known as Tornado Alley.



Source: www.severewx.atmos.uiuc.edu

1. Frequency and intensity of most severe weather is a direct function of the temperature contrast across the Polar Front. This spring the cold air stayed further south with the colder temperatures with the resulting severe weather and flooding across the central US.

2. IPCC Reports claim increased CO2 levels will make the Polar air warm more than the tropical air. If true, this will decrease the temperature contrast across the Front resulting in fewer storms and less severe weather.



Source: ncdc.noaa.gov

3. The graph from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that severe tornadoes were higher in the period from 1950 to 1975.  Global temperatures were falling during that time. Since then frequency has decreased as the world warmed to 2000. Since then the world has cooled slightly and the pattern shows a slight increase in severe tornadoes.

This trend of severe weather is most likely to increase as the Earth continues to cool. Proponents of human caused climate change will claim it proves them right. They will continue their practice of claiming natural events as unnatural. Unless people understand the basic science they will continue the fraud and pressure politicians into even more damaging energy and environmental policies.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as the Chairman of Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

Dr. Ball can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com

Older articles by Dr. Tim Ball

WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Real Truth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,410
  • I'm treason to the Patriot Act!
Re: Alarmists use weather to promote global warming hoax - Dr. Tim Ball
« Reply #69 on: July 08, 2008, 02:33:08 AM »
more like its a proof of HAARP technology 8)
[98:5] And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship GOD, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight."

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Opposition committed to 2012 emissions scheme: Bishop
« Reply #70 on: July 08, 2008, 06:12:28 AM »
So much for choice...the current Government is for 2010 implementation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/08/2298109.htm?section=justin


The Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has tried to clarify the Opposition's policy on an emissions trading scheme, saying they support a former Howard government report on the issue.

Yesterday, Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson refused to name his preferred start date for a scheme, warning that Australia should not commit to emissions trading until other major countries agree to act.

His stance appeared to contradict the Coalition's earlier policy of a 2011 or 2012 start date.

But Ms Bishop says the Opposition remains committed to a 2012 start.

"We support the Shergold recommendations that were given to the Howard government in 2007 that there be an emissions trading scheme in Australia," she said.

"Peter Shergold said that an emissions trading scheme was difficult but do-able by 2012 and we remain committed to that policy."
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Climate change delusion a real problem
« Reply #71 on: July 08, 2008, 05:07:02 PM »
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23992448-5007146,00.html

Andrew Bolt

July 09, 2008 12:00am
Herald Sun


PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion" - and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru. Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".

"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."

(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."

But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.

Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: "If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."

And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd's guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: "Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ."

Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd's next campaign slogan?

Of course, we can laugh at this - and must - but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash.

Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide - the gas they think is heating the world to hell.

The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they're even planning to tax farting cows, so there's no end to the ways you can be stung.

Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and - hey presto - the world's temperature will then fall, just like it's actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.

But you'll have spotted already the big flaw in Rudd's mad plan - one that confirms he and Garnaut really do have delusions.

The truth is Australia on its own emits less than 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. Any savings we make will make no real difference, given that China (now the biggest emitter) and India (the fourth) are booming so fast that they alone will pump out 42 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases by 2030.

Indeed, so fast are the world's emissions growing - by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants - that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That's how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter.

And that's why Rudd's claim that we'll be ruined if we don't cut Australia's gases is a lie. To be blunt.

Ask Rudd's guru. Garnaut on Friday admitted any cuts we make will be useless unless they inspire other countries to do the same - especially China and India: "Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels."

So almost everything depends on China and India copying us. But the chances of that? A big, round zero.

A year ago China released its own global warming strategy - its own Garnaut report - which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions.

Said Ma Kai, head of China's powerful State Council: "China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth."

In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: "It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China's energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high."

Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts.

The plan's authors, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.

"It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people."

The plan's only real promise was in fact a threat: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries."

Gee, thanks. That, of course, means India won't stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). Given it has one billion people, that's a promise to gas the world like it's never been gassed before.

So is this our death warrant? Should this news have you seeing apocalyptic visions, too?

Well, no. What makes the Indian report so interesting is that unlike our Ross Garnaut, who just accepted the word of those scientists wailing we faced doom, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why.

Their conclusion? They couldn't actually find anything bad in India that was caused by man-made warming: "No firm link between the documented (climate) changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established."

In fact, they couldn't find much change in the climate at all.

Yes, India's surface temperature over a century had inched up by 0.4 degrees, but there had been no change in trends for large-scale droughts and floods, or rain: "The observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend . . ."

It even dismissed the panic Al Gore helped to whip up about melting Himalayan glaciers: "While recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses."

Nor was that the only sign that India's Council on Climate Change had kept its cool while our Rudd and Garnaut lost theirs.

For example, the Indians rightly insisted nuclear power had to be part of any real plan to cut emissions. Rudd and Garnaut won't even discuss it.

The Indians also pointed out that no feasible technology to trap and bury the gasses of coal-fired power stations had yet been developed "and there are serious questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories".

Rudd and Garnaut, however, keep offering this dream to make us think our power stations can survive their emissions trading scheme, when state governments warn they may not.

In every case the Indians are pragmatic where Rudd and Garnaut are having delusions - delusions about an apocalypse, about cutting gases without going nuclear, about saving power stations they'll instead drive broke.

And there's that delusion on which their whole plan is built - that India and China will follow our sacrifice by cutting their throats, too.

So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped over the edge by global warming fearmongers?

Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #72 on: July 08, 2008, 05:55:38 PM »
Dr. Tim Ball recommended this site:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Garnaut delivers cartoonish message
« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2008, 09:51:55 PM »
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23989504-29277,00.html

CLIMATE change guru Ross Garnaut has been turned into a cartoon to try and help explain his message.

Progressive lobby group GetUp has transformed Prof Garnaut, an economist, into a cartoon hero.

Dressed in an orange t-shirt with a white "G'' on it, Prof Garnaut stars in the three-minute online animation, which seeks to sum up his 600-page draft report released last week.

Prof Garnaut is the Federal Government's chief climate change adviser and his report looks into the impact of global warming on Australia, and what should be done to tackle the problem.

GetUp executive director Brett Solomon said the cartoon picked out Prof Garnaut's main points and pushed politicians to act on his recommendations.

"GetUp's online animation makes the report easy to understand so everyday Australians can remain up-to-date on the climate debate,'' Mr Solomon said.

The cartoon can be seen at http://www.getup.org.au/.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Roll up, roll up, the Garnaut roadshow is coming to town
« Reply #74 on: July 09, 2008, 02:06:09 AM »

Professor Ross Garnaut delivers his climate change message to a packed house at the Adelaide Town Hall. Photo: David Mariuz

http://www.theage.com.au/national/roll-up-roll-up-the-garnaut-roadshow-is-coming-to-town-20080708-3bwh.html

AUSTRALIA has squandered the chance of responding slowly to climate change and cannot wait for other countries to act, according to Ross Garnaut.

Speaking in Adelaide yesterday on the second day of a week of nationwide public forums, the author of the draft report on climate change said Australia faced a compressed timetable for introducing an emissions trading scheme in 2010 because it had squandered its opportunity for a staged start-up by not acting six or 10 years ago.

Professor Garnaut said the welfare of the nation was at stake and without climate change mitigation, life as it was known now in large parts of Australia, including the Murray Basin, would change forever.

"I would be very pleased if we didn't have to hurry, I would much rather go slower," he said.

The economist and former Australian ambassador to China said the effects of global warming were already two decades ahead of those predicted in Britain's Stern report, which until this year was the benchmark for the speed of climate change.

Professor Garnaut said the models used by Nicholas Stern, which were based on International Energy Agency and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections, had failed to take account of the recent rapid economic growth of China, India and Indonesia.

"We analysed that work and we have come to the view that it greatly underestimates the 'business as usual' growth in emissions," he said. "The world has a short period in which to get its act together."

Professor Garnaut said that if nothing was done, the world would have the level of emissions in 2030 that the Stern report predicted by 2050.

"A realistic approach to what is happening in 'business as usual' brings forward the critical dates," he said.

He dismissed suggestions Australia should not be the first to respond to climate change, because 25 countries in Europe were already doing so.

"For those who say we mustn't be first, you've got your wish, because we are a long way from being first," he said. "The best we can hope for is that we are not a drag on the pack."

He said policy decisions on climate change were the hardest faced by any government in living memory and individuals should make their views heard.

"This is a fateful time," Professor Garnaut said. "Over the months and the year or so ahead, Australia and the international community will take decisions that will determine whether or not we deal effectively with global warming."

He said he would not lobby the Federal Government or other politicians to adopt his recommendations once his final report was released on September 30. "If we have done our work well, then the Australian community and the Government of Australia will know the implications of the decisions they are making," he said.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,777
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #75 on: July 09, 2008, 07:37:48 AM »
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
 
The road to Copenhagen 2009



At the Climate Change Conference in Bali, Parties to the UNFCCC decided to launch formal negotiations on a strengthened international deal on climate change. These negotiations are set to be concluded by the end of 2009 at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. To conduct the process, a subsidiary body under the Convention was set up, called the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA).
AWG-LCA reports and submissions

To discuss future commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol, the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol established a working group in December 2005 called the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). The AWG-KP is also set to complete its work by the end of 2009.
AWG-KP reports and submissions.

http://unfccc.int/2860.php


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
(Climate Change) Sceptics grow bold - Andrew Bolt
« Reply #76 on: July 09, 2008, 08:42:26 AM »
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Is a tide turning? From today’s newspapers, three more sceptics speak out against the warming hysteria:

Tony Rutherford - http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=9&ContentID=83840,
Chris Kenny http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23990275-5016479,00.html
Michael Duffy - http://blogs.smh.com.au/urbanjungle/2008/07/actually_global.html


Why, it’s almost becoming respectable again to doubt.

UPDATE

And reader Ian points out this article in one of his old copies of Time, believe it or not:

    As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.  The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

UPDATE 2

From the 3AW site:

VIDEO: 3AW’s Derryn Hinch reveals he has joined the ‘Andrew Bolt school’ of climate change
http://www.mytalk.com.au/aspx/pages/mediaplayer.aspx?t=audio&w=10977
http://www.mytalk.com.au/aspx/pages/mediaplayer.aspx?t=audio&w=10976
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: (Climate Change) Sceptics grow bold - Andrew Bolt
« Reply #77 on: July 09, 2008, 08:48:29 AM »
Now global warming is putting the heat on PM

TONY RUTHERFORD
9th July 2008, 15:00 WST


The Prime Minister seems to be discovering, roughly once a week, that government is enormously harder than opposition. He is discovering at the same time that by not taking the task of opposition seriously enough, he is making things a lot harder for himself.
 
The blithe promise to make sure that every secondary school student had access to a computer, for instance, looks like costing about twice as much as promised (one billion or so) as the recalcitrant States gang up on Canberra and insist on being funded for the infrastructure costs as well as the computers themselves.
 
His industrial relations policy doesn’t seem to be going down all that well with anyone, least of all the unions. The promises on fuel and grocery prices and interest rates are now looking a little shabby.
 
Even the token gestures have been a mixed bag. The great apology went down quite well; but the signing up to Kyoto is turning out to be something of a problem. When, last week, the latest instalment of the review of greenhouse policy thumped on to his desk, Mr Rudd can hardly have been delighted.
 
It is a weighty document, over 500 pages long, full of detailed and technical arguments. The interested layman won’t have much of a chance of getting past the first few chapters. It seems to come attached to something of a hero cult, being called simply “The Garnaut Climate Change Review”, it gives a prominence to its author unusual in the history of such documents.
 
Events over the past few years conspired to make global warming a winner for Mr Rudd and, under his leadership, the then opposition conspired with those events.
 
Prolonged drought in the Eastern States, a few bad bushfire seasons, the plight of the Murray/Darling river system, water rationing in the eastern capitals, all made it easy to claim that Australia was already in the grip of global warming, that we had to do something about it.
 
The availability of other rational explanations — insufficient investment in water infrastructure, failure to maintain adequate fire prevention regimes, natural variation in climate even within Australia’s short recorded history — were, often deliberately, ignored.
 
Labor in opposition cashed in on all this. The ratification of Kyoto was presented as some kind of mystical panacea and, under Dr Garnaut’s benevolent guidance, a comprehensive global warming policy would be put in place which would fix all these problems.
 
The considerable costs, and the extreme pain, were never mentioned. Easy assumptions — about the viability of alternative energy sources, for instance — went unchallenged. Amazingly, Labor has, in government, largely persisted with this line. Over the past few weeks, we have repeatedly heard claims about the dreadful fate of the Barrier Reef, the Murray/Darling, farming lands, what have you, if we fail to act now.
 
The point seems slowly to be entering public debate that all this is somewhat exaggerated. Australia accounts for about 1.5 per cent of global emissions. We could stop all emissions tomorrow and it would not be noticed. The difference would be equivalent to China’s emissions over a matter of weeks. And the harshest climate regime change within Australia would do nothing to save the rivers, or the farms, or the reefs. To suggest otherwise is fantasy or falsehood of the worst kind.
 
This is a key issue, and one which the Government must face up to: unless we have a compelling reason to act, then we should not act. The Garnaut report is strangely reticent on the subject. In Chapter 14 we are told: “There would be no point in Australia alone introducing mitigation policies. The entire purpose of Australian mitigation is to support the emergence of an effective global effort.”
 
In Chapter 1, we have the argument that: “For Australia, the commitment to the mitigation of climate change can be seen as the reinvestment of a part of the immense gains that have come from accelerated Asian economic growth, in contributing to reduction of an adverse side-effect of that growth. In this, we are in a privileged position. We are different from most other countries, and certainly from all other developed countries except Norway.”
 
This is bizarrely unconvincing. What is involved is not some idle theoretical economic matter, but the future of Australia’s economy. Even those who accept all the arguments must think that it is all a bit thin.
 
Professor Garnaut’s presentation of the “science” is perhaps slightly ahead of mainstream (odd in a non-scientist), his presentation of the economic arguments perhaps the same. But the denseness of the arguments, which can only really be judged by his professional peers, effectively draws attention away from the assumptions. Not just the assumption about whether or not it is worth our while acting at all — but the assumptions about the behaviour of other key nations. No one seriously believes that China and India will join in in anything like a wholehearted way; both have said very clearly that they will not. That is a more realistic assumption on which to base our policy.
 
Equally, although what economists now seem to call adaptation (our ability to manage the problem through technological advances) is duly dealt with by the report, it seems to be less important in the calculations than some believe.
 
If I were going to live long enough to see the outcome of all this, I’d stake quite a lot on technological innovation being the only useful long-term solution. Common sense, and history, suggest precisely that.
 
The extreme uncertainties now reluctantly being faced by the Rudd Government come with very considerable costs. As the debate over petrol prices demonstrates, there may be an immediate political cost to the Government.
 
More seriously, it is slowly coming to terms with the fact that it alone will be responsible now for making economic decisions that will be intended to stand for generations, decisions made on dubious assumptions and fallible economic and scientific modelling.
 
This now is made worse by the PM’s visible unease with the technical detail, clearly demonstrated on TV last weekend. And even if (as seems likely) the Government manages to distance itself from the Garnaut model, it is still committed to the difficult task of coming up with an emissions regime which works, which is simple and transparent, which does minimal economic damage, which doesn’t involve pork-barrelling and rent-seeking on a massive scale, and which is internationally acceptable.
 
Perhaps it simply cannot be done. But there will be no real harm if we put the decision off until the basis for making it is a good deal clearer.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
« Reply #78 on: July 09, 2008, 08:03:50 PM »
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-missing-link-in-the-garnaut-report-20080709-3cjh.html?page=-1

PROFESSOR Ross Garnaut has managed to write a 548-report on climate change in which he mentions Australia's largest current contribution to climate change precisely once — in the glossary, where we find a definition of "enteric fermentation".

Never heard of it? It's what goes on in the digestive systems of ruminants, like cattle and sheep. It produces methane, Australia's largest but also most under-appreciated contribution to climate change over the next few decades.

The second-largest current contribution is coal. It gets mentioned 272 times in the report — as it should.

Why is methane so under-appreciated? There's a political reason and a technical reason.

The political reason is that if telling Australians that they need to pay more for petrol and electricity is tough, telling them they need to consume less beef, lamb and dairy products is going to be tougher still.

As for the technical reason, maybe the best way to explain it is like this: Suppose I offer you $1000 if you let me hold a blowtorch to your leg for 10 seconds.

When you decline, I explain that you should not focus on just that 10 seconds when the torch is applied to your leg. I have calculated that the average temperature applied to your leg over the 20-minute period that starts when I apply the blowtorch, will be only 48 degrees, which is hot, but quite bearable.

That, in effect, is the approach Garnaut takes to methane in his draft report.

Just like the crazy guy with the blowtorch, Garnaut underestimates the heating impact of methane by averaging it over 100 years.

Methane is mostly switched off after just a decade, and almost entirely gone after 20 years, so averaging it over a century dramatically reduces its apparent impact.

The problem is that during the decade in which it is doing its damage, it has had a much larger impact than talk about its average impact over a century would lead you to believe.

The source of Garnaut's methane howler becomes clear when he introduces the climate scientist's term "radiative forcing" in his report but soon shows that he does not really understand what it means and why it is so important.

Radiative forcing refers to factors that change the difference between incoming and outgoing energy in a climate system.

Positive forcings warm the system, negative forcings cool it down. There are two ways in which Garnaut misunderstands forcing. The first, as we have already seen, is the use of relative forcing averaged over 100 years.

That would be reasonable if there were no urgency about dealing with climate change, but we don't have 100 years before tipping points are crossed, so we should not be averaging methane's forcing over 100 years. This mistake leads Garnaut to rate methane as 25 times more potent, per tonne, than carbon dioxide in causing global warming, whereas the correct figure, if we average over 20 years, is that it is 72 times more potent. That's a hugely significant difference.

The second misunderstanding is the opposite of looking a century ahead. Garnaut includes in his report a chart of contributions to climate radiative forcing. It's an accurate historical description of what has heated up the planet. It includes the full impact not only of our recent activities, but of those of our parents, grandparents and more distant ancestors all the way back to 1750.

Carbon dioxide dominates this picture. No surprise there. Some of the carbon dioxide currently heating up the planet, and shown in Garnaut's chart, was put into the atmosphere by the pioneers who cleared 1 million square kilometres of the US forests more than a century ago.

More of it came out of the exhaust pipes of all the T-model Fords that came off Henry Ford's assembly lines.

On the other hand, the methane in the chart is all ours. Almost every bit of it was put there in the past 20 years. The historical chart is interesting if you want a historical picture, but it is irrelevant if we are interested in what we are doing now, and how we might get out of this mess. If that is our concern, we need to focus most attention on the impacts of current forcings during the next 20 years.

These are the forcings we are causing now and can do something about. If we were to chart them, methane and carbon dioxide would be almost equal in significance. That is what Garnaut seems to miss.

The practical implication is that his draft report recommends against including methane emissions from cattle and sheep in his proposed emission trading scheme.

To ignore Australia's biggest contribution to climate forcing is just plain silly.

Australia's methane emissions come primarily from 28 million cattle, 88 million sheep and a bunch of leaky coal mines. The livestock emissions, on their own, will cause significantly more warming in the next 20 years than all our coal-fired power stations.

The good news is that methane is easy to deal with.

We don't have to wait for engineers to solve a bunch of really tough infrastructural problems. We can do it now. Just stop breeding so many sheep and cattle in Australia. And because methane is such a huge contributor to climate change, this is not just an "earth hour" stunt. This is the real deal.

Geoff Russell is a mathematician and computer programmer. Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. Barry Brook is Sir Hubert Wilkins professor of climate change at the University of Adelaide.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline TruthHunter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
« Reply #79 on: July 09, 2008, 08:32:07 PM »
Stop farting, everyone. It causes global warming!  :D