Climate change…what me worry?

I wish I could be as relaxed about climate change as Tony Abbott. He’s told us that climate change science “is absolute crap!”. 

He’d know…THE MAN above has probably whispered in his ear:

“Hey Tony! Don’t listen to those four-eyed geeks…I’m bringing down this screwy weather on all the sinners…nothing to do with carbon and pollution and the heating of the oceans. It’s all me matey. I’ll let you know when it’s time to build an ark”.

News Ltd poster boy Andrew Bolt also seems pretty relaxed about climate change…he enjoys poking fun at Al Gore, whipping up conspiracies, listing previous floods…forgetting of course that these floods are all post-industrial revolution and the poisoning of our atmosphere by way of coal & other fossil foolish stuff.

But then, Andrew also has direct contact with THE MAN…well, at least that other MAN, Rupert Murdoch.

And he also would know…as Tom Paine pointed out in 2010 in his article, Rupert Murdoch demonstrates mental incontinence over climate change:

News Corp. announced its plan in May 2007 with a groundbreaking speech from Chairman Rupert Murdoch. “Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats,” declared Murdoch. “We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction.” Formerly skeptical about global warming, Murdoch was reportedly converted by a presentation from Al Gore—whom Fox News commentators have described as “nuts” and “off his lithium”—and by his green-leaning son James, who is expected to inherit his business empire. But Murdoch wasn’t acting out of altruism. For News Corp., he said, the move was “simply good business.” (Fox News barely mentioned the boss’s remarks.)

Hmmm…so should I be worried about climate change or not? Is this part of the usual state of affairs when it comes to our volatile, rumbling, erupting, flatulence producing, one moment dry as a witch’s tit, the next wet as a newborn’s nappy, “guess what surprise I’ve got for you today honeys?” beloved Mother Earth?

Or are the recent spate of natural disasters something almost unprecedented? Has our pollution choked, raped, exploited, sh*t on from a great height by billions of humans & their farting livestock, carbon suffocated Gaia just about had its fill?…

and consequently desperate action needs to be taken by one & all…including our too oft piss-weak, fossil fool puppet governments so we don’t all end up as shrivelled mummies, melted splodges on the footpaths, swimming the panic butterfly in WaterWorld, or looking like a cryogenics experiment…convenient frozen snacks for future visitors.

Is this present kooky weather caused by we fossil fuel addicted humans running around like bats outa hell as we compete with the nextdoor & overseas neighbours to own more, look slicker, drive faster, hear & see more,  cool down & heat up quicker, travel more?…

whilst giving one thumb down to fossil fuel, automobile, airline, air-conditioning, general electric appliance industries due to their contribution to the choking environment…but oddly, like split personality prosperity evangelists, we hold up to the same industries the other thumb & right big toe as a sign of approval that “We really dig yer stuff” (add smiley face).

 Seems like madness I tell ya…madness.

But ya know, upon reflection, we’re a a bunch known for taking risks…putting the rational thinking aside and heeding the words & advice of the profiteering gung-hoers & deniers of tragedy (Cassandras?) & Luddites & loopy religious pontificators who have done contortionist acts for thousand of years in order to preserve the privileges of them, or their bosses…to prove themselves right.

Why would we stop now?


When ya think about the cost of putting a price on carbon, putting in place a National Disaster Fund, energy efficiency devices in yer homes & businesses…it seems like a great deal of effort and cost for a “maybe”.

 I mean, what a waste of time & money it’s been putting seatbelts in cars…and dealing with that pesky Ozone layer…and putting locks on our doors…and pursuing those who put toxins in our foods & cigarettes.

And funding lights for our lanes, parks…even roads & highways & automobiles. Surely people can drive in the dark? 

 As for asbestos, well Tony Abbott can give you feedback on that issue. I think he commented on the suffering Bernie Banton once or twice.

Frankly, why would I let the floods in Queensland, Victoria, Brazil, Europe, the UK (did ya see those centuries old bridges crack & crash into the roaring waters?…great live images), a huge area of Pakistan , China, and gawd knows how many other places in recent years, worry me?

Or the bushfires in Western Australia, Victoria, California, Russia…you name it…

 Not when I’ve got my dry couch…and reassuring Bolt blog.

As for all these cyclones? As long as it wasn’t me… right?

Anyway, I’m waiting for a twister so I can play Dorothy.

 Katrina? Blaah…what kind of name is that? Yasi’s even worse. Give me Dorothy any day.

Hmmm…but now my hearts beating rapidly again…everytime I think about this summer. And next.

 I wish I could be as relaxed as Tony & Bolta.


But unfortunately, I can’t hear THE MAN.

I don’t reckon those 50 thousand Russians who died in raging fires & heatwaves in their summer last year could either…and if they could?…they sure can’t now.

What me worry?


36 comments on “Climate change…what me worry?

  1. Hello joanna. I’m glad you like Nasking’s great blog. He writes with passion, that’s for sure.

    Hope your blog takes off. You’ll be amongst friends here who’ll always be happy to drop by your place for a chin wag.

  2. I wonder what Abbott will do for the climate change refugees from places such as Kiribati, ‘turn back the boats’?

  3. Cheers JJ & Migs, I thought I’d take a different approach. Inject a bit of humour into a very serious debate.

    Hopefully got a few points across tho.

    To be honest, I’m real worried about climate change.

    And the sooner we do more to correct the underlying problems the better…

    but that doesn’t mean conning the public w/ a badly thought out tax that will benefit those who love playing in the market casino…and rewarding the big polluters. Gina Rinehart & Clive Palmer are rich enuff…as are the many oil & coal execs & CEOs…

    it’s gonna be real tricky for our government to come up w/ a solution (different type of tax?, levy?, direct investment?…all of the above?) that can inspire other world governments…

    and be accepted & promoted by at least a few influential media moguls, their staff & corporate heads…

    whilst surviving blitzkrieg ad campaigns from the privileged/energy-based preservers of status quo & their climate change denier fanatics…

    and being able to compensate pensioners, the disadvantaged, the struggling workers who will scream the moment they feel they’ve been put under undue financial pressure whilst sh*t stirrers point out that others haven’t and they’ve been made the sacrificial lambs.

    It’s gonna take one gutsy, imaginative, well-informed, well-connected, visionary, articulate, sensible, determined, communication-savvy government & leadership…

    well-supported by conviction allies across the media, political, celebrity & various corporate sectors to implement the change…

    the change that has to happen.
    Useful vid Min. Thnx. The ‘climate change refugee’ situation is such an important aspect to this climate change debate.


  4. Hi Nasking,

    Thankyou for a very enjoyable piece, you are a valuable asset to the blogosphere , that’s for sure, well done.

    I wish I could talk to you more on Climate Change, but it gets me baffled, frustrated, with the thousands of arguments.

    (“I wish I could be as relaxed about climate change as Tony Abbott. He’s told us that climate change science “is absolute crap!”).

    I agree Nasking I wish I could relax about Climate Change too,
    by the time anyone of consequence agrees on anything we will all be dead.

    I believe there, seems no doubt, there has to be a price on carbon at least..


  5. Hi Lyn, nice to see you. Sorry that your comment took so long to show up, but for some reason it ended up in the spam folder. 😳

    Please accept a drink on the house.

  6. “by the time anyone of consequence agrees on anything we will all be dead.”

    Thnx Lyn. Yer one of my fave blog contributors & have added so much to the blogosphere by way of yer comments and links on here…and yer home at The Political Sword.

    And I agree totally. Now w/ these tragic fires in WA ya can’t help but wonder if they’ve left it too late.

    And it will take our burnt, melted or drowned corpses to convince the world to unite on this issue and find a way to solve the problem.

    Gawd I hope not.

    It could take a century to fix the climate.


  7. “It could take a century to fix the climate.”

    No civilisation, at any time in history, has been able to “fix the climate”.

    Man has tried sacrificing virgins, killing goats, praying to a thousand different gods, throwing people in volcanoes…

    …and none of those mad ideas have done jack.

    Why do you think that we, the same race that never in the history of our species, has been able to stop fires, floods, droughts, cyclones, ice ages, warm periods, etc before…

    …is suddenly going to be able to do it this time?

    Far out. You think a lot of yourself don’t you.

    The narcissism and exaggerated self-importance of adolescence.

    I hope you grow out of it soon.

  8. The narcissism and exaggerated self-importance of adolescence.

    Given your ‘rant’ it’s clearly a great self-description. And I hope you grow out of it soon. But being a genuine ‘sceptic’, I somewhat doubt it.

  9. Certainly climate has always been changing but gradually giving species a chance to adapt and therefore survive. For those that were unable to adapt the result was and still is extinction because of course there is no longer an environment which can support that species needs.

    I’d prefer that the human race didn’t go the way of the dinosaur.

  10. Just how pessimistic is Tom Maitland? The human race can’t fix it’s own stuff ups so everyone just throw down your tools and endeavours and give up now.

    The human race is stuffing it so the human race can fix it, it really is that simple.

    I also noted the way Tom M bought AGW back to religion, a standard attack of the deniers.

    We also now another Tom M by the way, very similar views.

    The pumped up self importance know-it-all of a fixed narrow mindset, I do hope you broaden your horizons soon.

  11. Courtesy of Crikey an article which includes these quotes from Garnaut:

    To explain why Australia should do its fair share, he pointed to the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Contributing such a small contingent was not likely to change the outcome, but it was part of Australia’s proportional effort.

    Meanwhile, Australia remains one of the highest emitters per capita. “If one of the rich countries doesn’t do its part, then we’ve got Buckley’s of getting the whole world to participate,” he said. “We should stop being a drag on the international effort.”

    On the subject of why the economics of ‘doing something’ makes sense.

    And on the question of whether to spend on mitigation or adaptation, Garnaut says it should be both. Adaptation investment is already occurring in the forms of desalination plants and the like, but Garnaut says it is cheaper to make investments in advance rather than trying to rescue the situation after catastrophes have occurred. “I can’t see the logic of saying there is choice between adaptation and mitigation.” If we don’t act, the adaptation costs will be huge.

  12. “Man has tried sacrificing virgins, killing goats, praying to a thousand different gods, throwing people in volcanoes…
    …and none of those mad ideas have done jack.”

    And not surprising they haven’t had the desired effect.

    Tom Maitland, I reckon modern day scientific approaches working in tandem w/ progressive, concerned energy & transport companies, the responsible & awakened major corporations, appropriate investments, conservationists…

    and ocean, forest & carbon sink renewal movements…

    aided by effective legislation, advertising/promotion & incentives to motivate people to change their lifestyle habits (think recycling)…can make a big difference…

    eventually mitigating global warming…and gradually reversing climate conditions to a less extreme state.

    Yes, there will always be natural disasters…but if we continue down the path we are presently on we will endanger just about every life form on this planet…

    and no superstitious claptrap and praying will do the job of repairing the damage we’ve already done.

    Hopefully people such as yerself can shrug off the denialist propaganda and join others in doing what needs to be done.

    “I know a few firemen who might not agree 100% with that statement.”

    Good point Tom R. We can halt the progress of fires…and floods (culverts, levies, sandbags). Just takes alot of forethought, imagination, time & effort…and money.

    Time to get our priorities right.

    As Ross Garnaut basically puts it above in the article linked & quoted by Min (thnx)…if we can put in the effort as part of a global defense force to try and prevent ‘terrorism’, then why can’t we put in the same or more effort to prevent a worsening of global warming?

    Surely we owe that to future generations, other species…and our more rational selves?

    How much do people spend on escapist activities in their lives? Possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars…if not millions.

    Perhaps it’s time we recognised we’re here, on Earth, love it or loathe it…that this is the one & only planet that provides us w/ the air, water, food & tools to exist…stay alive…a privilege…

    and rather than prioritising “escape” we need to put the emphasis on repairing our HOME.

  13. Nas

    While not as colourful or emotional in my language regarding the issue, or the opposition, you have beaten me to the punch. I have been slowly examining information regarding things that your average person can relate to, in regards to this issue, because like you, I think it is a very real issue.

    The problem is most scientists and reporters talk jargon or examples that the average person cannot relate to in their daily life or experiences. Then out of 100 pages of info the deniers choose 1 sentence to justify their bru ha ha.

    I will delay publishing it , while I gather more info and allow your blog to absorb comments for a period of time.

  14. Shane,
    I look forward to yer post.

    This is indeed a real & serious issue that requires many people as possible airing their views & concerns, informing & providing ideas based on their everyday lives & observations…from farming to temperature guaging & checking water quality to working w/ bee hives as a hobby & those who maintain buildings, roadworks & train tracks…including readings and other research they may have done.

    I’m no expert…I just tells it the way I feel…based on my own observations, experience & research. Minus much of the jargon.

    “The problem is most scientists and reporters talk jargon or examples that the average person cannot relate to in their daily life or experiences. Then out of 100 pages of info the deniers choose 1 sentence to justify their bru ha ha.”

    Spot on. The occasional error or exagerration is turned into a mountain out of a molehill. It’s time that scientists adapted & spoke to the people in more basic, understandable language…the styles they can relate to….come down from the ivory towers…roll up the sleeves and get down on the ground…and relate information to practical situations…and so on.

    For instance, in my experience, if you treat those working on the land w/ respect and listen to their observations & experience & ideas…and explain scientific results & theories in a down-to-earth fashion, generally many are willing to take the ideas on board…give you a hearing…and change practices if you have detailed plans & materials in place. And incentive programs.


  15. I agree absolutely about cutting the jargon. To me the best way to solve a problem is by putting it into terms that the average person can relate to.

    Eons ago when I was regional local government rep on the EPA we were able to immediately and with very little fuss impliment 2 important environmental reforms. One being the implementation of a recycling scheme and the other being the implementation of cat curfews to protect the remnant lyrebird population.

    Step 1 was to advertise the problem, a public awareness campaign. Step 2 was to provide information as to the consequences of doing nothing and then providing the solution.

    If we had sat around and waited for public consensus I assure you none of these would have ever got off the ground due to the loud mouth complainers who generally monopolise debate. For some reason these type of people tend to be the most resistant to change of any sort even when it benefits themselves.

  16. I hope you grow out of it soon.

    ToM Maitland, I’d prefer to hope that you’d be able to grow out of it soon. And as for:

    Man has tried sacrificing virgins, killing goats, praying to a thousand different gods, throwing people in volcanoes…

    …and none of those mad ideas have done jack.

    What happened to those civilisations that practiced those Abbottesque rituals? They perished.

    True, we can’t control the weather but we can control the effects that the weather has on us. And it won’t happen if we sit on our bums and allow ourselves to get washed away the next time it rains.

    BTW, have we met?

  17. Julia’s lunch time press conference has provided lots of specific information about how the federal government’s contribution to the rebuilding funds will be administered.

    Information includes the names and qualifications of the federal government’s representatives, that ongoing auditing will be conducted and that her prime consideration is that “every dollar spent on rebuilding is a dollar that gets maximum value for money and goes to the regions that need it the most”.

  18. Oh for goodness sake somebody please shut Abbott up – can’t be trusted with money – we don’t need a 2nd bureaucracy to oversee the flood money – shows they can’t be trusted – extend concessional loans to small business.

    Umm Tony once the reconstruction starts whose businesses benefit, local ones of course due to the influx of the contract workforce. Anyone along the Pacific Highway knows how the local economy thrived once the Abi Group moved in for 12 months.

    Abbott is talking about the Reconstruction Authority which is to be overseen by John Fahey and the audit re ‘another bureaucracy’.

  19. Thnx, useful link Tom R.

    So, according to Damian Carrington of the Guardian on Monday 31 January 2011:

    The public’s belief in global warming as a man-made danger has weathered the storm of climate controversies and cold weather intact, according to a Guardian/ICM opinion poll published today.

    Asked if climate change was a current or imminent threat, 83% of Britons agreed, with just 14% saying global warming poses no threat. Compared with August 2009, when the same question was asked, opinion remained steady despite a series of events in the intervening 18 months that might have made people less certain about the perils of climate change. Emails between climate researchers that were released online in November 2009 had led to unfounded suggestions that the scientific basis for global warming was flawed. World leaders also failed to agree to a global deal to combat warming and a mistake over the melting of Himalayan glaciers was handled badly by the UN’s science panel.

    Supporters of action on climate change, from government to business to campaigners, will be relieved that this series of negative news failed to increase scepticism significantly.

    A large majority of people think that humanity is causing climate change, with 68% agreeing and 24% choosing to blame non-man-made factors, which again is very close to the August 2009 response, with figures of 71% and 23% respectively. In 2007, the UN’s science panel collated the work of thousands of scientists to conclude that the link between the emission of greenhouse gases by human activities and climate change was 90% certain.

    While climate sceptics remain a vocal presence in some parts of the climate change debate, the new poll shows them to represent a fringe position. An analysis of those who think climate change poses no threat reveals them to be predominantly men (70%) and about twice as likely to be over 65 and to have voted Conservative in 2010 than the general population.

    Those results are reassuring. And provide a real launching pad for change.

    So it seems that the older conservative males are doin’ their fair share of playing the sceptic…understandable…probably because they are prone to bein’ the most fearful of change based on aim to make enuff dough to retire comfortably which they feel might be put at risk by carbox taxes and other legislation…and often they have worked extremely hard (or have convinced themselves of such)…and generally spurned government assistance (tho, it is convenient to ignore subsidies to their workplaces, education, healthcare institutions…rebates, access to roads, culverts built to defend their properties & businesses and so on)…

    and a general suspicion of any grand theory promoted by so called “Lefty” & “Greeny” (think Socialist & hippy based on their 50s/60s/70s experiences…and of course second world war & family stories handed down) as younger businessman & workers, often white collar…

    perhaps a certain amount of “pride” & need to be seen still as “top dog”, “man of the house” kinda stuff here too (in a world where the so called “patriarch” is under attack)…

    leading to defensive reactions that can be quite assertive, even scoffing, as they assert knowledge of climate history and scepticism (based partially on experiences related to past predictions of oncomin’ ice age)…

    and havin’ read plenty of books, mag articles & seen TV docos that demonstrate the greed & incompetence of leaders & occasional scientists (even dangers…ie: atom bomb)…add occasional conspiracy novel…

    it feeds into their believe that as the world wobbles around them by way of war, economic collapses, bankruptcies, sports corruption, assassinations, famine, natural disasters…

    they are the one constant that has stood up and worked hard, provided for their family and helped to stave off hardship. The wife can be included here.

    Therefore, their perserverence when it comes to fairly rigid socio-economic beliefs that they feel has kept them & their family safe & financially secure creates a kind of stubborness we’ve seen displayed in the past in regard to them accepting changes to family structure, migration, refugees, technology & so on.

    Ironically, the home-based, work-based rigidity has mixed w/ this scepticism of the outside world. And therefore, until there are ongoin’ events that destabilise the stability of their lives, change is for others, not for them.

    Some may find it prudent however, to use rebates & incentives to enhance the security of their family’s lives…their own…by taking advantage of incentive programs…hookin’ too into the “thrifty” aspect to their lives…protestent ethic (?)…

    or investing in order to mitigate risk to said stability…

    but this does not mean they will accept the “grandiose”, “maybe” pronouncements of others external to their unit.

    In this case, scientists backed by political & media celebrities claiming climate change is primarily caused by humans and carbon output. etc. Al Gore for instance.

    And of course, they are prime targets for energy company hacks who hope to keep their privileges & enriching assets & the status quo (at least until they can afford to significantly invest in the “new way”)…this includes campaigners funded or motivated by other industries that benefit from the status quo or gradual change…

    many who look & sound much like them.

    Unfortunately, to wait for such conservative people to change their view related to climate change would be puttin’ the rest of the world at great risk and hindering necessary adaptation investment & urgent mitigating climate change legislation.

    I reckon the best can be done is to appeal to their need for security…provide incentives…and offer up investment opportunities in new technology & renewable energy that is promoted like a large secure old time bank (Call a solar, wind, nuclear conglomerate ‘Commonwealth Energy’ for instance)…

    so they are investing in the future…but feeling it hooks into stable, dependable financial characters…who respect the past…and frugality…and offer seemingly little risk.

    I imagine this would mean bringing on board extremely wealthy investors w/ significant reputations from various political backrounds or having no or little connection to politics (seemingly) known for taking safe bets…

    and promoting them as the creators & shareholders of new & altered energy projects, plants etc.

    Then the conservative family man will feel they are doing the responsible thing w/out the need to accept much of the climate change argument.

    Somethin’ like that.


  20. “An analysis of those who think climate change poses no threat reveals them to be predominantly men (70%) and about twice as likely to be over 65 and to have voted Conservative in 2010 than the general population.”

    Nas’ Guardian quote at 4.04 PM

    The strong correlation between denialism and Conservative politics is truly fascinating, but the answer I think is quite simple. Tories are selfish pricks. They have a ruthless dedication to self interest. All else flows from that.

    There are exceptions I know, but generally it’s been my experience that Tories are socially unreliable. And boring.

    I try to avoid them.

  21. Yes MJ. When you read the deniers responses to threads, even those who are mostly reasonable and benign in their writings, you see the one common thread of their being conservative/regressive and selfish.

    When you peel away all the mishmash of cherry picking the standard denial talking points, the latest predominate one being it’s natural now that their cooling meme has been thrown out with the other denialist garbage, it nearly always comes down to having to pay for it and/or having to change their lifestyles to pay for it.

    They would rather see the planet go to shit in a basket than give up anything in their over consumptive life or reduce by an iota their selfishness.

    Thing is, and I have raised this many times over the last decade, they are like the wealthy selfish victim portrayed as evil in disaster movies like The Poseidon Adventure or The Towering Inferno, when it all does go to shit they will be the first wanting governments to give them assistance ahead of all others and they will be the ones complaining the loudest that governments should have done something decades earlier when they had the chance.

  22. “The strong correlation between denialism and Conservative politics is truly fascinating, but the answer I think is quite simple. Tories are selfish pricks. They have a ruthless dedication to self interest. All else flows from that.”

    Mangrove Jack,


    Some Mangrove, some…I have a few Tory family members who are pretty unselfish…my Grandpop was a Tory Mayor & Principal who cared dearly for the people.

    However, he did run as an Independent the second time…so I’m not sure what that says about his comrades. 🙂

    “They would rather see the planet go to shit in a basket than give up anything in their over consumptive life or reduce by an iota their selfishness.”

    I’ve often wondered if some of them believe the end of the world is comin’ (bible predictions, 2012 & such) and these natural disasters & wars are signs.

    Claptrap of course…but it’s amazin’ how many evangelicals & Libertarian conspiracy theory readers get into this nonsense.

    So yes, selfishness & greed plays a part…but religion too.

    I guess they see it as “Why fix what is destined to happen?” Scary. Delusional.


  23. This from Wednesday’s ‘Lateline’:

    MARGOT O’NEILL: Here’s what the scientists are certain about: that greenhouse gases trap heat, which is basic physics; that an unprecedented amount of greenhouse gas has been pumped into the atmosphere in the last 200 years, and that world temperatures are going up, as recorded by the world’s four major climate centres in the US, Japan and the UK.

    ANDY PITMAN: It’s in all of the measurements, it’s in thermometers, it’s in ship measurements, it’s in airplane measurements, it’s in satellite data, it’s in radiosonde data – it’s in all of those. And so…


    MARGOT O’NEILL: The answers could be here inside Australia’s largest supercomputer in Canberra.

    It now spends about 40 per cent of its time running climate model simulations, each experiment involving millions of lines of code and taking about six to eight months to resolve.

    The reliance on modelling attracts criticism, but the scientists point out that models underpin most of today’s science and technology.

    ANDY PITMAN: You can’t get on an aeroplane if you don’t believe in computer modelling. You can’t drive a car if you don’t believe in computer modelling.

    MARGOT O’NEILL: Although sometimes even they find it hard to believe their own research results.

    ANDY PITMAN: I did some work a couple of years ago where I was looking at how much it would warm over southern Australia, and I got some data from the models that suggested we could get days over Victoria 48 degrees Celsius, and I threw that away because it seemed to me not to pass the common sense test. You will recall it basically hit 47 point something on Black Saturday.

    MARGOT O’NEILL: In fact, climate scientists are concerned that their research may be understating the impact of global warming. Already the rate of drying in south-west Western Australia has raced ahead of their models.

    This graph shows the alarming drop for inflows into Perth dams.

    DAVID KAROLY: Dorothea Mackellar, when she talks about Australia as being a land of droughts and flooding rains, what climate change can mean is more droughts and worse flooding rains.


    If we wait 40-60 years to determine if it’s a long-term trend we could be in big big trouble.

    Why take the risk?

    Governments don’t w/ terrorism.


  24. This from the UK:

    UK must cut carbon emissions, or face the consequences

    Adam Vaughan, Thursday 10 February 2011

    Britain may be well placed to meet its carbon-reduction targets, but falling short could result in political chagrin, EU fines and damage to industry

    …The competitive power of British industry could be hit if carbon targets are not met, say industry figures. Nick Medic, head of communications at trade body RenewableUK, says: “We are seeing a very strong pipeline of [renewable energy] projects in construction which, added to our current capacity, already take us over the halfway mark to 2020. But, we must also be aware that we have now reached a critical momentum; any perception that we are slowing down could disrupt confidence.”

    He adds: “Growth in renewable electricity contributions to the grid, a very strong growth in employment and a marked pick up in investor interest all rest on the assumption that we are on course to reach the targets..”

    Connie Hedegaard, the European commissioner for climate action, last year warned that the EU needed carbon targets for 2030 and 2050 to ensure Europe remains competitive with China on green technology. “We should take care not to be too complacent,” she told business leaders at the European Policy Centre, adding that if Europe wanted to lead on exporting such technology, it must not “sit on its hands”.

    Economists and energy experts also warn of the financial costs if targets are not met and temperatures are allowed to rise dangerously high. Each year the world delays moving to stop temperatures rising by 2C, it increases the cost of investment needed to reach a low-carbon economy by $500bn (£314bn), says the International Energy Agency. And as the Gordon Brown-commissioned Stern report famously said, acting on emissions now is cheaper than dealing with the impacts of climate change.


  25. So what’s happening here in Australia?:

    Industry warns Gillard on carbon price

    Clancy Yeates and Adam Morton

    BUSINESS leaders have warned the Gillard government it could face a damaging public battle similar to that over the mining tax if Labor ignores compensation demands by companies affected by a carbon price.

    Government and business sources have told The Age there is growing concern among members of a business roundtable on climate change over a Labor-Greens compromise on a carbon price.

    With the Greens taking the balance of power in the Senate from July, businesses fear their views are being sidelined as the government focuses on getting a deal that can pass Parliament.

    Advertisement: Story continues below The Greens strongly oppose the $7.3 billion compensation promised to coal-fired power companies under the Rudd government’s abandoned emissions trading scheme.


    Most business leaders think a carbon price is inevitable, but the level of compensation for power plants and, to a lesser extent, trade-exposed companies remains highly contentious.

    Labor and the Greens are understood to both favour a hybrid model, starting with a fixed price and later evolving into an emissions trading scheme.


    The warning came as Climate Change Minister Greg Combet announced that scientist Tim Flannery would chair a climate commission that would hold public meetings across the country to give expert advice on climate science, international climate negotiations and carbon pricing. The six-person commission includes scientists and business leaders

    Brad Page, chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia and a business roundtable member, said Greens senator Christine Milne’s criticism of compensation under the abandoned emissions trading plan had raised eyebrows in capital markets.

    He said the Greens’ push for lower compensation would make it harder for the electricity industry to raise the $120 billion needed over the next decade, putting further upward pressure on power prices.


    Government adviser Ross Garnaut – who believes an economic case exists for limited compensation to trade-exposed industries only – today releases the latest update to his 2008 climate review. The third of eight papers, it will examine the level of global emissions.

    That’s one mighty threat.

    I hope the government, environmental groups, and dissenting businesses including renewable/cleaner energy companies are ready for another ad storm this time.

    Hopefully negotiations will see less antagonism this time out. Especially as some corporations are already using renewable energy such as wind power…and solar.

    Was it a good idea for the government to get off side those involved in solar projects & clean car projects by announcing proposed cuts?

    I guess if the fossil fool bullies win this one again…and the climate really deteriorates…many suffer…or die…we can always take them out to a disappearing island and leave them there w/ no transport or food.

    We know who they are.

    More experiences like this ‘summer of disaster’ and they won’t be too popular. To say the least.


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s