'Bailing out' the environment
Posted
Updated
A different approach could change the way wealth is created by breaking the ties with emissions and resource depletion. (AFP: Karen Bleier)
The last couple of weeks have made history in the management of global financial markets.
The threat of a looming global financial crisis has led to the swift implementation of brave ideas by governments and regulators. The response may reveal how the world could avert the looming crises of climate change and resource depletion by backing the clean technology ('cleantech') sector.
The United States Federal Government is rushing through emergency legislation that will inject up to $US700 billion into the banking system to remove the problem of 'toxic debt' from the US financial markets. This debt will apparently include subprime mortgages, credit card and other debts that could cause large financial institutions to come under increasing pressure. The financial crisis has already led to the nationalisation of three of the larger US financial institutions and the Government's response is an attempt to stabilise other companies before they too need to be nationalised. In addition to this 'bailout', regulations have been implemented to restrict short selling practices, preventing hedge funds profiteering from, and thereby driving, the collapse of companies. Several markets around the world have emulated this response in varying degrees, with Australia taking the most extreme position.
At the same time Gordon Brown, the UK Prime Minister, has been calling for an international system of regulation to oversee the global financial system, admitting that it is impossible to effectively regulate the world's markets on a national basis alone.
Commentary, other than from hedge funds, appears to be generally supportive of the initiatives taken in the US and elsewhere. They are commended as being necessary and courageous moves to shore up the global economy and to reduce the risk of the world descending into financial depression. Confidence in the decisions made has stemmed from deep knowledge of causal factors in economics and the likely responses.
The world of course faces another potential catastrophe that could have an impact far worse than a financial meltdown: continuing global climate change and resource depletion.
Of course, the precise consequences of both financial depression and climate change are uncertain, but the risk of catastrophic outcomes of both is very real. Indeed, the issues involved in both problems are in many ways similar. There are companies that will fail due to pursuing toxic, legacy activities beyond the bounds of a sustainable system; there are groups profiteering from activities detrimental to the health of the overall system; there is a need for government investment combined with regulation; there is a drive towards global regulation; and, if done well, there are immense opportunities to increase both global wealth and well being.
Imagine what would be achieved by a response to the global ecological environment on a par with what we've seen for the financial environment. Consider a Bernanke/Paulson type team, with knowledge and confidence in the economic and environmental consequences of their recommendations, persuading a President in one of the richest countries of the world that there is a looming global crisis and that, as one of the worst offenders, there is a responsibility to secure the global system through an investment of several hundreds of billions of dollars.
Not only would such an approach 'bail out' the world from a possible catastrophe, but it would also drive a new global industry with the potential to improve the quality of life for all the world's inhabitants: not merely through increasing wealth, although that is an important aspect, but also by changing the way wealth is created by breaking the ties with emissions and resource depletion.
The adoption of cleantech will happen regardless of such an intervention, but it will be a far less painful experience if the courage and belief demonstrated by recent actions in Washington were to be replicated in the response to global climate change.
John O'Brien is managing director of Australian CleanTech, a research and broking firm that provides advice to cleantech companies and financial institutions. Australian CleanTech publishes the ACT Australian CleanTech Index.
This article was originally published in Environmental Management News on September 25, 2008.
Search for news
Comments (69)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
David:
03 Oct 2008 9:47:21am
Unfortunately this won't happen unless the US gets a president who understands and trusts the science; doesn't believe the end-times are near; and has the courage to do it in the face of the squeals of outrage from the business community. I think Obama probably qualifies on the first two grounds, but I don't know about about the last.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
L:
03 Oct 2008 10:02:40am
I don't like our chances; according to Palin, cavemen walked with dinosaus because the world was made 5679 years ago because she added up the dates in the bible, I doubt Bush could even count that high.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Big Cheese:
03 Oct 2008 2:15:13pm
Palin is entitled to her faith and her view. If you look at the evidence, there is a great deal which supports the view that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
1. Art work and various ancient artifacts depicting live dinosaurs by themselves, or interacting with humans. These include burial stones, burial cloths, clay figurines, cave drawings. E.g The Ica burial stone found in Peru
2. Fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs together. A series of 14 human footprints with at least 134 dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.
Because evolutionists and the news media have so thoroughly indoctrinated our society into believing we lived millions of years apart from dinosaurs, many will immediately dismiss such evidences as hoaxes, or the result of overactive imaginations. However, like many other 'anomalies' that evolutionists try to explain away or dismiss, this evidence is far too abundant worldwide to ignore.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
03 Oct 2008 2:48:42pm
Considering that the fossil record establishes that dinosaurs (in the traditional meaning of the word, noting that birds are as essentially feathered theropod dinosaurs) died out dramatically about 65 million years ago, the earliest human ancestors didn't exist until 6 million years and homo sapiens didn't exist until 400,000 years ago, this is impossible. Dinosaurs and humans coexist only in books, movies, cartoons and creationist museums.
The Inca stones are modern hoaxes. Locals admitted to creating them to sell to tourists.
The Paluxy River "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny and in recent years have been abandoned even by all but the most fundamentalist creationists.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
hugh jampton:
03 Oct 2008 2:52:34pm
Both of your examples have been discredited. The Ica stones are regarded as fakes, the Paluxy River footprints explained as mistaken interpretations (ie people seeing what they wanted to see).
When will people realise that being Christian does not demand a literal interpretation of the old testament.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Root:
03 Oct 2008 3:16:56pm
"Evidence"?
Evidently you've not researched the findings:
1. The authenticity of the ICA stones is doubtable, particularly as they denote images of "dinosaurs" that roamed differnet parts of the planet, and existed during different millenia.
2.The scrunity of the 'man tracks' found at Paluxy River, Texas has not confirmed they are the tracks of any known homo erectus/homo sapien type creature.
3. Santa Claus is alive and well and living just south of Ulladulla. His real name escapes me.
4. The Tooth Fairy is a stooge of Colgate Palmoliveand goes by the pseuonym 'Spiney Norman'.
5. Monty Python's Flying Circus is a series of secretly coded alien messages to all us snowmen to 'remain perfectly still'.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Odge:
03 Oct 2008 9:59:13am
Oh! If only!!!
There's a whole range of cultural issues we need to address too. We need to move away from oil, coal and sheep and cattle farming for a start. We need people to get active and start walking and riding to the shops, school and work and using public transport (where practical). We also need to increase our consumption of native Australian species of flora and fauna to decrease our dependence on introduced species. This will help to manage the productivity of this harsh land with its droughts and floods. Companies that exploit these areas will reap benefits and rise above the rest still wrestling with the land, environment and carbon intensive industry.
We need to get beyond the "base load" argument and move everything that is not dependant on base load availability over to renewables and tap into the big nuclear power plant in the sky, our sun. Lets use our ingenuity to get around the obstacles. Com on, we're so great at doing the hard stuff, after all, we're the human race.
Its all possible, its just going to take some inspiration, motivation, leadership and a bit of help from tax payers. $700 Billion is probably more than enough compared to the measly millions here and there so far. The coal industry alone gets more subsidies just to ship the stuff around than the entire renewables industry. So its not as if we are giving it and honest try even. This will also create a heap of new job opportunities.
Lets change our culture and save civilisation. We learnt to fly, put man on the moon, send probes to Mars, removed ozone depleting aerosols, we can do this!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
steven:
03 Oct 2008 11:42:21am
Yes we can move beyond the base load arguement and move away from universal education, hosptials and medical care, refrigeration and safe food, good nutriftion, a reasonable life expectancy, contraception and a world community. If you cant ensure to supply the basics of life today which are energy intensive and dependant and which cannot be supplied or supported using only "nice" alternate enery sources then you cannot deal with the problems of the world without a massive destocking and reduction of the world back to cave level.
Solar cells and permaculture is nice but they can oinly exsist backed by a moder first world infrastructureAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ricki:
03 Oct 2008 1:31:51pm
Sigh...
Yes, there are going to be costs; yes some industries will suffer and working people will need to be retrained.
If we do nothing, the potential for social collapse will be far greater. Think of the economic loss associated with 1m of sea level rise. This is likely to occur in the next 100 years even if we act rapidly. The fact is that there could be 5 times that rise to follow which is probably 50 times the economic cost IF WE DO NOTHING NOW.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ZZZ:
03 Oct 2008 3:43:16pm
eh? permaculture = permanent agriculture. It can exist quite well without modern first world infrastructure, that's kindof the point, its sustainable. It's the industrial agriculture that can't exist without its energy inputs.
Getting Malthusian - even without turning to alternatives a 'destocking' is inevitable one day, its not like there is unlimited fresh water, farmland, fish etc etc....so lets just fix climate change with placebos and put our heads in the sand.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
renn:
03 Oct 2008 11:48:59am
Maybe the Taliban had the right idea!
No music, no bikes, no book, no sport, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, no school, no makeup, no women speaking, no ideas, no hope, no nothing. No sexuality, no feeling, just no to everything.
And no I am not seriously advocating the above.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Paul G:
03 Oct 2008 10:01:40am
All fantasy it won't happen not until every last drop of oil has been sold and consumed... especially when the science community is so divided.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
L:
03 Oct 2008 11:38:56am
The stone age didn't end because they ran out of rocks.
It's in the nature of science to have differing views, that how it works. There is a consensus amongst those that know what they are talking about that climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed if we want life as we know it to survive for a few hundred years. Things change, but the planet's ecosystems and climate do not appear able to cope with change of this nature and magnitude.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Root:
03 Oct 2008 3:21:04pm
Oh yes, the planets ecosystems can easily handle this stuff - it will change and adapt as it needs to prolong it own existence.
The issue is whether or not humans can survive the changes to the ecosystem - all the simple organisms will survive - the big and complex ones, like us, probably won't.
Isn't it perfect!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Iryany:
03 Oct 2008 11:46:07am
Where is this ridiculous fact stemming from? Rest assured, it is only the ignorant non-scientist types that think that there is doubt amongst scientists who study climate science... but in reality, they are almost unanimously agreed (which is rare in science). If we accept that the sky is blue then chemistry works... thus it would seem logical that there must be some chemical response to +200 ppm CO2.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Richard:
03 Oct 2008 1:59:33pm
"Rest assured, it is only the ignorant non-scientist types that think that there is doubt amongst scientists who study climate science" Oh really?
On the issue of undersea vulcanism and its potential to influence Arctic ice melts, let me clarify some key points. Scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) discovered evidence that explosive eruptions have been occurring along the Gakkel Ridge with frequency over the last decade. With news of polar ice melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics may be a logical smoking gun.
Robert Reeves-Sohn of WHOI said, The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances. Reeves-Sohn went further in his assessment of the volcanos impact, concluding that they have had a major impact on the overlying water columns temperature. However, in a most extraordinary twist of logic, Reeves-Sohn then stated, "We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice. Apparently a series of underwater volcanoes on the Gakkel Ridge a chain of underwater mountains bigger than the Himalayas - can super heat the water with no significant connection to the ice above them. Incredible! Perhaps I must resign to the fact that my lawnmower has far more influence on the sea ice than these scalding cauldrons of magma deep beneath the Arctic.
The melting sea ice in the Arctic threatens to be an ironic Waterloo for the AGW movement. Arctic ice refused to melt as ordered and was nowhere near the much ballyhooed ice-free status so sensationally prophesied this summer. Curiously, other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006 levels. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which archives the last 30 years. A comparison of this data (derived from NSIDC) shows that Arctic ice extent was 30% greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on August 12 2007.
Following the famous experiment (Salmon Asch, 1952) of how peer pressure and conformity influence how people react in response to majority consensus. It was discovered that 70% of the subjects sided with the majority despite the fact that the majority were instructed to provide the wrong answer. The study confirmed that the bigger the majority, the higher the chance was that subjects were prone to submitt to the majority view. The same dynamics are invariably at work within climate science. Perhaps those who are prepared to question this science are now worthy of our attention?Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Greg:
03 Oct 2008 2:18:18pm
so lets do nothing until we are sure that we cannot go back.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Richard:
03 Oct 2008 4:02:07pm
Not quite, Greg. You present a false dichotomy. Perhaps a better statement of concern is, "Let's get the science right, then good policy will follow." Decisions driven by fear are rarely prudent ones.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
03 Oct 2008 2:50:15pm
600 years ago there was disagreement about whether the Earth was flat or round, but the science was right.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Richard:
03 Oct 2008 4:09:37pm
Science is not an outcome but a process of acquiring knowledge about the world in which we live. This process includes embarrassing failures, of which, history is replete. The process is imperfect with many intefering factors at play. At present, AGW is a theory which enjoys a significant following. For a number of reasons this is the case, notwithstanding the lucrative funding available in this field. Please be careful about confusing the process of science with established truth. The two are not the same.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
zibethicus:
03 Oct 2008 4:18:04pm
Just as a matter of interest, when you cite the NSIDC, are you referring to the American National Snow and Ice Data Centre?
Arctic sea ice extent during the 2008 melt season dropped to the second-lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, reaching the lowest point in its annual cycle of melt and growth on September 14, 2008. Average sea ice extent over the month of September, a standard measure in the scientific study of Arctic sea ice, was 4.67 million square kilometers (1.80 million square miles) (Figure 1). The record monthly low, set in 2007, was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles); the now-third-lowest monthly value, set in 2005, was 5.57 million square kilometers (2.15 million square miles).
The 2008 season strongly reinforces the thirty-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent. The 2008 September low was 34% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 and only 9% greater than the 2007 record (Figure 2). Because the 2008 low was so far below the September average, the negative trend in September extent has been pulled downward, from 10.7 % per decade to 11.7 % per decade (Figure 3).
NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, When you look at the sharp decline that weve seen over the past thirty years, a recovery from lowest to second lowest is no recovery at all. Both within and beyond the Arctic, the implications of the decline are enormous.
(end quote)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
zibethicus:
03 Oct 2008 6:48:34pm
I should add that this quotation is taken from an NSIDC press release dated 2 October 2008: Arctic Sea Ice
Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low VolumeAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Richard:
03 Oct 2008 8:15:30pm
My correction, Arctic sea ice increased 10% (not 30%) over the year 2007-2008. Despite Mark Serreze's coments, 10% is a substantial increase when you factor in the sheer size of the Arctic. Yes figures are from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. Bear in mind that this only relates to areas of the ocean with >15% sea ice.
Whilst I accept that there is a recent trend in melting Arctic sea ice, I question both the cause of this and the supposed unprecedented rate and extent of the melt.
Firstly: Accurate Satellite imagery of the extent of melting offers only a mere blip in terms of determining global historic patterns. It is irresponsible to pronounce both a prognosis and diagnosis with such limited data.
Secondly: There is no mention of the Medieval warming period which allowed a robust agrarian society to develop in regions of the world now considered hostile to productive agriculture. Historical records (Ivar Bardson), reveal that high quality wheat and a variety of fruits were grown in Greenland for at least 3 centuries from 1000AD onwards. This is a feat impossible today. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that the Vikings sailed the Northwest passsage during this time.
Thirdly: Could vulcanism be influencing the melt? The ocean floor is one of the most least understood parts of this earth. It is well worth some serious investigation.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
renn:
03 Oct 2008 4:33:40pm
Richards, when he said the volcanoes didnt have much effect on the ice melting , maybe he meant, there is so much ice and it is so thick as to not make much impression on it?
Or is this just me being thick?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Fratelli:
03 Oct 2008 8:17:22pm
And what about the land-based glaciers and ice-capped mountains?
Snow and ice has been disappearing at accelerated rates globally for decades, not just the ice caps in the Antarctic and Artic. But at the same time, I see a distinct lack of significant volcanic activity in terrestrial environments.
Care to explain?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
twobob:
03 Oct 2008 10:07:08am
"improve the quality of life for all the world's inhabitants: not merely through increasing wealth"
Are you mad? Where is the money in this? And how will it help me? very un Australian john it would seem that you have a vested interest hereAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Iryany:
03 Oct 2008 10:22:20am
What is shocking is the lack of insight, moreover courage, shown by people in governmnet... bound by mates, factions, moguls and deals with industry. Why don't they just come out and say it - we love our kids so much that global warming is their for them to address, it is the next generation's problem... as we intend to just keep window dressing for the next ten years, which looks like we're doing something... right? I mean, nature will wait until the econoy is robust... won't it?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ray Hunt:
03 Oct 2008 10:39:45am
No surprises here, the American model is morally and economically bankrupt.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
03 Oct 2008 2:51:45pm
And a fair bit of Wall Street is now literally bankrupt! Time to unchain ourselves from the sinking ship and look elsewhere in the world for benchmarks.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
John:
03 Oct 2008 10:52:53am
This was an advertisement for Australian CleanTech.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
RuAlright:
03 Oct 2008 1:45:00pm
Your "on the money" John, that's all this article is about - Cleantech getting there name out in order to make $$$$ out of all of us (although you climate change advocates will probably just hand it over so you all feel good)
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
03 Oct 2008 3:04:16pm
True, these damn cleantech types, what with their realistic ideas of how to help fix the environment in a financially sound way. They'll be the death of us all!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
I see the light:
03 Oct 2008 10:53:55am
Climate change is another fear factor of government suppression over its people and some could say are voted in or voted out out with this phenomia, however the importance of the ecomomy has recently come in vogue.
I think it is not up to Australians to lower their current standard of living for good symbolic gesture when our fathers and grandfathers have fought and died for the Australia we have today and I believe Professor Garnet is just another over paid consultant with an opinion which for all good intentions to the planet will ultimately bring economical hardship to a very small population of Australia. It is fair to say more professional unbiased opinions need to be heard just as loud as the government has made his opinion head line news and just because he has the title Professor doesnt mean he's right. For those of you who do not know it is common practice by universities to award the of title Professor as an honorary title given by the university.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Green:
03 Oct 2008 11:48:56am
I wish that people with a "screw the environment, get your hands off my big screen TV and 4WD" attitude were going to be the only ones affected by climate change. Unfortunately though, it is going to affect us all.
With all the research and modelling that has been done, I am stymied as to why some people still can't see that climate change is going to have significant negative effects on our economy, and that money spent now on trying to reduce the magnitude of climate change will have huge economic benefits in the long-term.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jonte:
03 Oct 2008 11:58:06am
I think it is very important for us to lower our standard of living. If everyone in the world said that there is no use in just me, or my country, making some sacrifices to help the planet, then nothing would be done. I think it's rather arrogant to say just because my country only produces 1 or 2 % of global emmissions we don't need to do anything about it. EVERYONE must do something. Also, we shouldn't talk about which country produces the most OVERALL pollution, but we should rather talk about who has the highest PER CAPITA level of greenhouse gas emmisions. I'll think you'll find that Australia is way up there, if not number 1... Aussie pride.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Root:
03 Oct 2008 4:20:37pm
Hey Jonte... I think that you're actually asking people to raise their standard of living.... It is the current standard of living that is so very low that besides threatening the world as we like it, we are killing ourselves.
But then again, natural selection is a wonderful thing, and even better if you just sit back and watch it run its course.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
fester:
03 Oct 2008 11:17:13am
It's just gotta happen otherwise we are in big trouble. The current market fluctuations will look minor in comparison to the financial chaos a collapsing ecology will produce.
Write to your politicians and tell them we need action at Copenhagen. If we miss squander that opportunity it is going to get harder and harder to stop this juggernauts descent into the unknown.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sinekal:
03 Oct 2008 12:59:07pm
Who remembers the name of the captain on the Titanic? The USA, like all major civilisations (is that an oxymoron?) in history, has run its course and like so many others before it is now imploding. Our lifetimes are an irrelevant microsecond in the process. It might still be 50 years away.
Pipeline across the top of Afghanistan, oil searches and pipelines across Alaska. Hi Ms Palin, will it be okay? Perhaps making you VP will assist in getting Alaskan approval to dig up one of the last world wildernesses. Nothing to do with oil, same as Iraq was not oil related.
If she makes it to the White House she will raise the IQ of both Alaska and the White House (until George moves out). But genuine 'Gun totin Mama...? Didn't the current Vice President shoot someone ?? What is it with these people?
Have to defend the free world against those who would destroy our way of life.
It will occur of course, as a pre emptive defence strategy. Not unlike the USA's new habit of dropping bombs and missiles into Pakistan to kill insurgents. How can you be an insurgent in your own country? Try dropping a bomb in the USA to take out a few radical liberals and see if they mind. Pakistan will mind, and they already have nuclear capacity.
Hope the USA can beat Russia in Georgia, Taliban around the world, Al Quaeda around the world, plus Syria, Iran, North Korea and China all in the same 10 year window. I am going on holidays while I can still see the sun shining.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Wake up Australia:
03 Oct 2008 12:59:48pm
The author:
'John O'Brien is managing director of Australian CleanTech, a research and broking firm that provides advice to cleantech companies and financial institutions'
Accordingly, he has absolutely no interest in questioning the Booga Booga 'science'.
A typical pointless one sided ABC article.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Garth:
03 Oct 2008 1:47:18pm
The alternative to having commentators who do not have any 'interest' in a topic, of course, is having commentators with no knowledge about that topic. Why on earth should the fact someone spends their career actually working on an issue disqualify them from providing information on that topic? I would certainly rather read an intelligent argument from someone who knows what they are talking about than only hear the 'unbiased' opinions of someone uneducated in the area. Someone who refers to 'booga booga' science, for example.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Skewer:
03 Oct 2008 2:49:28pm
WakeUpAus - why do you even read the Opinion columns?
You always end up criticising the author for having an angle / interest, and the ABC for running it.
That's why it's the Opinion section! Not the News section. That's the point! Wake up!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Root:
03 Oct 2008 3:31:21pm
Looking at the Australian CleanTech web site it appears to me that we have a bunch of CONSULTANTS feeding information to the Government and anyone else who chooses to BUY it.
And I quote from their web page - http://www.auscleantech.com.au/Pages/philosophy.html
-------------------Quote Starts------------
To facilitate success for all parties, Australian CleanTech provides:
* Development of policy initiatives that stimulate Cleantech investments
* Introductions for investors to suitable project proponents
* Introductions for project proponents to suitable investors
* Effective translation to facilitate an understanding between parties that they share the same aims
* Structures and mechanisms that meet the needs of all parties
* Successful negotiation of the hurdles created by differing drivers
* Technology and project services through a wealth of experience and extensive networks
--------------- quote ends ----------------------
I love the way their Services List above has the page title "Philosophy"!!!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Wake up Australia:
03 Oct 2008 1:09:14pm
Pathetic advertorial.
Not very hard to imagine John O'Brien salivating at the thought of the fees his company could gouge out of a 100sbillion dollar budget allocation to 'save the world'.
Suggestion: KRudd puts an Emission Trading Scam etc on the backburner and raises/spends a similar amount on doing something really tangible instead of wasting money on a fairy tale - namely building infrastructure to move the limitless amounts of water we have in this country to those areas that need it. Sorry, this would be visionary and contained within Australia to benefit Australians current and future - KRudd wouldn't be able to make a showpony of himself in the UN over this - after all that is really all he is interested in isn't it?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ricki:
03 Oct 2008 1:55:38pm
Run away climate change is a very real threat. Rudd has indicated there is 20 billion available for infrastructure -- why not spend it on renewable energy (wind solar geothermal...). This would make a significant and important dent in Australias emissions.
Doing nothing is a conscious decision to allow our climate to deteriorate with catastrophic effects on many of the things we depend on for our current civilisation.
Quite apart from the potential to destabilise the world politically (with potential warfare) our available agricultural land will be reduced by flooding of many low-lying areas where 100s of millions of people currently live. We don't know what will happen with the rainfall on the land we are left with, except that it could fall significantly in some areas (such as SE Aust). We may in some cases have some difficulty obtaining enough food.
The higher temperatures will lead to more intense storms (when we get them); more common heat waves with higher bushfire risk (like the one we have today in Sydney in October!!!); more tropical diseases; mass extinction (not that we aren't already doing this by taking up all the available productive land); the list goes on.
Basically, we have heaps to lose and cannot ignore this challenge. We are responsible for the health of this planet. We have to recognize that our conscience is saying ENOUGH!
We should act to secure the future of our planet. Its the only one we have.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Wake up Australia:
03 Oct 2008 2:16:54pm
Wow where do I start?
'(like the one we have today in Sydney in October!!!);' err this is weather not climate - just like the record low temperature weather we had this year - where were you people then (of course it was inconvenient wasn't it).
'We should act to secure the future of our planet. Its the only one we have.'
No we should act to adapt to the inexorable changing climate - NOT foolishly think that we can actually 'dial it down/up' like we have access to a giant global thermostat.
I am continually staggered that a lot of people continue to fall for the basic disconnect between real pollution (yes spend as much money as we need to stop real pollution because this is only sensible) and Booga Booga AGW/CC Co2 is the devil religion. Even Arsenic Ross Garnaut acknowledges that doing Australia 'nothing' (e.g. to limit Co2 emissions) is both economically and practically effective in relation to global Co2 loads.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Chemist:
03 Oct 2008 3:08:28pm
Wake up buddy
Co2 is a pollutant and will kill us UNQUESTIONABLY if the concentrations of it gets too high
It WILL UNDOUBTEDLY increase the acidity of the ocean and WILL be devastating on ALL ocean organisms that depend upon calcium carbonate. This WOULD trigger a chain reaction contributing to a devastating loss of aquatic species. Thats BEFORE you even factor in global warming.
Wake up Australia and save the Great Barrier reef at the very least.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Bullfrog:
03 Oct 2008 3:16:50pm
Spending 20 billion on renewables is an interesting concept.
At the current price for solar thermal, you'd get 1600MW of installed plant. That might just replace one of the bigger coal sites in Australia. (Approx $893 million for 150MW in Spain).
On normal solar, you'd be able to deal with around 500,000 houses. That's at $40,000 per house, or a 5kW array.
The overriding reason why renewables aren't the primary power supply now is cost. Coal is much cheaper. Nuclear is cheaper. Gas is cheaper.
Not saying it doesn't need to be done, but replacing coal generated power is NOT going to cheap. $20 billion is barely a drop in a lake.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
djs:
03 Oct 2008 5:25:11pm
Coal generated electricity is currently sold at a reduced price that does not reflect it's true cost. Environmental factors are treated as externalities and not included. As the climate warms further the true cost will become very apparent.
The overriding reason that renewables are not the primary power source is not that coal is cheaper but that governments are unwilling to force industry and consumers to pay it's full price.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Ugly BWOOCE MBA:
03 Oct 2008 1:59:10pm
What will it flippin take to get it through yer thick heads? Not one of us extra special super suits gives a rat's about the bloomin environment, OK? The environment is fer losers OK, because in this life all yer need is money!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
mike says global warming died:
03 Oct 2008 2:05:28pm
On the financial side simply pay down the mortgages not giveaway the greenback to the greed machines...
On the new age climate tax cult talk to scientists... not economists like garnougt.... here
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, ...
now says the cause of climate change is "unknown."
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming sceptic.
Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a Kyoto house in honor of the Kyoto Protocol.
Wiskel recently wrote a book titled
The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change.
"Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit.
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanna Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology declared she was skeptical of man-made climate fears
February 27, 2008 - Excerpt: Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quitefrankly.
Dr Simpson, formerly of NASA, has authored more than 190 studies. Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the
Australian Greenhouse Office.
He wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures
Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
David became a skeptic in 2007.
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and
host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic.
Bellamy said global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that cant be fixed.
Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant:
"To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, and
former director of Australias National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic.
I started with a firm belief aAgree (1) Alert moderator
-
Water:
03 Oct 2008 3:20:34pm
Youre wasting your breath mate. People have decided that AGW is real and supported by all respected scientists. Therefore the conclusion is simple, that all scientists who are sceptical of AGW are not respectable. In fact I'm confident that some people will look at your post and see nothing but blank white space.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Richard:
03 Oct 2008 4:22:11pm
Water, you make an interesting point. If people have decided that AGW theory is true, then we have abandoned the basic principles of the scientific method. What you are really saying is that our assumptions influence our understanding of the world around us. Critically, these assumptions may be true or false. The facts will confess to anything if they are tortured long enough. We see what we want to see and reject what we don't. As for me, I'm quite comfortable being in the minority of so called skeptics. Some of history's greatest scientists were those who stood alone in the face of a hostile yet dreadfully wrong consensus.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
zibethicus:
03 Oct 2008 3:34:30pm
Bellamy, for one, seems to have been proven wrong on glacier melting.
Am I correct in believing that Richard S. Courtney was the technical editor of CoalTrans International, and the spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management?
Is this the same Richard Courtney that you mention here?
I wonder what I'd find if I had the time to keep looking up your sources...they're interesting...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Root:
03 Oct 2008 4:40:55pm
OK - I checked, I was doing nowt but creating more methane (based on 'me + (2 x 33cl Stella Artois) = methane)
Claude Allegre - appears to have a reasonable background and does not seem to be in a position to benefit either way whether for or against...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_All%C3%A8gre
Bruno Wiskel - is a speaker and author - he is financially benefiting from the fear of global warming, and at the same time questioning the science - a bet each way - therefore threatening any money he can make. He also points out some interesting facts about Al Gore - someone who positively benefits from the global warming fear...(see bottom) http://www.brunowiskel.com/
Nir Shaviv - does not appear to have a strong financially vested interest and seems to have reasonable qualifications and experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv
Dr. Joanna Simpson - mixed information was found - she appears to have appropriate qualification for here statements - the motivations are uncertain - but she is human.
David Bellamy - can't find reference your statement about 'seems to have been proven wrong...' He's been around for 300 years telling us just about everything you can find under rocks.
Dr. Richard Courtney - may very well be a stooge as you suggest.
Tad Murty - does not appear to have a strong financially vested interest and seems to have reasonable qualifications and experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tad_Murty
That's $25 you owe me..... waddaya mean... it was 12 minutes work...
------------------
***Al Gore Trivia*** Did you know that while Al Gore's Bell Aire Mansion is only twice the size of Bruno's 5500 square foot home yet use more than 51 times the natural gas, and 14 times the electricity, yet Bruno's house is located 3500 km north of Al's Nashville home. Which one is the hypocrite? Al for preaching conservation and practicing consumption, or Bruno for telling the truth and practicing conservation.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Water:
03 Oct 2008 4:46:07pm
Is it true that John O'Brien is managing director of Australian CleanTech? A position that only exhists because of the assumption of AGW. You also neglect to mention some of those scientists and MANY MANY others have LOST THIER JOBS because of their sceptical stance.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Ron T:
03 Oct 2008 2:51:37pm
Spend the money on increasing food yields sustainably and educating poor third world farmers and it might have a dividend we can all enjoy.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
henalf:
03 Oct 2008 2:54:40pm
The same old story,the grabbers keep grabbing,and when they overreach themselves,they grab the poor bloody peasants savings! Even in Australa,from top to bottom,we have the shifty ones. A PM that a millionaire,the leader of the opposition likewiseand even in our Tweed Heads backwater the mayoress of the council is another millionare. Where on earth will it all end? as grandma used to say.As the get-rich-quick merchants love to say"Greed is Good.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lindsay Cooper:
03 Oct 2008 2:57:48pm
Of course all the banks and financial services wholeheartedly support the bail out proposal, they will be the main recipricants of the money outflow. Of course a lot of it will be siphoned off in the process of them organising the bailout.
Russell Crowe (Tongue in cheek)gave the best suggestion that I have heard to date, he suggested that the government give every family in the USA one million dollars immediately.
And if the government were to tax this gift they would get a lot returned and it would for sure kick start the american economy.
People would be able to pay their mortgages off therefore saving the housing collapse and they would certainly spend a lot of money back into the economy in the short term.
America would be saved, the banks would be bank in business and it would be all good for the USA.
Then maybe goal some of the people who caused the problem in the first place, including the ones in government.
What do you think.????Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Root:
03 Oct 2008 4:51:54pm
Sounds nice.... almost like the Japanese space elevator.
If everybody paid off their mortgage, then there'd be no interest.
If there were no interest nobody would invest their money.
I nobody invests their money, there's no growth.
Where is your superannuation? Would you like it to increase in value, or as Paul Keating wants - to prop up his mates in thge super business - and gradually go backward. Just like it is now?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Brad:
03 Oct 2008 3:14:14pm
As Winston Churchill said, "The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative."
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
mentat:
03 Oct 2008 3:21:28pm
the economic worries of the present are sure to overshadow any international climate change effort. the fact is that climate change is a rich man's issue.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
renn:
03 Oct 2008 5:01:32pm
The war mongering cowboys of this world who make lots of money from war are part to blame also.
You cant tell me the energy used to produce war toys, vehicles, bombs, etc, the damage done when daisy cutter tears a mountain apart, when bombs leave 20mtr holes in the ground,
arent partly to blame for the change in atmospheric conditions, geology, ecology and geography.
BAN the BOMB!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Jake:
03 Oct 2008 3:46:02pm
The sunny idealism in the article is nice and I agree with it, in fact support it. However, to use the financial crisis like the author has done to another, more realistic level - governments won't act until everything is about to fall apart and there is no doubt we're in trouble. Then they'll hold emergency meetings and vote on an outcome. The problem with this scenario is that unlike the economy, which fluctuates wildly and can improve dramatically on a daily basis, when the environment is near total collapse it will already be far, far too late.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Yabbie:
03 Oct 2008 4:44:57pm
The IUCN, IPCC , CSIRO all call for governments to implement policy to mitigate climate change impacts.
Global economic growth, which is based in large part on exploitation of natural resources, was at US$17 trillion in 1950 and in forty years rose to US$63 trillion. In the decade to 2000, there has been a 70% increase in GDP which has reached US$107 trillion per annum (Barber et al 2004).
This growth has resulted in unstable climatic conditions and that at present global emissions are tracking at the highest level anticipated by the IPCC (IPCC 2007), and that on this trajectory, increased atmospheric CO2 levels of 950ppm and temperature rise of 4.9-6.1 degrees C are anticipated (PMSEIC 2007).
Wealth should be directed toward mitigating climate change. If it isnt done at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2009, we are stuffed! (Garnaut 2008)
Barber, C.V. (2004) Parks and people in a world of changes: governance, participation and equity, in Barber, C.V., Miller, K.R., Boness, M. (eds) Securing protected areas in the face of global change: issues and strategies. IUCN, Gland & Cambridge.
Garnaut, R, (2008) The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report Commonwealth of Australia 2008, Cambridge University Press Port Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at www.ipcc.ch/ ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm.
PMSEIC Independent Working Group (2007) Climate Change in Australia: Regional Impacts and Adaptation Managing the Risk for Australia, Report Prepared for the Prime Ministers Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra, June.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
in for a penny:
03 Oct 2008 4:46:25pm
For whatever reason, and even if climate isn't changing - which I doubt as I look at the little remaining water in my tank. Initiatives and alternatives have to be positive when we accept living in the past is not the way to our future
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Earth:
03 Oct 2008 4:58:35pm
I am personifying mother nature earth and it is asking us a simple question. Why don't you guys go back to mother nature and just save every drop of water that falls on the ground? Just build small dams where-ever you can. Lift irrigate that water and cover me with big trees wherever you can I can suck up and transform all that CO2 you had been producing relentlessly without using much of the brain. It is not a rocket science and to plant a tree , it is not a challenging job like writing software or designing a computer or a phone or electronic gadget. Yes point taken but your lives are at peril and you are telling me that we are ashamed of doing such a lowly paid job of planting trees. I think I have wipe out half your population that only would open your eyes and your ego would melt away and you would think about restoring health of mother nature. At the moment you are under the spin that you can conquer me.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
WayneG:
03 Oct 2008 5:07:02pm
I think the issue here is the separation of religion and state - the two don't mix and it is supposed to be a cornerstone of democracy. Unfortunately the US is in the grips of its own fundimentalist uprising that is no less dangerous than the Taliban or El Qiada, same fanaticism in the name of god - different religion. You may argue for religious freedon - no problem with that - providing it does not impinge on the political process or adversly effect others in the community. This is not the case on either side of politics in the US and the same mind set is even seeping into our own political scene. For me this is the primary issue and the base from which many of our current delimas have evolved.
In this debate we need science and reason, not fanaticism.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
michael clarke:
03 Oct 2008 7:26:06pm
All this is largely immaterial because the idea that raising carbon levels increase the earths temperature is unproven and disputed theory.
The fact that so many people at all levels are convinced is testament to the fact that global warming has become a fundamentalist religion with a life of its own.
People who dispute the dogma are derided as "deniers" despite putting forward facts and well founded and reasonable argument. Sad but true.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Steve Mount:
03 Oct 2008 7:56:35pm
The era of constant growth capitalism is approaching its end. The earth has nearly run out of new markets, new lands and new frontiers, and this is when the ideology of capitalism fails, with its ism of maximum profit at any non-financial cost. Whether we like it or not, the balancing act of environmental sustainability and making a living in the future will now more and more require a socialist mindset, and that will require an adjustment of attitude for all : make do with less, accept a lower standard of living and be prepared to do something for others for no financial return. A hard fact. The current financial crisis, combined with ever- growing environmental problems and looming energy cost increases, is the begining of the end for the Bush, Howard and standard conservative mentality of "business as usual". We are entering a new era, to be sure. We need less "spin style" managers and politicians, financial consultants, bankers, lawyers, brokers, real estate agents et all, for we have a surfeit of them, to be sure. What we do need more of is scientific, medical and technically minded people who can deal with the physical world and its looming physical problems.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
