LABOR has accused Prime Minister John Howard of "flying blind" on climate change after bureaucrats revealed they have done no modelling of its impact on the economy.

According to the opposition, senior treasury officials told a Senate committee last week that a climate change modelling unit had been set up about six to seven weeks earlier.

"We haven't been asked yet to model the impacts of a particular policy change," Treasury official David Tune told Senate Estimates last Thursday

Continued in full HERE                                                   TOP

---

"We do have global responsibilities and we're going to live up to them, but Australia's climate change policy must be made in Australia and take full account of Australia's unique economic circumstances, including our highly competitive resources sector that is important to our present and future prosperity.

Australia's economy is very different in its economic structure, its natural advantages and in its ambitions to grow, compared with many in Europe. For example, resources account for 37 per cent of Australia's exports and that's almost five times the average of the OECD."

Mining only constitutes 5% of Australia's GDP.  Link HERE

. . . which would seem to support what senior Liberal Party member Guy Pearse says about the Australian Government being blinded by "Quarry Vision" HERE                     TOP

---

"We should also keep in mind that while we may have a high per-capita output of CO2 – for many reasons, including our smaller population and the tyranny of distance, we have to also remember that Australia produces just 1.3% or threreabouts of the world’s greenhouse gases."            TOP

Actually, we emit 1.5% of the global total of CO2, and this table HERE puts that very much in context.

And further, last time I looked, the UK was a lot smaller (area wise), than Australia - but still, Australia's Greenhouse Gas emissions from road transport (as a a percentage of each country's overall total), are significantly smaller than in the UK.  Which puts paid to the idea that our MUCH higher per capita CO2 output in Australia is due to our long distance road transport:-

UK - "Greenhouse gas emissions from road transport now constitute 18 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions constitute compared with 14 per cent in 1990."

From the UK Dept of statistics (2002)   HERE

Australia - "In Australia in 2000, road transport accounted for 12.9% of Australia's total national carbon dioxide emissions."

From the Australian Government HERE

---

"So to make a significant contribution, it’s not just about what we do at home, but what we encourage the world community to do.  We are currently leading the world in efforts to reach agreement with developing countries on deforestation.  And it’s there we can make a real difference."                TOP

Extract - 10th April 2007, ABC AM Radio:-

EMILY BOURKE: After meeting with Australia's Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Indonesia has just agreed to improve its forest management practices.

But Graeme Pearman from the Monash Sustainability Institute has reservations about what the joint agreement can achieve.

GRAEME PEARMAN: This particular resolution is a way of actually achieving net uptake of carbon dioxide, and thus helping the greenhouse effect, but also biodiversity and building economic wellbeing in the areas.

So, in principle I thought it was a great idea, just in practice I think it would be wrong to assume that's the only thing that you can do. Some of the other solutions have to be attacked here at home, and not just expect that we can answer all the problems by doing these things overseas.

Full article HERE                  TOP

---

"If we halved the rate of global deforestation we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 billion tonnes per year – or about 10% of total world emissions -  that’s close to 10 times our nations total output.  That’s going to be a hugely better outcome than Australia reducing our emissions by even 60% - which is not achieveable without a massive impact on our lifestyle including the removal of all cars on our roads."         TOP

Wendy, are you seriously suggesting the $200 million that this government has set aside for global forests, as evidenced in this April 2007 report:-

EMILY BOURKE: Australia has set aside $200 million for a global initiative on forests and climate to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Extract - 10th April 2007, ABC AM Radio      Full article HERE

. . . when it's dwarfed by the money John Howard has spent on election advertising alone:-

Howard ad spend reaches $2 billion     Jason Koutsoukis   Sydney Morning Herald
September 2, 2007

. . . is going halve the rate of global de-forestation, and absolve us from reducing CO2 emissions within Australia?

Further, can you please tell me what the spin doctors are smoking when they suggest that reducing our total emissions by 60% will involve taking all of Australia's cars off the road - when (as evidenced by figures I've quoted above), road transport accounts for only 12.9% of our total emissions - whereas it accounts for 18% of the UK's total output AND the UK plans to cut its own total CO2 by 60%, by 2050?  Article HERE  ("The Scotsman," March 2007)       TOP

---

"Even if it were achieveable to cut 60% of Australian emissions, that would reduce world greenhouse gas emissions by just over half of a percent – and we can achieve an outcome 20 times better through a global response on deforestation."      TOP

We emit 1.5% of the global total of CO2, and this table HERE puts that very much in context - because in terms of the overall percentage which each small country emits, Australia is much the same as every other small nation (and in terms of our population, far, far worse than any of them). If every country took that attitude, no global carbon reduction programme would stand a chance.

Further, there are limits on the ability of forests, or "Carbon Sinks," to absorb CO2.  The World contains only so much forest, and potential for re-forestation.  We cannot just emit CO2 ad-infinitum, and expect forests to soak up the excess.  This snippet from Guardian UK George Monbiot explains the problem:-

"By 2030, according to a paper published by scientists at the Met Office, the total capacity of the biosphere to absorb carbon will have reduced from the current 4 billion tonnes a year to 2.7 billion(8). To maintain equilibrium at that point, in other words, the world’s population can emit no more than 2.7 billion tonnes of carbon a year in 2030. As we currently produce around 7 billion, this implies a global reduction of 60%. In 2030, the world’s people are likely to number around 8.2 billion. By dividing the total carbon sink (2.7 billion tonnes) by the number of people, we find that to achieve stabilisation the weight of carbon emissions per person should be no greater than 0.33 tonnes. If this problem is to be handled fairly, everyone should have the same entitlement to release carbon, at a rate no greater than 0.33 tonnes per year."

Full article HERE                TOP

---

"So I think there are smarter and more effective ways of helping address this global problem than setting an unrealistic target to cut domestic emissions – which is likely to impact very harshly on our economy but have little real benefit in addressing this global problem.

Our government is working on practical measures and on outcomes, rather than symbolism."           TOP

"Smarter," "More effective," "Avoiding symbolism," really? So far, from the above, you've told me the Government's . . .

• Spending $200 million (a tiny fraction of its electoral advertising budget), to plant overseas forests, when there's not enough forest (and potential forest), around the World to soak up the massive amounts of CO2 the World is producing.

 

• Wanting to brush off more action to reduce CO2 within Australia, because of these grossly under-funded (and ultimately impractical), overseas tree planting programmes.

 

• Engaged in lunatic claims that a 60% reduction in Australia's emissions (by 2050), means we'd have to take all cars off the road, when the UK's planning a 60% reduction in its own emissions, and their road transport contributes even more than ours does to their carbon output.

 

• Making the excuse our "Tiny" contribution to overall global CO2 doesn't matter much, when in fact we're in the same percentage league as most other small countries (even though most of them have much larger populations than us).

 

• Advancing the lie our long travelling distances cause our large per capita CO2 emissions, when in fact the UK (a much smaller country), produces a much larger percentage of its CO2 output from transport.

 

• Telling us its hands are tied because of the mining industry, when it fact it only contributes 5% of GDP, and there are cogent critiques of a narrow (and ultimately damaging), "Quarry vision" for Australia.

 

• Spruiking a "Treasury Modelling Team" to set carbon emission targets for Australia, when they've done zero work on this problem.

 

• Called carbon targets set by the former Chief economist of the World Bank, and by Australia's own Government scientists, "Arbitrary."

 

• Claiming to have met its Kyoto targets (without joining Kyoto), when independent scientists cast serious doubt on this, and further, also failing to mention that Australia's original "Kyoto Targets" were seriously overly generous, and the subject of widespread international outcry at the time.         TOP

---

"And, not to put too fine a point on it, it’s time some in the environmental movement looked at the bigger picture, removed their political blinkers, and got on board with some of the positive programs this Government has been involved in.  Check out the leadership role we’re taking on deforestation at the Environment Minister’s website – we hosted a world conference in July, with some very positive results."                  TOP

Let's answer this one:-

• I'm not a member of any political party (neither is any member of my family), and never have been.

 

• I'm on the public record as criticising the ALP (and in a high profile manner).

 

• Guy Pearse is senior and long standing member of the Liberal Party, he has expressed his serious concerns about John Howard's Climate Policy in his brand new book, High & Dry

 

• John Howard obviously thinks the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, is some lunatic greenie too, check out this March 2007 ABC Lateline segment

 

• . . .  as well as casting aspersions on the crazy pinkos at The Business Roundtable on Climate Change (which includes BP Australia, Insurance Australia Group, Origin Energy, Swiss Re, Visy Industries, Westpac and the Australian Conservation Foundation).  Here's a quote from Wayne Swan on  the ABC, Nov 2006:-

"But we have a business roundtable that is currently out there arguing for an emissions trading scheme. The business community absolutely understands the long-term price of not acting here and so does the Australian community, and that goes to the heart of Stern again."    Full article HERE
 

• And maybe Arnie Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California, is a closet Communist in John Howard's World too (ABC Radio April 16 2007):-

"PETER CAVE: When Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair signed a landmark transatlantic agreement to combat climate change last year, it wasn't with his Iraq War partner, US President George Bush, but with California's Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who runs the world's fifth largest economy.

The Governator has dumbfounded conservationists and conservatives alike with laws to slash greenhouse emissions by 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050.

One of the men responsible is the Governor's Special Adviser, Terry Tamminen.

He's here to give a keynote address at the Austral Asian Cleantech forum in Melbourne tomorrow."

And he'll be saying that Prime Minister John Howard is wrong to claim that only a global carbon trading market can effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and backing the threat by the states and territories to go it alone."            Full transcript HERE              TOP

---

I think that people in this debate have to be wary about making doomsday predictions that don’t happen.  I googled “climate tipping points” as you suggested and found many sites claiming that we’d already passed several crucial tipping points – and the theory is that once they are passed we’re on a slippery slope and nothing can be done to change it.

Mind you – it seems to me that every scientist has a different interpretation of what is a tipping point and exactly how far along that line we’ve already gone.  It’s a far from exact science.

I don’t think doomsday predictions help – I think they are counter-productive…

By implication the suggestion is that it’s too late to make any difference – we’ve already gone past a certain tipping point.  I don’t think that’s the case. 

I think we have to encourage practical, rather than radical, change on a wider scale.

TOP

Wendy, have you heard of "Risk Management"?  Here's a link to a comprehensive run down on the science if you haven't, HERE

Here's the basic tenet:-

"Once risks have been identified, they must then be assessed as to their potential severity of loss and to the probability of occurrence."

In other words, what level of risk are you willing to accept that all life on this Planet (as we currently know it), will be extinguished as we're plunged into irreversible Global Warming (a truly awesome "Severity of loss"), if and when unstoppable feedback loops are flicked into place?  And for what? To line the pockets of the fossil fuel giants, when people from every side of the political and business spectrum (Guy Pearse, Sir Nicholas Stern, The Business Round Table on Climate Change, Arnie Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California - to name just a tiny fraction), are saying that very large CO2 cuts are compatible with modern economies?

In other words, the incredibly tiny "Risk" (if any), does not justify the truly massive gamble that Climate Tipping Points aren't a real and present danger.

Here are just a couple of articles that should ring very alarm bells for you (or they should for anyone's that's not blinded by political loyalty):-

Stark warning over climate change - BBC (UK), Jan 30 2006

Warming hits 'tipping point' - The Guardian, UK, Aug 11 2005                        TOP

---

Most government programs run over several years – tackling something like climate change isn’t going to be achieved in one financial year.  We’ve said this is our investment in Climate change so far – but that’s being built upon all the time.  Just last Sunday the Prime Minister announced an extra $70 million to strengthen the global effort. 

So it’s not that this investment is all there will be for the next 25 years…some of the programs might run for that period of time, others don’t – and no doubt there will be many more initiatives over that period.

As for the suggestion of dishonesty, we haven’t said “This is what we’re spending this financial year”.  I would have thought it was a positive thing that our initiatives are long-term, rather than short term.           TOP

Brave effort Wendy, in response to my question on John Howard's announced Climate spending, e.g. "Is it true that that this $2.8 billion will be spent over 25 years, and do you think it's potentially misleading not to mention that?"  Full marks for trying.  Just shows that with a bit of effort, it's possible to put a positive spin on anything.  But just to make sure no-one's misled, will you now add this crucial "over 25 years" info to your website, when you mention John Howard's $2.8 billion Climate budget?         TOP

---

I looked up this paper, and included in that $8.9 billion figure you describe as “pork barrelling fossil fuels” are positive programs that work to benefit the environment like the Greenhouse Gas Abatement program and the exemption from excise of alternative fuels like LPG and natural gas.  But apparently both these programs are on the bad side of the ledger – even though they are of net benefit to the environment - because some payments are made the coal industry to help them clean up their act, and gas is technically a fossil fuel. 

Also included in this figure are State government subsidies to pensioners and low income earners to help them with the cost of their electricity bills – are you suggesting that we do away with these? Also included is funding to the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia because some of their research is on fossil fuel industries.

But my personal favourite – and I was quite astounded to see what else is included in this figure of $8.9 billion support for fossil fuels…  Every cent spent on road maintainence and construction in this country by Federal, State and Local governments! 

So are you suggesting that our roads should falls into disrepair, and none be built for new housing estates because this, in some way, subsidises fossil fuels?  If you’re really suggesting this, then the agenda is clearly to get all cars off the road…and you should say so.

I think we have to be wary of quoting studies and throwing out figures like $8.9 billion and describing it as “Howard Government pork barrelling” and making the implication that all this spending is going into the pockets of oil or coal companies  – because that is just an outright lie.

I’m not having a go at the study or the University – but the context in which you continue to use their research is very, very wrong.                       TOP

Wendy, if you take a close look at the University paper in question . . . .

http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf

. . . and scroll down Page 10, Section 4 "Prioritising Subsidies for Removal," you'll see that the researchers have covered the points you make above.  Further, this paragraph in the conclusion (Section 11, "Conclusion," Page 39), also provides a valuable explanation (as does the entire "Conclusion"):-

"About 58% of the total fossil fuel subsidies identified are perverse subsidies. These subsidies increase GHG emissions while at the same time reducing economic efficiency. Removal of these perverse subsidies can provide a ‘double dividend’ of greenhouse abatement and improved economic performance. However, this ‘double dividend’ will only be delivered if careful planning is conducted to ensure that the disruption caused by subsidy removal is minimised and steps are taken to ensure equitable treatment of all parties. Gradual removal of subsidies is more likely to provide an economic benefit than sudden removal."

. . . and 58% of $8.9 billion per year to subsidise fossil fuels is still an awful lot of money, and a great, great deal more than $2.8 billion over 25 years to fight Climate Change.          TOP

---

The Solar Cities programme is a positive start – but it’s just one solar electricity station - it’s a model that will hopefully help us plan for more alternative energy in the future.

But it’s simply a fact that solar and other alternative forms of energy can’t, at this stage, offset the CO2 from coal-powered electricity stations.   We couldn’t get rid of coal overnight even if we wanted to. There are both technical and financial reasons why solar is not a viable alternative on a large scale – at this point in time.

But we need to add them to the mix, we need to develop alternative electricity sources – and even small steps are all steps in the right direction I would have thought.  So I don’t understand the implied criticism.                   TOP

Wendy, our coal fired power stations spew 170 million tonnes of CO2 a year, and all our solar power combined (in the sunniest nation on earth), saves just 476,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, which is a dismal 0.28% of 170 million - and you don't understand my criticism? Methinks a great many ordinary Aussies understand what I'm getting at, even if you don't.  And I note you don't question my figures, or contradict them.

But ABC 4 Corners, 16th April 2007, "Earth, Wind & Fire," describes and reports on the pathetic Australian situation, vis a vis renewable power, much more dramatically  and visually than I can, so I'll leave you (and others), to watch the programme.  Here's a quote:-