Greenhouse Mafia Strikes again . . .

Kim says Wendy . . . .

• Claimed Howard’s meeting the Kyoto targets, when leading Australian Climate scientists say we’re not.

• Failed to mention the global storm our hugely generous Kyoto targets caused, which were the most favourable given to any developed nation.

• Called CO2 emission targets set by the former chief economist of the World Bank, and by Australia’s own Government scientists, “Arbitrary.” 

• Claimed to be setting CO2 targets, when the bureaucrats concerned said (in just June this year), "We haven't been asked yet to model the impacts of a particular policy change."

• Said mining hampers CO2 reduction here, when it’s only 5% of GDP, and some Liberals are worried inflexible “Quarry vision” harms other industries.

• Admitted we have “Higher” per capita CO2 emissions (in fact, they’re the highest the World).

• Said our huge per capita emissions were caused by long travel distances, when the UK emits a higher percentage of its CO2 from transport (most Aussies don’t routinely commute long distances between cities).

• Hid behind our “1.3%” contribution to global CO2 (in fact it’s 1.5%), when it’s roughly the same as all other small developed countries, most of them with much bigger populations than ours.

• Spruiked overseas re-forestation programmes, when leading Australian climate scientists emphasise “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.”

• Thinks we should re-forest the World, instead of reducing CO2 at home, and seriously suggested Howard’s $200 million toward this (less than his election ad budget), would make a dent in “Halving” Global de-forestation.  Failed to say there aren’t enough forests, or potential forests, in the World to absorb the giant amounts of carbon spewed by industry.

• Warned CO2 targets set by the former Chief economist of the World Bank, and by Australia’s own climate scientists, would mean the “Removal of all cars on our roads.”  In fact, the UK is aiming for these targets, and even MORE of their CO2 is caused by cars. I guess the Brits aren’t into hysterical and overblown claims.

• Accused environmentalists of being narrow minded and “Political,” when alarm bells are ringing from every quarter of the political and business spectrum.

• Brushed aside “Climate Tipping Points,” with no acknowledgment of the truly massive risks involved.

• Admitted John Howard’s spruiked $2.8 billion budget to fight Climate Change is to be spent over 25 years.

• Didn’t contest the $8.9 billion a year figure spent on supporting fossil fuels (from the University of Sydney), and while some of these programmes aren’t a “Bad” thing, failed to admit that "About 58% of the total fossil fuel subsidies identified are perverse subsidies. These subsidies increase Green House Gas emissions while at the same time reducing economic efficiency.”  And that’s still an awful lot more than $2.8 billion over 25 years to fight Climate Change.

• Didn’t dispute that the CO2 saved by our entire solar programme (476,000 tonnes), is only 0.28% of the 170 million tonnes spewed by coal here.  Said she didn’t understand my criticism of this.

• Disputed China’s renewable energy targets, when a September 2007 CNBC article said  "China plans to invest 2 trillion yuan ($265 billion) in renewable energy by 2020.”

• Failed to see China’s planned 60 gigawatts of renewable power by 2030 is more energy than we use from all sources.  Missed the point I was making, e.g. it’s possible to run a modern economy on renewables (even though it’s obvious China’s not running its entire economy on renewables).

• Hi-lited China’s use of coal, without mentioning Aussies still emit 5 tonnes of carbon per person, per year – compared to just 1 for the Chinese.

• Failed to acknowledge that China has far high renewable energy targets than Australia.

• Accused China of not “Actively working to reduce emissions,” when they now run enough green power to energise over half of our nation.

• Made spurious claims about developing nations shunning Kyoto targets, without mentioning the “Common but differentiated responsibilities" officially enshrined in Kyoto, based on relative wealth, and relative input to current CO2 concentrations.  One of Australia’s leading climate scientists puts it best “The 50 least developed countries have together contributed less than 0.5 per cent of global cumulative emissions over 200 years.”    

And HERE'S Wendy's responses in full (with a detailed critique from Kim)

And HERE'S Kim's questions to Wendy in full.

And HERE'S Kim's local Climate Change film site