Previous OurSay
Next OurSay
Click here to see other OurSays. You have 7 votes per OurSay!
Stephen Mayne, John Thwaites, Fran Bailey, OurCommunity.com.au, CC
in
“Communities in Control ”
Open
Ged Kearney, ACTU, Secure Jobs. Better Future., Josh Peak
in
“Secure jobs for a better future”
Closed
Cr Cathy Oke, City of Melbourne
in
“Rio Plus 20 Agenda”
Responses up
Crikey, House of Representatives, Adam Bandt MP, Your question
in
“The People's Question”
Responses up
Campbell Newman
in
“The Queensland Agenda”
Responses up
Andrew Demetriou, Amanda Vanstone, Charlie Pickering
in
“The Australian Republic”
Responses up
Anna Bligh
in
“The Queensland Agenda - Part 1”
Responses up
Prof. Noam Chomsky, Deakin University
in
“Contours Of Global Order”
Responses up
666 ABC Canberra, UC, Canberra Refugee Support, Julie Posetti
in
“Reporting Refugees”
Responses up
John Merritt, EPA
in
“EPA Victoria”
Responses up
Robert Manne, The Quarterly Essay
in
“Bad News”
Responses up
Andrew Demetriou, Kevin Sheedy, Matthew Richardson
in
“AFL Finals Panel ”
Responses up
The Climate Agenda, Michael Bachelard, Misha Schubert, Deborah Gough
in
“The Sunday Age”
Responses up
You?, Greg Hywood, Mark Scott, Sophie Black
in
“Australian Media Leaders”
Responses up
Kelly O’Dwyer, Deb O’Neill , Larissa Waters
in
“Women in Politics”
Responses up
David Thodey
in
“Telstra CEO David Thodey”
Responses up
The Hon. Martin Dixon MP, Vic SRC
in
“Victorian Education Minister”
Responses up
Margaret Simons, Anna Krien, Tim Soutphommasane
in
“Quarterly Essay”
Responses up
Malcolm Fraser
in
“Renewing Democracy”
Responses up
Q&A
in
“Q&A - After The Budget - May 16th”
Responses up
The Climate Agenda The Sunday Age
Michael Bachelard Senior Journalist
Misha Schubert National Political Editor
Deborah Gough Journalist
The Sunday Age
Worried about climate change? Furious about the carbon tax? Confused about the science? Walkley-award winning journalist Michael Bachelard will lead The Sunday Age team investigating the 10 most popular questions on OurSay which will be featured and updated on The Age's Climate Agenda website.
This OurSay is now closed. Scroll down below to see responses to our questions as The Sunday Age answers them each week.
Questions
Is Direct Action a serious policy or a sick joke?
Is Direct Action a serious policy or a sick joke?
Add comment
Our children would want us to plan carefully, about the Climate we leave them for the next 50, 100 years. As parents and grandparents that's what where supposed to do. If some people tell us that if we do nothing for ten years, we may not have many choices apart from hope. If you can't afford car or house insurance, your choices are limited also, but their your choices, not your children's. Why is this not the conversation !!!!
WHY that seems so hard to understand
nanational risksrisks
Add comment
Australia has around 40 coal fired power stations and most are small capacity, in contrast China alone has upwards of 4,500 dirty Coal fired plants and adding around 3 a week. Additionally coal in China is a major input in steel production etc etc. Australia exports around 270 million tons of coal per year.
Question to PM Gillard is What will be local impact of closing of several power stations here have have of global warming?...and Will acting locally actually change the climate given we are a massive exporter of coal and gas to the worlds largest polluter?
Add comment
Why is it that the general population expects to understand climate science (or any science, for that matter) by digesting sound bites from journalists rather than by reading the science and working hard at comprehending it?
Add comment
Is CO2 the right thing to focus on? Most CO2 is generated by nature. Human industry/transport accounts for only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere (Australian industry would account for less than 0.0002% of it). So what are we going to achieve with the current policy? Perhaps we should pick some of the low hanging fruit (more objectively measurable goals) before reaching for the lofty ideals?
Add comment
We need action on climate change. Why can't the government communicate the issue properly? The government has wasted millions of dollars of advertising on an awful communication strategy but still can't gain popular support. Why is this?
Add comment
The continuation and in fact massive expansion of mining, the continued use of coal fired power stations. the logging of old and regrowth forests in Australia, the over-allocation of the Murray-Darling Basin's waters and in fact the Great Artesian Basin's waters, the expansion of industry onto an island on the tip of the Great Barrier Reef, rampant government subsidised population growth, and inappropriate urban expansion without rail and recycling of water and garbage infrastructure must surely be regarded as man continuing to contribute to man-induced climate change. Does the government and big business (and newspapers) not get it, that we Australians understand that they are all only concerned about profits, power and total disregard of the impacts of expansionism on our natural enviornment?
Add comment
Climate change is a global commons problem. Where and how have global commons problems been addressed in the past and what can we learn from these experiences when tackling climate change today?
Climate change is a global commons problem. Where and how have global commons problems been addressed in the past and what can we learn from these experiences when tackling climate change today?
Add comment
How is it "leadership" to simply respond to polls' at any point in time? Are opinion polls dumbing down politics?
How is it "leadership" to simply respond to polls' at any point in time? Are opinion polls dumbing down politics?
Add comment
How can we be expected to believe that excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to climate change when prominant scientists like Professor Murry Salby, Bob Carter, Augie Auer, put such a convincing case that it does not? This appears to be a scare campaign cashing in on an emotive issue, enabling a left wing government to steal from its people, discourage enterprise and increase its size and its power over its people and causing a subsequent loss in their freedoms and rights.
Add comment
I wonder what the risk is to Australia's sovereign security if we don't do our bit to reduce emissions.
I wonder what the risk is to Australia's sovereign security if we don't do our bit to reduce emissions.
Add comment
There are some very vocal and seemingly influential climate change sceptics who have been given well supported platforms by some media organisations in Australia. 2GB’s broadcasting of Alan Jones and News Limited’s publishing of Andrew Bolt is a couple of examples that spring to mind. It appears that these media organisations have the goal of destroying the credibility of anyone who supports the science of and actions to mitigate the effects of human civilization’s influences on earth’s climate. Do these media organisations obtain funding from any corporate, organisational or individual entities with a vested interest in maintain the industrial status quo where unlimited greenhouse gas emissions are largely the norm?
Add comment
When most politicians speak about the science of climate change, the discussion tends to centre around defiant skepticism ("the science is crap") or blind declarations of faith ("I believe in climate change"). Is the broad scientific illiteracy of modern politicians the reason why they are unable to present persuasive arguments in favor, or even against, action on climate change?
Add comment
Can we have faith that renewable energy will finally take a leading role in Australia with this climate tax?
Can we have faith that renewable energy will finally take a leading role in Australia with this climate tax?
Add comment
Climate change has been taught as an issue in Geography ans Science classes for many years and teenage students understand the FACTS when they are presented clearly and coherently. When are journalists going to ignore the political sound bites and report the incontestable facts to the Australian population so it is understood that taking individual and collective responsibility and making tough decisions is the only answer to this issue?
Add comment
When answering the key AGW question: Has the IPCC science proven beyond doubt that Co2 drives climate change? It's a circular argument to use IPCC and proAGW reports to back IPCC claims. Why doesn't the media and politicians go directly to the many scientists that have alternative theories and data to speak for their own theories: including their responses to supposed rebuttals, instead of allowing them to be verbaled by the IPCC and proAGW camp?
It's like allowing the Accused in a rape case to give evidence for the Victim.
Add comment
What are the consequences of climate change in Melbourne? Is it right that by mid century, if sea levels rise by 50cm, that Melbourne's gravity drains will cease to operate? How does a city function when toilets don't flush? Andrew MacLeod, CEO Committee for Melbourne
Add comment
It is accepted that man's carbon dioxide emissions are causing an amount of warming the climate. However, the magnitude of any future warming is highly uncertain. The IPCC acknowledges that its understanding of a number of key natural climate drivers and feedbacks is "low" or "very low". Why is it, therefore, that the Fairfax press is reluctant to engage with and investigate this uncertainty with an open-minded impartiality, and instead continues to publish articles based on a rigid editorial agenda that "the science is settled"?
Add comment
Why is so much of the rhetoric around climate change about economics? Is it not also about other values? People's lives and livelihoods, forests, barrier reefs, rare species, food security, avoiding war and famine, etc. Yet much of the discussion is about the ability to maintain current consumption patterns which probably bring relatively little value in terms of happiness.
Add comment
Why do the media and politicians continue to report the views of key proAGW proponents as credible and independent even though they often have significant financial, career (status & tenure), funding security, product, or services interests in proAGW outcomes. Where the complete opposite is true for daring to support a dissenting view, that is often a career ending decision. For example: Tony Blair now earns millions from consulting on responses to AGW, but is treated as independent. Lord Oxburgh presided over the Climategate Science Assessment Panel, but he has significant financial interests in proAGW position as a director of 20C Ltd and is president of the Carbon Capture & Storage association. Imagine the howls in the media if BP were to control the Environmental Assessment for the Gulf oil spill.
Add comment
Why do the media give so much credit to the failed theories that drove the wild alarmist predictions of people like Tim Flannery, when year after year he is shown to be wildly inaccurate, such as: sea levels rising over an 8 story building, never seeing flooding rains? They also selectively use Weather events as proof of Climate Change, when the science specifically prohibits such assertions. Flannery has never having made an underestimation on the topic and never conceded that lack of science knowledge in the light of the prediction failures is a reason to move cautiously on proAGW policies.
Add comment
Does the media, by "fairly" reporting "both sides" of the climate debate advance the agenda of climate change sceptics by perpetuating the myth that the science of climate change is not settled.
Does the media, by "fairly" reporting "both sides" of the climate debate advance the agenda of climate change sceptics by perpetuating the myth that the science of climate change is not settled.
Add comment
I do not accept that a consensus of opinion from scientific groups with vested interests (i.e. unlimited funding so long as compliance is observed) in supporting the climate change agenda, is worthy of belief. I have read and listened to very convincing detailed argument that to me is beyond reproach, that carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is not a problem. How can a government who lies and has a double standard in wanting to reduce our carbon footprint locally, while maintaining the huge coal export market encouraging the rest of the world to do exactly the opposite.
Add comment
We have heard that the climate tax will be levied on around 500 top polluters in Australia. Who are the biggest polluters? Let's publish a list akin to the Top 50 Employers or the BRW 500. I would even like to see the top 100. Perhaps community and market pressure can work with financial pressure to escalate change in these companies and reduce carbon tax related cost impacts to consumers. How and where can this information be published?
Add comment
As I see it, this is the problem with the Carbon Debate.
In the 1987 Convention for the Protection of the Ozone layer Australia agreed, and pressured the rest of the world to agree, that anthropogenic CO2 affects the thermal structure of the atmosphere.
We agreed back then to monitor and address the activities that contribute to the production of that gas, and other gases as well, in order that our activities would not affect other States.
Without limit, in accord with the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, we accepted responsibility for any damage that our activities might cause to other States.
The problem with the Carbon Debate is that it was all decided long before it began and we have serially ignored our obligations under that Convention and that Conference ever since we agreed to them.
The keeping of our solemn oaths, undertaken in the sight of all the peoples of the Earth, has become a matter of political second-guessing and manipulation in Australia (and elsewhere).
But the debate, to me, is all about shall we honour our word or shall we not?
Add comment
Which are the most polluting companies in Australia at the moment?
Which are the most polluting companies in Australia at the moment?
Add comment
Would someone get CSIRO to supply a simple explanation on WHY Co2 is so important in climate change when water vapour is the main contributor to heating. I dont want a detaled work, I can get further info off the internet when I know what to look for. Also tell people about the CSIRO publication on Climat Change.
Add comment
In light of David Cameron's recent comments in support of Prime Minister Gillard's Carbon Pricing plan, how does Tony Abbott's Direct Action Plan compare to other climate change policies proposed by centre-right politicians around the world?
Add comment
How can the government justify the vast cost of buying Carbon Dioxide permits, rather than investing that money in renewable resources?
How can the government justify the vast cost of buying Carbon Dioxide permits, rather than investing that money in renewable resources?
Add comment
What is the value of The Great Barrier Reef to Queensland's and Australia's economy.The Oceans have acidified considerably since Industrialisation and continue to do so due to the increased CO2.In 50 years or maybe less the reef will be an empty shell devoid of a thriving ecosystem.The question to NQ politicians and others is what are you doing to protect the Reef from this problem and as a consequence the Businesses and Employment that flows from it.
Add comment
10% of the Carbon Dioxide Tax revenue will go straight to the UN. Why has this not been covered and commented upon within the media? Why has the Government not explained this?
10% of the Carbon Dioxide Tax revenue will go straight to the UN. Why has this not been covered and commented upon within the media? Why has the Government not explained this?
Add comment
By how many degrees will the Australian carbon dioxide tax affect the world's temperature?
By how many degrees will the Australian carbon dioxide tax affect the world's temperature?
Add comment
Tim Flannery and Cate Blanchett have both recently acquired waterfront property in Sydney and Vanuatu respectively. What does this say about their dire sea-level rise predictions and support of the Carbon Tax?
Tim Flannery and Cate Blanchett have both recently acquired waterfront property in Sydney and Vanuatu respectively. What does this say about their dire sea-level rise predictions and support of the Carbon Tax?
Add comment
If this Carbon Dioxide Tax is designed to "make big polluters pay", rather than individuals, then why is it necessary to offer so-called "compensation" to all-and-sundry?
If this Carbon Dioxide Tax is designed to "make big polluters pay", rather than individuals, then why is it necessary to offer so-called "compensation" to all-and-sundry?
Add comment
Why isn't there more information or debate in the popular media about what will happen to the climate and the planet of nothing is done to stop/limit carbon pollution?
Why isn't there more information or debate in the popular media about what will happen to the climate and the planet of nothing is done to stop/limit carbon pollution?
Add comment
The Government insists on repeating that Australia is "the worlds biggest polluter per capita". This may be the case, but we have a very small population compared to, say China, or India. Why does the Government not make it clear that Australia contributes only 1.5% of human-produced CO2 annually, and that a 5% reduction in Australias CO2 production will be a global CO2 reduction of 0.075%
Add comment
So some things will get more expensive under the Carbon Tax, but surely with all the compensation some things will get relatively cheaper for most people... after all isn't this just supposed to help us rebalance our choices away from things that emit the most CO2? Could we find an economist or two to explain the macro aims and impacts of the scheme as well as looking at some average household examples?
Add comment
The medical literature clearly explains the proposed health effects of climate change, from direct effects such as changed patterns of infectious disease and increased morbidity and mortality from extreme weather events, and also indirect effects on mental health, population displacement, reduced health system funding and poor food security etc. Why does this not get any coverage in the media? Surely health issues deserve discussion and underpin all of our actions... after all, if we don't have health, what do we have?
Add comment
By what amount will the temperature be decreased with the introduction of a carbon tax?
By what amount will the temperature be decreased with the introduction of a carbon tax?
Add comment
Those who believe in human influenced climate change are dissenters of the science.
Those who believe in human influenced climate change are dissenters of the science.
Add comment
The acidification of our earth's oceans seems to get any media attention whatsoever. Why is this the case?
The acidification of our earth's oceans seems to get any media attention whatsoever. Why is this the case?
Add comment
Since we cannot stop US/China on the CO2 emissions, just get on with planning for hopefully only 4 degrees and commensurate Sea Level rises as a consequence.Accept the loss of a Living Barrier Reef and Coastal homes.Start planning infrastructure projects now so communities will cope.This does not mean saving expensive Real Estate on foreshores by wasting taxpayer funds on retaining walls , groyn's etc.
Add comment
It seems that there is a great emphasis on public opinion in regards to Climate science and the Carbon Tax. Given the reality that the vast majority of the population does not have the expert knowledge to hold truly informed opinions on the topic, should decision making on science based issues like this lie with public popularity and agreeance? Or should there be some means that leaders and experts in relevant fields can express their knowledge and recommendations to political leaders, for the good of the people?
Add comment
How will Australia look in 2030 if we managed to address climate change? Lifestyle, power generation, coal industry, air travel, population growth
How will Australia look in 2030 if we managed to address climate change? Lifestyle, power generation, coal industry, air travel, population growth
Add comment
Labor's ETS policy has already received quite a bit of scrutiny, and the details are now on the table. I think it's time for some questions to be asked of the alternative policy of Direct Action: How will it be funded? How will it be policed? When will the Coalition release their modelling of its effects and costs? Can they guarantee there will be no job losses under their plan, including those in the renewable energy industry and in the public service?
Add comment
Why isn't the government spending more money on large scale renewable energy projects such as those suggested by the Beyond Zero group
Why isn't the government spending more money on large scale renewable energy projects such as those suggested by the Beyond Zero group
Add comment
Will Victorians tolerate a new brown coal export industry being developed?
Will Victorians tolerate a new brown coal export industry being developed?
Add comment
Why does the media allow deniers to dominate the debate, both by providing a false 'balance' in climate science reporting, and in allowing denier comments, often a coordinated campaign of so-called denier-bots, to run roughshod over others? And will this forum become an avenue for such campaigns?
Add comment
Labor constantly says per capita Oz world's worst polluter. Yet we rate 14th, with 1.5% of global emissions. China has 20 times more. Labor aims to reduce our emissions by 5%, resulting in 0.07% global reduction. If China reduced their emissions by 5% that = our total global emission. The $30 billion churn seems a waste of time & money as it will have no impact on climate change especially while India, China and America emissions grow.
Add comment
Solar powered 24-hour baseload power is available now, see for example http://beyondzeroemissions.org/blog/spain-now-producing-24-hour-solar-power-110708 where you can download a most impressive free report. So why do you allow pollies and shock jocks to get away with saying coal or uranium are still needed for baseload? Has Sunday Age reported on the fact that the US Department of Energy has identified fuel ethanol from Australian eucalypts as essential for its strategic future? Do your readers know Virgin Blue will get its aviation fuel from gum trees? My point is that people are entitled to detail on renewables that are viable now.
Add comment
Considering that the opposition has the same plan to cut emissions by 5% by 2020, I would like to know more about this plan. What is their plan, how effective will it be, how much will it cost and how will it be paid for?
Add comment
Do the media think they are partly responsible for the amount of climate change skepticism that exists amongst the people of Australia (due to their presentation of the skeptic's arguments as equal to the scientists' arguments), despite an almost complete consensus on the issue among scientists since the late 1990's??
Add comment
That Climate Change occurs is not what the debate is about - it is whether human activity has caused unacceptable accelerations in the changes that can be observed to two key aspects of Climate which are temperature (such as ocean and surface) and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. Even though it is a relatively small component of the total atmospheric gasses, is the current (and, as has been proven, increasing) atmospheric concentration of CO2 a cause for concern and if so, is this concern independent of its effect on potentially raising temperatures?
Add comment
Natural gas will run out in less than 20 years making all the infrastructure redundant. Renewable technologies can be used to generate Hydrogen that can be blended into the remaining dwindling gas supplies, extending its useful life. Hydrogen can be used with fuel cells as demonstrated using fossil Hydrogen made by cracking oil in urban bus trials in Perth - very popular with commuters as the output is steam. Why has Hydrogen Economy dropped off the media radar?
Add comment
Why don't the Tasmanian people create a sustainable future without dioxins by switching the proposed paper pulp plant to fuel ethanol at 300 litres yield per tonne? Using only plantation timber, they could help supply Australia's liquid fuel requirement that exceeds 50,000,000,000 litres per annum. No paper was used in this transmission
Add comment
The latest IPCC report says investment of 1% of GDP (small in comparison to gambling and tobacco) would allow the ENTIRE WORLD to source over 80% of power requirements from renewables by 2050, so let's get going!! Why not reduce military hardware imports to pay for it?
Add comment
What are the health impacts of climate change, are we already seeing them in Australia and what should we do to protect our health from the effects of climate change?
What are the health impacts of climate change, are we already seeing them in Australia and what should we do to protect our health from the effects of climate change?
Add comment
Now that we have wide spread use of (highly toxic) energy efficent, compact fluro light bulbs, when we will be provided with safe disposal facilities?
Now that we have wide spread use of (highly toxic) energy efficent, compact fluro light bulbs, when we will be provided with safe disposal facilities?
Add comment
Considering that lots of people seem somewhat misinformed about climate change and the carbon tax, for instance saying "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant", and considering that they probably pick such lines up from media outlets, what is the best way to actually educate people about how climate change works?
Add comment
Why is it that Julia Gillard and for that matter the Fairfax press continually fail to mention the miniscule contribution to world CO2 by Australians and avoid answering any question about the expected reduction in world temperatures arising from the implementation of a carbon tax? Could it be that both are aware that the proposed carbon tax will do absolutely nothing for world temperatures?
Add comment
Why is media stuck on reporting what a few people in the minority think and say about climate change (the deniers) over the overwhelming evidence of the majority of the rest of the world? Does the media believe in climate change and the urgent need to act now before it's too late, or does it prefer to stir up controversy (where little exists) just to sell more newspapers. Isn't it time we stopped debating the issue and move forward (like the UK and Europe) towards solutions? Earth's inhabitants deserve a chance to prosper into the future, and the media has a moral responsibility (as a global citizen) to put forward the facts so that this happens.
Add comment
Did you know that in Australia today, the average manual tree planter creates 5000 trees in a day? Over 80% of Western Australia has been cleared of forest since white settlement. Clouds do not form over desert, but they do over green vegetation, which also keeps the groundwater level down, ameliorating salinity. So using some of the 1,000,000 underemployed Australians we can plant 1,250,000 trees per person per year which translates into scrubbing a lot of CO2 out of the air, repleneshing oxygen and generally having a great future. Johnny Appleseed revisited.
Add comment
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production
accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Why aren't the meat industry paying their fair share of the carbon tax?
Add comment
Why don't the media report that steel can be produced with ZERO CO2 output by using Hydrogen as reductant and heat source, a technology known since at least the 1930s? Our "high emission trade exposed (mumbo jumbo) industries" do not need to be so. Imagine how many extra jobs there could be if we refused to export iron ore, but instead sold crude iron and steel made with ZERO EMISSIONS.
Add comment
When journalists talk to experts about the detail of climate science I believe they should only talk to qualified, working climate scientists. They should be employed by recognised institutions (eg universities or national science bodies such as the CSIRO) and, importantly, they ought to be sufficiently qualified to be successfully publishing in the peer-reviewed climate science literature. Those of us without such qualifications and publishing record don't need to be interviewed on the science as we have many other outlets and platforms through which to offer each other our non-expert opinions.
Add comment
Why has The Age run a pro AGW agenda, refusing to acknowledge the existence or credibility of sceptical scientists? Now that the majority of public opinion is against them, are they using this forum to change their editorial bias on climate?
Add comment
Some people say that they think the climate is changing but they do not think that humans are influencing the change. Why does the Suess Effect not get mentioned as the explanation for the measurable effect of carbon dioxide from combustion of fossil fuels?
Add comment
Man made climate change threatens the future of all life on Earth.
We are the only species that can do something about this , and what we do now ,will
determine the condition of the planet for the next 100, 1000 or 10,000 years.
As custodians of the planet we must find the wisdom to change our present destructive short term thinking that is leading to disaster.
Short term decision making based on the next annual profit or election is plainly wrong in the face of the now obvious greater threat.
Thus to decarbonize our economy is a strategic necessity , not an economic choice.
The stark choice is between managing the transition to a sustainable future, or suffering the inevitable population crash when our " just in time " food supply chain fails.
Australia is fortunate in that we can both afford to , and have the technology to, decarbonize. ( see Zero Carbon Australia )
Why should Australia decarbonize?
To demonstrate that it is possible, practical , and to sell the knowhow to other converting nations.
Will the Age support a debate on the long term and strategic necessity to make this change?
Add comment
According to the international and national community man-made climate change is real, it is here and it is the biggest public health threat of the century, with the scientific evidence being as strong as smoking causing cancer. In light of these facts it simply beggars believe that not more is being done by politician, doctors and key policy makers to ensure the lifes of the australian communities are protected. We believe in the same sources when it comes to the treatment of cancers and heart disease. yet many politicians choose not to believe when it comes to climate change as it does not suit their party line. Why is not more being done and how strong is the influence of the fossil fuel industry really (especially coal and coal mining) considering Australia is celebrating exporting hundred million tons more coal than in the last ten years. Why has the Australian government failed to launch proper mointoring and a proper enquiry into the massive health effects of coal burning when it is clear of from countries such as Canada, America and the UK that 1000 of lives are lost due to coal burning every year?
Add comment
How exactly will a tax on Carbon Dioxide affect the global average temperature?
How exactly will a tax on Carbon Dioxide affect the global average temperature?
Add comment
I was working in Qatar recently, and even they were holding forums, of which Clinton was a guest at one - which was why it got so much local coverage, on how Qatar can use its current massive fossil fuel income, to redevelop itself into a future renewable energy products exporter, when the gas and oil runs out. I have read inspiring stories about how Norway and Sweden, are ahead, and becoming leading producers in the new renewable energy economy. How are these and other countries positioning themselves to be developers, producers and exporters of new renewable products and technology? How can Australia join them and be one too? What case studies can we learn from?
Add comment
Let us assume that the dire predictions from some scientists as reported by the IPCC are true. Earth's temperature will rise by more than 2 degrees C over 100 years. Where is the Fairfax press support of the debate between mitigation by CO2 reduction vs adaptation to a warmer climate which has both beneficial as well as negative consequences?
Add comment
Rate of Sea Level Rise - Is the rate of rise slowing, and if so, what are the implications for government policy and the most recent IPCC sea level rise predictions (Copenhagen Synthesis report 2009)? Two scientific papers published earlier this year in the highly respected Journal of Coastal Research (“Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?” by P.J. Watson; J. of Coastal Research, March 2011 and “Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses” by J.R. Houston and R.G. Dean; J. of Coastal Research, May 2011), based on long term historically observed sea level measurements, indicate that the rate of rise of sea level around Australia, and globally has been slowing since around 1940. Barry Packham (Ph.D. Information Systems)
Add comment
Why is the Australian public asked to swallow the "carbon dioxide is dangerous climate changing pollution" crap when science shows no observed relationship between global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide? There is no real criticism anywhere and there should be.
There is no physical evidence showing a relationship between temperature and C02 only computer models which give different answers according to whatever assumption data you put in.
But there IS a VERY close relationship between temperature and solar activity, as shown by the sunspot cycle which has been observed and charted since the time of Galileo.
Why are we being forced to reallocate BILLIONS of public money to create unproductive new industries when there is no physical evidence to support the theory?
Why, when thousands of respected scientists signed a petition saying they don't agree there is a problem, are we being forced to give up billions in tax dollars to waste on trying to stop carbon dioxide emissions?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Are we really rich enough to throw money away on a political vanity when our hospital system is in crisis, our roads need constant upkeep and there are homeless mentally ill people living on the streets?
Is this some type of mad keynesian experiment that spending loads of public money on anything, even totally unproductive solar panel farms, will stimulate the economy? It won't! we will just go deeper into debt.
The world's economy is unravelling and our taxes are being given to mates of the political left to make wind farms????
Add comment
The very point of Australia's carbon tax is to reduce global warming. How much will reducing 5% of Australia's around 1.5% contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature by? If the amount is negligible (which it is), then given the present economic turbulence, what is the probability of Australia's carbon tax inspiring major emitters like USA, China and India to make ACTUAL cuts to their C02 emissions (as opposed to mere carbon intensity) and economic growth?
Add comment
Can the Age ask the respective governments which have cut solar power schemes , why they havent also cut the financial support to fossil fuelled power generation , after all if they supposedly believe in a free market economy why does one industry get subsidised and not their competitors .
Add comment
The temperature and the climate of the planet Earth is always changing. The world's temperature hasn't risen for the last 10 years. What difference will Australia's tax on carbon dioxide emissions by industry (1.4% of global CO2 emissions) make on the temperature record of this 4.5 billion year old planet?
Add comment
Why is LABOR borrowing $135 Million EVERY DAY, and what are they doing with it ?
Has anyone worked out how much interest we have to pay on that ?
Why is LABOR borrowing $135 Million EVERY DAY, and what are they doing with it ?
Has anyone worked out how much interest we have to pay on that ?
Add comment
Attempts to date to reach an international climate agreement seem to have been blocked by individual nations looking out for their narrow self-interest. How can this self interest be overcome, will it be necessary to create an independent organisation to administer and enforce an agreement and what will that mean for national sovereignty?
Add comment
The government is making rules to ensure that people and businesses affected by the carbon tax cannot protect themselves from prosecution if they make any mistakes. But what about the climatologists and economists who are paid to sell the government's carbon tax program? If they are as confident as they claim that their propositions are correct, why are they and the government hiding behind disclaimers aimed at protecting them from being held accountable when they are found to be 100% wrong?
Add comment
We hear a lot about what the Government is proposing and what is going to be the impact. The Opposition says that it is too expensive and that their proposal is much better and cheaper, but we have heard very little in terms of what the Opposition's policy actually is and how much it will cost. Can we have a comparative done so we can see both sides?
Add comment
When are we going to hear more about the great elephant in the room - animal agriculture? The CSIRO and the University of Sydney have jointly reported that it is responsible for over 30 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. That's conservative, as it is based on a 100-year time horizon for methane's warming impact. According to the IPCC, methane is far more potent when measured over a 20-year time horizon. Livestock's impact is largely attributable to the inherently inefficient nature of animals as a food source for humans, with onerous demands on resources at every step of the supply chain. A key factor in livestock's emissions is the massive amount of deforestation attributable to grazing and feed crop production, which the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency now ignores in its National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Animal agriculture is by far the greatest cause of deforestation globally and in Australia. The world's pre-eminent climate scientist, James Hansen, says we will not overcome climate change without massive reforestation and significant cuts in emissions of non-CO2 climate forcers, such as methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and black carbon. Meaningful action in that regard cannot be achieved without a general move towards a plant-based diet. The livestock sector is becoming more active in alleging its products are benign. The industry's arguments remind me of contributions by Ian Plimer and Bob Carter to the general climate change debate. A key problem is that social and cultural conditioning encourages key decision makers and most climate change activists to overlook the problem. They will happily absorb any propaganda that tells them it is all okay. The Greens say virtually nothing, possibly with one eye on the ballot box and potential scare campaigns by the livestock sector. One argument of the livestock sector is that production animals eat plants and crop residues that we wouldn't. That practice is a key contributor to desertification in Africa, West Asia, the Americas and Australia. If we are to have any chance of avoiding climate change tipping points and keep our planet habitable for humans and wildlife, we must not ignore the livestock issue.
Add comment
How will the Sunday Age ensure that questions of little value in terms of the peer-reviewed science do not, through mere popularity, displace genuine questions that can be answered by scientists in a way that will help people understand the climate challenge and the need for urgent action? Perhaps the newspaper's team should investigate the top ten questions assessed as genuinely at issue or judged as subject to popular misconception by an expert scientific panel. The panel could comment on any popular questions they omit from the top ten, giving their reasons for doing so - for example, where a question seems intended to mislead on the science. The panel could also be consulted by your team in responding to the top ten questions that make it through this quality check.
Add comment
Negative CO2 emissions - a $230 billion a year business opportunity.
Does this view of climate change and a carbon price deserve any media coverage?
See below:
1. At a price of $23 per tonne, the annual removal of 10 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere has a value of $230 billion.
2. It seems misguided to debate how to LOWER CO2 emissions and worry about the cost of doing this, when any real impact on climate change will be achieved by REMOVING CO2 from the atmosphere, and the price on carbon makes this a highly profitable activity.
3. "Preliminary cost indications for transport of large quantities of CO2 from the Latrobe Valley to Gippsland basin storage sites range around $10 per tonne of CO2 avoided." (Keith Spence, Chair, Carbon Storage Taskforce, 7 September 2009 to The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP, Minister for Resources and Energy)
4. "Combining biomass with carbon dioxide capture and storage could result in an annual global potential of up to 10 billion tonnes of negative CO2 emissions." (IEAGHG. "Large global potential for negative CO2 emissions through biomass linked with carbon dioxide capture and storage." ScienceDaily, 3 Aug. 2011. Web. 7 Aug. 2011.)
Add comment
We need to spell out THE MOST LIKELY cosequences for Victoria and Australia of no real action on emmissions
What are the BEST (most qualified) SCIENTISTS and ECONOMISTS saying is MOST likely to happen to the Murray Darling Basin, Victoria's climate and coast lines, the GREAT BARRIER Reef, and emloyment in these areas areas, if we dont take strong action on emmissions? (SPELL THIS OUT IN SIMPLE language and summaries.)
Add comment
Can The Age investigate how much money flows from fossil fuel companies to current and former politicians, and to current and former members of politician’s staff? The money paid by fossil fuel companies could be in the form of contributions or salaries and benefits (as former politicians and staff go on to the payroll of fossil fuel companies and lobbying organisations).
Add comment
Why does the Government call the plan to change approacxhes to pollution a "Carbon Tax" when it is clearly a Pollution tax? Taxing Pollution is more acceptable and understandable for simple Australians than a carbon tax.
Add comment
The evidence and science is beyond doubt on climate change, except on the fringes occupied by Tony Abbott and other crackpots.climate change won't really affect the current generations of Australians that much, except for the catastrophic effects of things like the inland tsunami and unprecedented cyclones like cyclone Yasi earlier this year. However the climate change outlook for future generations is extremely bleak with disasters like these becoming the norm over the rest of this century
Why are many Australians are content to condemn their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to this sort of of future scenario by not wanting to do anything much about it?
Add comment
Let's ask more often the questions about what can be achieved in a clean energy future and how to get there on a least cost path. To start with, which Australian companies are achieving the highest energy-efficiency gains and how did they do it? What do they plan to do next to capture greater energy-efficiencies and what do they see as the most helpful thing governments could do for them?
Add comment
On page 10 of WIll Steffen's recent climate commission report, the graphs show that Australia is warming slower than the rest of the world and less than the rest of the world. This is a contrast to the previous advocacy position that we would be the first affected and the worst affected. I'll always go with the science, ie actual measurement. Discuss!
Add comment
"...what is the probability of Australia Carbon Tax inspiring major emitters like USA, China and india...? That didn't seem to be the right question to ask, given China HAS already started cutting greenhouse gas emissions before Australia announced the carbon tax. Australia is in fact following. If we don't take a decisive step to cut OUR emissions (be it 1.5% contribution of CO2 globally, and it must be said, the highest per capita in the developed world), we would've missed opportunities to develop inventive technology from renewable sources. The more we delay the climate change action, the more expensive it would get to invest to turn things around when fossil fuel energy sources becomes more and more expensive and eventually run out.
As the global warming rates speed up faster than climate change models have predicted, extreme climatic events in the future would increase in severity and frequency, hence enormous costs for governments to pay. That's why we need the carbon tax as a form of risk management for now and the future.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/27/world/la-fg-climate-china27-2009nov27
Add comment
We all (but the most die hard of crackpot) agree that AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. So is the toxification of our planet due to the burning of fossil fuels & irresponsible manufacturing... SO... Why is it still legal to log the closest, most beautiful carbon sinks to Melbourne? more info: www.myenvironment.net.au
Add comment
If the government is so serious about reducing co2 emissions why do they keep ignoring the single most effective method for doing so: nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is far cheaper than "renewables" and kills less people per unit of energy produced than even solar or wind. New generation reactors improve safety significantly and render the long term waste storage issue moot, and thorium fast breeder reactors cannot melt down accidentally at all. France has shown how easy and effective nuclear is at reducing greenhouse emissions. Why doesn't the government spend some of it's enormous "clean energy future" research and advertising budget to help educate Australians about the facts around new forms of clean atomic energy?
Add comment
Can Age journalists be trusted to be impartial and objective on the issue of climate change?
Can Age journalists be trusted to be impartial and objective on the issue of climate change?
Add comment
Why don't major media outlets yell from their front pages and the electronic equivalents about climate change tipping points? The loss of Arctic summer sea ice, the dynamic melting of ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica, melting permafrost, Amazonian and boreal forest fires and the like are close to triggering runaway climate change that we will no hope of controlling. Germany's top climate change adviser, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, says that a planet that is 4 degrees warmer would only support less than 1 billion humans. People need to be shaken from their complacency and realise that we're facing catastrophe if we don't tackle this crisis together.
Add comment
Do warmist climate scientists have vested interests to keep the research funding coming? Is this censoring honest and diverse research?
Do warmist climate scientists have vested interests to keep the research funding coming? Is this censoring honest and diverse research?
Add comment
Refering to CO2 as carbon is like calling H2O oxigen. How can intelligent journalists promote this?
Refering to CO2 as carbon is like calling H2O oxigen. How can intelligent journalists promote this?
Add comment
Is this ultimate goal to de-industrialise the economies of the world?
Is this ultimate goal to de-industrialise the economies of the world?
Add comment
Could you please clearly explain the science. What are scientists saying are the likely outcomes under various emission scenarios. Please include the worst case scenarios if the world does not act effectively, for example, if China and India don't act sufficiently and Australia, the USA and others won't without them etc? As this to me is seeming increasingly likely as there are so many vested interests and money and power influencing governments that this is not a problem and they should not act or act minimally etc.
Add comment
Q1: not long ago everyone believed climate change was a real threat, but now there and plenty of people saying that climate change science is crap. I think we need some clear explanation, evidence, or indicators that its happening now so that Joe Average can explain to someone who only reads the Herald Sun that it's not the make believe that Andrew Bolt would have us believe. An Inconvenient Truth for 2011 in bite size pieces please
Add comment
Some politicians continue telling us that we are all doomed because of CO2 emissions. None of their predictions came true despite increase of CO2 in the atmospehere, the scientists and even IPCC now admit that their computer models were incorrect. Great Barrier Reef is not dying, rains continue, catastrophic weaather events do not intensify. Why The Age does not ask them tough questions?
Add comment
There has been a growing number of scientists highly qualified in the climate field who have begun to speak out against the theory that human carbon dioxide emissions are threatening to dangerously warm the planet. So my question is when are The Sunday Age going to present these counter arguments and if not, then why The Sunday Age feels the need to stifle real debate as clearly the science isn't settled?
Add comment
All others things being equal, what will be the impact of Carbon tax,as enacted by the parliament, on the global future temperature in 5, 25, 50 years compared with the current trends which have yet not taken in account Australia's decisions?
Add comment
Why so many articles in The Age on scaring people into thinking the world is going to end if Australia doesn't do anything??????What about the rest of the world???????? What a crock............
Why so many articles in The Age on scaring people into thinking the world is going to end if Australia doesn't do anything??????What about the rest of the world???????? What a crock............
Add comment
Acknowledging The Sunday Age for hosting such an important forum, how can you prevent The Climate Agenda from being hijacked by people with vested interests in polluting industries? As we know, deniers are extremely well funded and resourced, with foot soldiers trawling the internet for legitimate discussions such as this one in order to distort them, and further mislead and confuse the public. Judging by some of your questions, this site is already under siege.
Add comment
How authentic was the calculation of the 2000 greenhouse gas emissions figure and what emitters being companies or otherwise were included / excluded from the calculation of the tonnage amount ?
That threshold figure is absolutely critical in accurately determining the effectiveness of the carbon tax on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in future years.
Add comment
Climate has always changed and caused havoc throughout recorded history, this was called natural. Now we say Climate Change is caused by AGW, so how do we tell which is natural and which is caused by AGW?
Climate has always changed and caused havoc throughout recorded history, this was called natural. Now we say Climate Change is caused by AGW, so how do we tell which is natural and which is caused by AGW?
Add comment
Why have we gone from global warming to climate change to clean energy future?
Why have we gone from global warming to climate change to clean energy future?
Add comment
Since this is described as the single greatest challenge facing the world, and massive upheaval that threatens Australia’s future prosperity is planned in the face of it, why has the Australian media largely chosen to keep Australians in the dark re the revelations from the CRU emails, of unprofessional scientific process, excessive secrecy, fudging of data and admitted corruption of the peer review process by the inner clique of ‘consensus’ scientists on whose work the whole alarmist case rests----along with details of the numerous challenges by very well-credentialled scientists, many of them at the top of their field, to all of the core aspects of the AGW ‘consensus’ case?
Add comment
There may not be certaintiy about how future warming and its effects but if most highly qualified scientists say the risks are REAL and GRAVE why would you not go for clean energy options and the thousands of jobs we could generate by being a world leader inthe field????????
Add comment
Why are we implementing a Carbon Dioxide tax when Prof. Richard Lindzen, the lead author of the IPCC reports that Gillard Govt relies on, and who is endorsed by the Govt's Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery, says if Aust and the whole world cuts it emissions by 5% by 2020 it would make no noticable change to the world's temperature?
Add comment
I am frustrated by the silence of a media visibly seen as left leaning. If Tony Abbott had lied as Julia Gillard did, he'd be crucified. With the likes of Flannery and Rudd getting away with living waterfrontage while spruiking rising seas/tides. With the obvious lack of critical analysis, efforts to stifle the likes of Lawson, Monckton, Jones etc. With the silence of Malaysian deal... when will journalism turn tack and be more critical of issues?
Add comment
This is a question that the media needs to ask itself. Why have we allowed ourselves to be taken in by cliches without question. The most obvious cliche in this debate is the use of a smokey chimney to signify CO2. CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas and a vent of CO2 has no colour. The video of Gay Alcorn was set before cooling towers emitting steam!
Add comment
Fluctuations in solar energy raise temperatures which in turn causes increased Carbon Dioxide and water vapour.
Every single hour the earth receives more energy from the Sun than the entire human population uses in one whole year. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet annually is twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth‟s non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.
So my question is, maybe, just maybe, the Sun and not a harmless trace gas drives Climate Change after all?
Add comment
There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
The IPCC says it is “very likely”, and this unscientific statement seems to be the basis for the endlessly repeated mantra of “human emissions affect climate”
When they announced the guess of very likely, the IPCC said that when the “hotspot” in the troposphere was shown to exist, this would be the “signature’ for AGW. There is no hotspot, no signature, but no revision of the unproven guess.
Settled science shows that natural cycles govern climate, leaving no room for the assertion that human emissions have any demonstrable effect on climate.
Why is the science not promoted with the zeal applied to the unproven guess of the IPCC?
There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
The IPCC says it is “very likely”, and this unscientific statement seems to be the basis for the endlessly repeated mantra of “human emissions affect climate”
When they announced the guess of very likely, the IPCC said that when the “hotspot” in the troposphere was shown to exist, this would be the “signature’ for AGW. There is no hotspot, no signature, but no revision of the unproven guess.
Add comment
CO2 is a tasteless, odourless, invisible and incombustible gas – all animals including humans exhale it.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) makes up about 0.0385% of the Earth‟s Atmosphere or 385ppm.
97% of Earth's annual production of Carbon Dioxide is almost entirely produced by Nature. Human industry and transport produces the remaining 3%.
Australian industry contributes only 1.5% of that remaining 3% or 0.0000173% of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide or measly 0.173ppm.
My question: Given Australia’s contribution is so small, why are we introducing such a regressive tax when it won’t make any difference to atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels?
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t the “cure” sound worse than the problem? A bit like amputating your leg to “cure” your in-growing toe nail?
Add comment
Isn’t the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary?
Isn’t the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary?
Add comment
Australia has proposed to strip 8Bn per annum to abate Carbon Dioxide. The Productivity commission calculated the tax will not actually abate CO2 with the carbon footprint of Australia Continuing to increase (Theoretically at a slower pace). If a Gillard tax were taken up by the rest of the world each degree of abatement would cost over $220 Trillion. How then can Gillard say the Tax is "Efficient" when clearly it can't do the job?
Add comment
Will this project combine the votes for closely related questions? For example there are a number of questions regarding methane generated by livestock industry that collectively might attract more votes than "denialists". Similarly those interested in Biofuels might be dispersing their vote accumulation potential. Todays news is that 70,000 Americans are employed by the ethanol fuel industry and Australia is suffering an ethanol shortage so that you might only be getting 6% ethanol in your petrol rather than 85% of E85. How many Age Readers have heard about E85 by the way, or the fact that Brazil now offers 100% (denatured) ethanol to motorists?
Add comment
Given that nobody can forecast an El Nino event more than a few months ahead, nor a solar quiet period more than a year or so and that nobody can come close to estimating the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation nor the likelihood of climate catastrophes like volcanic eruptions, why are government and Green-funded scientists so sure that we are headed for disastrous global warming by the end of the century?
Add comment
I find it difficult to understand why people who are not climate change scientists choose not to accept the scientific consensus that climate change is occuring. It seems to me to be a psychological position where it is easier to reject news as untrue when it involves worry or stress.
I do feel anxious about the future but it motivates me to change my behaviour and to actively support our politicians to lead us to a lower polluting lifestyle. I do have faith that we can all make a difference whether we live in India, Australia or Antarctica. I realise that some countries have much larger populations, are developing their standards of living and have a reliance on fossil fuels. These realities are difficult but not a reason to not act ourselves. I want to know how Social Psychologists can help communities overcome their fear and apathy to take steps towards mobilising support and action about tackling the problems Climate Change poses. Pretending it will go away might be possible now when we aren't yet directly impacted by Climate Change but its not acceptable to simply wait until things become difficult as by then it may be way to late.
Add comment
Do the opponents of action on climate change really believe their conspiracy theories or are they merely cynical attention seeking scandal-mongers?
And why should we trust any commentator who claims to be the only person in the world capable of recognising, and teling us, The Truth?
Add comment
It wouldn't do any harm to run a feature debunking some of the frequently misleading claims from "climate skeptics" - like the canard about CO2 not being pollution because it is colourless, tasteless and odourless. How about a regular "Climate Canard of the Day" feature?
Add comment
Why are we failing to act on climate change in the face of profoundly serious predictions that are being demonstrated by observed data to be exceptionally accurate and in the face of overwhelming risk? Are humans suffering a collective delusional disorder?
Add comment
Why do we have to have a carbon tax and not legislation to bring in things like mandatory that all houses have a solar hot water system, gas stove and heating, all new cars/trucks to be run on LPG or electricity by 2020? How much of the money raised by the carbon tax is going overseas under our copenhagen agreement? How much money has been given to researchers ito study/research climate change?
Add comment
What work has been done by futurists and scientists and health economists about what a utopian carbon-free future might look like? Will we all become health walking or cycling (or train or sailing-ship using) vegetarians who live to be 120? What will that do to the population? What kind of jobs will our grandchildren have if we can save the climate for them? What kind of great vision for the future is out there already, or do we have to start now to imagine the best possible society and then start planning to get us there?
Add comment
It seems to me that Climate " Deniers" are villified by Age reporters. Why is the reportage on this issue so slanted toward Climate " Warmists" . There is ample room for scepticism, for instance when Tim Flannery warns of catastrophic sea rising then buys a house on the water shouldn't I smell a rat regarding catastrophic man made global warming?
Add comment
Arguing about climate change science is pointless, both parties have agreed to the same targets within the same time frames. So the important question is which policy, "carbon tax' or "direct action", is the most economically responsible and environmentally effective.
60% of economist agree that the carbon tax is good economic policy, 10% agree that direct action is good economic policy. Experts around the world agree that putting a price on carbon is the most effective way of tackling climate change.
My question is this, if this was about your own health and 6 out of 10 doctors recommended one treatment and one in ten recommend a different treatment, which treatment would you choose? Why do we continue to risk the health of the planet playing politics?
Add comment
As scientists across the many fields comprising climate change, and often a recognised leader in that field, release an ever increasing number of empirically based papers that challenge the central tenants of the global warming thesis and computer models, why is it that our media only ever report on the rebuttal and never the original papers or the follow-up to the often irrelevant criticisms? A better question might be what is their political agenda?
Add comment
The most positive and exciting part of climate change is the myriad posibilities thrown up by new green energy. A range of innovative ideas has already been canvassed but there is so much more than can be done in this field which will produce positive outcomes for health, jobs and the economy. Why focus on those who will forever argue over the most miniscule details. Look to the future, can we have or green energy astories please.
Add comment
What are climate tipping points and should I be worried about them?
What are climate tipping points and should I be worried about them?
Add comment
If an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration has a pronounced effect on Earth's temperature, why does Earth's temperature record from 1945 to 1979 and since 1998 not track the steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration over these periods? Are other factors influencing climate and, if so, how can any sensible prediction be made? Are current predictions based mainly on only 20 years of warming from 1979 to 1998?
Add comment
Can anyone provide empirical evidence of even one single climate or weather event that could not be explained by the historic natural variability of our chaotic climate system influenced as it is by a vast number and combination of physical and cosmic factors, or conversely, empirical evidence of such an event caused by the few extra parts per million of human-induced CO2 allegedly involved in the computer-modelled hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Add comment
The claim "the science is settled" is plainly false due to the many problems with the AGW hypothesis (eg. global temperatures have not risen since 1998 despite rising CO2 levels; alarmism is based on flawed models that do not reflect empirical measurements - positive feedback mechanism with water vapour absent/signature hot-spot in troposphere at equator is absent). Why is there no investigative journalism done to examine these flaws?
Add comment
Seems to me that the people most upset about this debate are people who are afraid of change. You can read it in the questions here. Action on climate change presents many opportunities and some will lose out. Those people are angry and scared. So I would like to see more about the business opportunities for climate change. When will I be able to affordably stop paying money to coal powered coal stations for my electricity? How can we help those workers (who are so concerned) move into new industries and give them support and training so they actually can earn more money? The greens keep talking about it but they seriously don't care about business. Why can't I get a loan from the government (at low interest rates) to fund some solar and wind power on my house? Why doesn't the government insist that all government vehicles become fuel efficient? What a great future it would be if I didn't have to spend so much money on electricity and fuel and if transportation costs for the food and products we all buy were reduced. Isn't it time we started to look at where we want to be long term and get the government to help support business to move us there?
Add comment
There are basic facts which when expressed simply would turn around most people to welcome a carbon tax. 50 Years ago my science teacher explained that the right amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, allows our pleasant way of life. It works like a one way mirror letting the pure energy of light in and when the right amount of CO2 is present enough out.Keeping to much in allows more wind violence and increasesf sea levels.
Add comment
Why destroy our country with this BRAINLESS tax on life based on a PACK of LIES?CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL and CO2 is LIFE
Why destroy our country with this BRAINLESS tax on life based on a PACK of LIES?CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL and CO2 is LIFE
Add comment
How much money has Tim Flannery made from his Global warming endeavours and is it true he has "sponsorship" deals with Panasonic, Toyota and Virgin galactic ?
Is he paid close to the Prime Ministers salarie on a part time basis to give accurate and unconflicted advise ?
Add comment
It's a basic proposition in economics that if my activity injures somebody else that is not buying from me or selling to me then I should pay for it. We heavily tax cigarette smoking because the secondary smoke cause cancer. Driving your car increases the fine particulate pollution in cities so we tax that to reduce consumption. Lead in petrol reduced IQs so that had to be banned altogether. This isn't new policy; acid rain has been reduced using just such an economic device. Isn't taxing CO2 emission simply a just and proper way of making polluters pay?
Add comment
Is carbon dioxide pollution to any greater extent than clouds? Many may accept that as a greenhouse gas it traps heat (like clouds which arguably amplify the effect), but much of the public has been tricked by the government's misleading "pollution" label into believing carbon dioxide is soot or causes smog or is the problem in polluted cities like Shanghai. It is not - it is an invisible, tasteless, odourless gas and the media should educate people on this important fact.
Add comment
How are local communities responding to the threat of climate change?
I'd love to see coverage of some of the actions that are being taken by community and volunteer groups who believe in exercising their agency to make a difference! The collective that's organised for installation of a wind turbine to power houses in Hepburn is a great example, and the zero carbon movement in Moreland is inspiring, too. Let's have more coverage of the opportunity for reflection that climate change presents, and the grassroots organisations that prove that we can do things better.
Add comment
There are multiple small seismic events taking place, all the time, under the Thomson Dam. Given that it fills occasionally when it rains, then drops when we're in drought, the weight on that patch of the earth's crust keeps changing. It makes sense that there are small earth movements up there, now and then.
If oceans are warming and polar ice is melting, is the weight of water on other parts of the earth's crust changing? Is this somehow involved in the apparent increase in earth quakes and tsunami's in recent years?
Add comment
Much of the confusion about climate is because it can be so difficult to convey why the climate is changing. If people understood that, there may be fewer arguments about the science. If I understand it correctly, each day the earth absorbs a certain amount of heat from the sun and then reflects about the same amount back into space – in that way, the earth's temperature remains reasonably constant. It's a complex process and part of it is carbon dioxide acting as a kind of 'blanket' around the earth, meaning some of the heat which would escape into space instead remains in the atmosphere. That's fine but, because the industrialised world has added so much CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 200 years, it's like there are now too many blankets on the bed and if we don't reduce CO2 temperatures will rise to dangerous levels. But what this argument needs is a nice, simple analogy such as putting a lid on a pot and making it boil over – but that's not quite right. I wonder if it's possible for a story around the process which puts it in really simple terms?
Add comment
How can the earth warm by between 2.3 and 5 degrees by the year 2070 (as Gillard cites from CSIRO) when it has taken over 100 years for the global temperature to rise by 0.7 degree? Even the lower estimate of 2.3 degrees in the next 60 years would require the rate of warming to increase by a factor of 5.5 from this century long trend. This is at odds with the last decade which has seen no statistically significant warming at all - we have not had a hotter year since 1998. Can a scientist from CSIRO please care to explain the mechanism for such an historic and unprecedented warming???
Add comment
Reading through these questions it is alarmingly obvious that climate scepticism (or denialism) is rife among Australians. How is the alleged 'scientific consensus' so at odds with the wider 'community consensus'? Are scientists the victims or beneficiaries of a corrupt government agenda or are the majority of Australians conspiracy theorists?
Add comment
When will the mainstream media start asking serious questions of the global warming scientists and government- like why have temperatures plateaued despite rising CO2; why is there no 'hot spot'in the tropical troposphere; why are sea levels refusing to rise as fast as expected; why has the buereau of meteorolgy adjusted Australian temperatures to create a warming bias of 40%; how much difference will our carbon tax make anyway?
Add comment
Instead of just referring back to the IPCC, which is a political body, and to "the overwhelming consensus", why don't you do some research yourself. Investigate Climategate. Go to ClimateAudit to see how the so called scientists at the CRU refused to release data and then when they had to under Freedom of Information, they said they had lost the data. Google Climategate. Check WattsUpWithThat.com. Check the University of Alabama at Huntley's satellite data that shows temperature down to 1/10th of a degree. See if you can figure out why James Hansen works for NASA but totally ignores NASA satellite data and goes by his easily manipulated earth station figures. Check why even the insiders in this scam are trying to explain the complete lack of warming in the atmosphere or oceans since 1998. Trenbeth said it's a travesty that they can't explain it. Contrast the model predictions of continually increasing temperatures against the lack of warming since 1998.
Add comment
I am 68. I have experienced significant changes in climate but am fascinated when media interview people in their 30, 40, and older who say things like "I have never seen anything like this in my life time" about a weather event. We have. Maybe climate change is more about cycles than change? Could this be addressed by someone without a climate change agenda?
Add comment
We hear much in the media about how much it will COST if we act now to mitigate carbon emissions, but nothing about how much we will SAVE by acting now. Costs of inaction include replacing infrastructure lost to rising sea levels, more frequent rebuilding after natural disasters, inflated food prices following crop failure, and increased expenditure on managing the health impacts of climate change. There's no avoiding it: we either pay now, or our kids pay later. With interest.
Add comment
Why does science persist with the complex greenhouse theory when a much more obvious answer to global warming is the raw heat of combustion, dissipated by convection, conduction and radiation, that we use in so many ways?
Add comment
The Government has priced Carbon Dioxide at $23 per tonne. How much will the government collect from this wealth redistribution tax in the first full year of its operation?
The Government has priced Carbon Dioxide at $23 per tonne. How much will the government collect from this wealth redistribution tax in the first full year of its operation?
Add comment
The Government has committed to a medium-term national target range of reducing emissions by between 5% and 15% of 2000 levels by 2020, and a long-term emissions reduction target of 60% below 2000 levels by 2050. By how much, as a percentage of the world’s emissions, will Australia’s contribution be in the same time frames?
Add comment
Nine out of 10 households will receive assistance, with the government saying the cost of living impact of a carbon tax will be 0.7 per cent or $9.90 a week. What are the reasons why the Government does not absorb this miniscule $9.90 per family per week, not provide compensation at all but absorb all of the risk that the Government has made major errors in their calculations and the cost will be much more?
Add comment
What do the ten most published (in peer reviewed scientific literature) climate scientists in Australia think the world will be like in 2100??
What do the ten most published (in peer reviewed scientific literature) climate scientists in Australia think the world will be like in 2100??
Add comment
How bad is warming?
Even if the planet does warm as the IPCC projects, does it matter? If so why? What is so bad about warming?
I’d point out that the planet is in an unusually cold phase. There have been only three such cold phases in the past 500 million years (that is, since animal life began to flourish). So why is warming so bad?
This schematic chart – “Ice House of Hot House” http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm - shows the three cold phases (since the start of the Cambrian Period).
Figure 6.1 in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 shows the temperature and CO2 concentration over the past 400 million years. http://accessipcc.com/AR4-WG1-6.html#6-3-1
- Notice the two cold phases. (The earlier one was about 425 million years ago which is just before the start of the chart.
- Notice that our planet had polar ice caps only twice in the past 400 million years (the blue bars hanging from the top of the chart).
- Notice, during the current cold phase, there has been permanent ice caps in Antarctica for only 10 million years and at the North Pole for less than 5 million years (demonstrating that ice caps are a rare event in Earth’s history, which shows we are in a cold phase)
- Notice that the planet has had no ice caps – therefore it has been much warmer than now – for about 80% of the past 500 million years. Therefore, the planet is normally significantly warmer than now.
- Notice how the planet has been in a long-term cooling trend for the past 50 million years (that’s what we should be concerned about).
IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 also says (buried in the text) life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder (we all know that anyway but it’s nice to see IPCC admit it).
What about sea level rise? How serious is it? Even if it rises at the rate IPCC projects – 4 mm per year – how serious a problem is that? Is it better to adapt to it (if it happens) or to spend huge sums on cutting CO2 emissions? If we do spend the money on cutting CO2 emissions, how much difference will that make to sea levels?
So, I repeat my question, why is warming so bad? Has the assessment of the consequences of warming been impartial? Or is it scaremongering?
Add comment
I realised many years ago that there was something fishy about this global warming alarmism. Virtually every published article described some negative aspect of any future warming - advancing cane toads, disappearing polar bears etc. It stands to reason that in any non-apocalyptic warming scenario there will be winners and losers, just look at the climate Europeans enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period. Why does the mainstream media only report the negative?
Add comment
I would like a clear comparative analysis of the costs and benefits of the Government's Emissions Trading Policy and the Coalition's Direct Action Policy
I would like a clear comparative analysis of the costs and benefits of the Government's Emissions Trading Policy and the Coalition's Direct Action Policy
Add comment
Ok, so we pay for health services and roads via tax, why is this tax any different? And besides, the debate misses the whole point - if we changed our consumer-driven society (no Tea Party I'm not advocating socialism, facism or any other ism!!), wouldn't this have an impact on both our pockets, quality of life and ultimately CO2 emissions??
Add comment
The News Limited media has been heavily opposed to the carbon tax, with some reporting that journalists have been frustrated by a refusal to publish (or burying of) supportive articles. What is the basis for this opposition?
Add comment
If we don't act on climate change - how bad could it get? What are the storms of my children going to look like? Is a world more than 2 degrees on average hotter than now - the type of place you want to live?
If we don't act on climate change - how bad could it get? What are the storms of my children going to look like? Is a world more than 2 degrees on average hotter than now - the type of place you want to live?
Add comment
We know that the price of carbon under the tax will rise and that the Greens' goal is to transform it into an emission trading scheme (ETS). The Greens stated goal is $40/tonne.
Currently 9 out of 10 households will receive assistance to cover the cost of living increases. Will these payments be increased as the price of carbon rises? How will this work under an ETS when the prices will fluctuate on a daily basis?
To have any impact on the decisions of companies, one would assume that at some point the subsidies to industry will need to stop or at least be reduced. What happens then, especially as the price of carbon rises?
Add comment
Why R some scientists and suspect media continually pushing that GW will be a disaster? The ABC and SBS are continually pushing this biased view, to the point of propaganda, and yet allow no counter arguments? is this a open and free media? I have been informed GW will transform the Sahara Desert into a tropical jungle, how can this be a disaster? And Australia could get MORE rain under GW! Rivers may run more often & maybe a permanent inland sea? Basic climatology, heat=moisture, cold=dry. I don't trust public-servant scientists as they could have a hidden red agenda.
Add comment
Why is the Australian political debate obsessed with the costs of taking action on climate change but rarely focuses on the social, economic and environmental costs of not taking action to limit greenhouse pollution?
Add comment
If we are serious about reducing Global CO2 emissions, why don't we stop exporting coal.
If we are serious about reducing Global CO2 emissions, why don't we stop exporting coal.
Add comment
Because carbon dioxide is gooid for plant growth and we need to increase food productivity to ensure food availability in the future, then surely we should be increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and not decreasing it?
Add comment
Even if Climate change turns out to be wrong, why is there such strong opposition to producing cleaner, more efficient energy and reducing pollution ? To continue to "burn stuff" to heat up water to turn a turbine in this day and age is incredible.
Add comment
If Labor introduces a carbon tax, what effect will it have on world temperature by 2020, by 2050, by 2100?
If Labor introduces a carbon tax, what effect will it have on world temperature by 2020, by 2050, by 2100?
Add comment
How has the issue of anthropogenic global warming become hostage to commentators who categorically deny that it is possible, that it is happening, that there is anything we could do about it or that we could do anything about it?
Add comment
A lot has been said about the total amount of emission Australia generates relative to larger countries and the limited impact Australia has on total global emissions. I'd like to understand what percentage of total global emissions is generated by all countries of comparative size or smaller to Australia? If all those countries also allowed their emissions to continue to grow at their current trend, what contribution would these emissions have on global temperature increases in the future?
Add comment
Is it possible the fairfax media will ever accept that the Australian people have objectively rejected Man Made Global Warming as true,and may one day stop posting propaganda and alarmist views,or are you content to slide into news oblivion?
Add comment
What difference will the carbon tax make to global temperatures?
What difference will the carbon tax make to global temperatures?
Add comment
Is there a direct link between CO2 increase and global temperature increase, and does CO2 increase lead global temperature increase?
Is there a direct link between CO2 increase and global temperature increase, and does CO2 increase lead global temperature increase?
Add comment
It appears that climate change is a distinct possibility. Precisely how will that climate change impact Australia? All we here are doomsday scenarios that are patently ridiculous as there have been significant climate changes in the past without the catastophic results currently being mooted. What are the benefits we might accrue from climate change?
Add comment
By how much will reducing 5 per cent of Australia’s around 1.5 per cent contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature ?‘
By how much will reducing 5 per cent of Australia’s around 1.5 per cent contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature ?‘
Add comment
Given Andrew Bolt is now urging his readers to vote for the question from Jason Fong ("How much will reducing 5% of Australia's around 1.5% contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature by..?) Should this attempt to distort this process mean the question should be disqualified?
Or is the over representation of vocal "skeptics" and anti-science advocates something we just need to patiently tolerate?
Add comment
I get it that something must be done for our environment but what I don't get is the outcomes of the carbon tax.
What effect will the Australian carbon tax have to reduce global temperatures ?
I get it that something must be done for our environment but what I don't get is the outcomes of the carbon tax.
What effect will the Australian carbon tax have to reduce global temperatures ?
Add comment
How come we are getting a Carbon Tax when our Prime Minister said she wouldn't introduce one? How come she gets away with a Big fat Lie!
How come we are getting a Carbon Tax when our Prime Minister said she wouldn't introduce one? How come she gets away with a Big fat Lie!
Add comment
A doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause the worlds temperature to increase by how much?
A doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause the worlds temperature to increase by how much?
Add comment
Why won't Australia's leading climate scientists , al Gore , Greg Combet or any one else telling us how urgent and necessary the tax on carbon dioxide is, debate or take questions from other scientists around the world , such as Richard Lindzen and many others smeared into silence or dismissed without any interest .
Add comment
The government and Fairfax media refuse to allow skeptical highly credentialed climate related scientists to present their expert opinions against AGW and yet will promote the opinions of unqualified scientists (climate) like Tim Flannery of even have economists tell us that man made global warming is real. I thought economists are only qualified to predict the future of the economy (supposedly) and not climate. Why does the Gillard Govt and the Fairfax media call scientists who are funded by the government 'credible scientists' and climate scientists who are not funded by government are called 'denialists'.
Add comment
Given that the the definition of "stagflation" is a situation where the inflation rate is high and economic growth is low.In the context of Australias recognised two speed economy where growth in a majority of sectors including manufacturing and retail is declining how would increasing inflation by taxing the very industries that carried us through the global financial crisis mark 1 creating growth in our economy and destroying consumer confidence not increase the likelyhood of "stagflation".
Add comment
Treasury estimates state that Gillards carbon tax should reduce Australias CO2 emissions by 160 million tonnes (Mt) in 2020 (from 690Mt to 530Mt). Total man-made CO2 emissions for 2020 are projected to be just above 34,000,000Mt. If the tax were to achieve its target, it would make a difference of 0.00047% to the level of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas warming is what we are trying to reduce but CO2 is not the most powerful greenhouse gas, it accounts for between 9% and 26% of the effect (water vapour can account for up to 85%). Man-made CO2 is only a part of all CO2 in the atmosphere, currently about 30%. Put those three numbers together and we have a measure of how much the tax will reduce the greenhouse gas effect over the next 9 years at best: 0.00047% of 26% of 30% = 0.000037%. If you picture a capacity crowd at the MCG (100,000) then the impact of the tax on the climate would be less than the impact of taking one person out of the crowd. Question: why should Australia introduce such an ecomomically damaging new tax for such a futile gesture?
Add comment
As we already know the planet has been warming for since the end of the last ice age, Can you show me the empirical data from the last 40 yrs compared to the last 1000years or so that demonstrates the human caused CO2 signal that is causing a dangerous warming of the planet? IE: positive feedback empirical data, not indications of a warming planet, the link between our 3% contribution of CO2 on the planet.
Add comment
Should Fairfax media be run for the benefit of customers and shareholders? Or should it be a plaything of activists pushing their Global Warming agenda?
Should Fairfax media be run for the benefit of customers and shareholders? Or should it be a plaything of activists pushing their Global Warming agenda?
Add comment
Climate change and the carbon tax are just a neo-Luddite Fabian socialist plot.
Climate change and the carbon tax are just a neo-Luddite Fabian socialist plot.
Add comment
I am a seventy two year old self funded retiree still working part time. I have never received one cent of welfare benefits in my life. How can anyone believe the bogey man henny penny sky is falling in harum scarum misinformation and delusionary distortions being handed out by political urgers themselves being manipulated by minority parties when the weather itself cannot be predicted accurately on a daily basis, much less global warming which has morphed to totally unarguable "climate change" (as meaningless a concept as the square root of minus one)?? They have already admitted it would take over one thousand years to make one degree of difference. The science is not by any means "all in" and it will never be "all in". As anyone my age knows they always reserve the right to totally reverse their opinions when new facts come to light. In the fifties we had the earth being destroyed by "climate change" due to the atomic bomb, then in the sixties we had an new ICE AGE looming, there have been threats of total destruction from solar flares, meteor impacts, etc.etc. Wake up Australia! You are being suckered by greenies and other axe grinders with a hidden agenda to reduce us to living in caves and throwing rocks at wallabies. They do not care who they impoverish or destroy as long as they can advance their socialist fantasy agenda, which didn't work in Russia or anywhere else. Why don't they all move to Tasmania and we can cut them off from taxpayer subsidied latte pinko lifestyles and let them get on with creating their own self destructive world? See how long they last when they are not being fed by the taxpayer's tit! It would not be fair to the decent hardworking citizens of Tasmania, but, hey, somone has to suffer in the cause of infantile kindergarden socialism. This is a bigger scam than the Whitlam Khemlani affair. Look where that got Australia.
Add comment
If we tree'd this continent CO2 would no longer be a problem but we'd still be paying a Carbon Tax - Is that Great Leadership?
If we tree'd this continent CO2 would no longer be a problem but we'd still be paying a Carbon Tax - Is that Great Leadership?
Add comment
Dangerous climate change is happening... and is primarily due to the influence of man. There is no reasonable argument to this. Questions regarding the consistency of the science are a farce, from the uneducated and mis-informed. They are likely from the same mugs who think smoking doesn't cause cancer, and asbestos makes a nice wall. 93% of scientific research indicates ... you are in fact stupid.
Regardless of the merits of the 'is it happening' argument, more countries will continue to adopt strategies to mitigate the effects of climate change. That presents a huge opportunity for countries, like ours, who will shift investment into sustainable technologies.
Can we talk more about what we want to drive the Australian economy of the future, fossil fuels and mining or sustainable and green tech? Also how much does the proposed carbon tax stimulate growth in this sector?
Add comment
Has the Government finally figured out a way to tax the air we breath.................out?
Has the Government finally figured out a way to tax the air we breath.................out?
Add comment
The temperature increase to date has been below the IPCC prediction. Even below the lower error bars.
Now what models and predictive charts exist showing historical reality in the middle of the error range?
The temperature increase to date has been below the IPCC prediction. Even below the lower error bars.
Now what models and predictive charts exist showing historical reality in the middle of the error range?
Add comment
Why dont journalist investigate rather than just regurgitate press releases ?
Why dont journalist investigate rather than just regurgitate press releases ?
Add comment
Thanks to all of you who've voted for this question, it's very encouraging. It's not my intention to question the science of climate change or the need to anything to do about it. However it seems a very fundamental point that a carbon tax that will hurt some Australians and our competitiveness should at least achieve the purpose it sets out to achieve; which is to reduce global warming in a meaningful way. A worker who is laid off in the coal industry or a family struggling with cost of living pressures as a result of rising electricity prices is entitled to ask - is my sacrifice worth it? And If their sacrifice is to merely achieve a symbolic result, Australians are entitled to ask how probable is it that this will drive global consensus to make actual cuts to CO2? Fairly uncontroversial questions I would think.
Add comment
Everyone knows that reducing pollution is a good thing - regardless of whether climate change is really happening or not. Why is it that so many people are against reducing pollution in the Earth's atmosphere - why is it that so many people are only concerned about the impact on THEIR money/income rather than the impact on the planet and its population?
Add comment
From 1975 for about twenty years we were regaled with the theory of global warming caused by a hole in the ozone layer as a result of CFCs. Did the abolition of CFCs succeed or fail in arresting global warming? If it failed can we trust the same scientific school on carbon dioxide emissions?
Add comment
Thousands of climate scientists in Capitalist, Communist and Socialist countries with the resources of their state weather bureaus and access to super computers together with peer reviewed research tell us we have a serious problem. Why does the Age think a popularity vote adds anything to the subject? Do you think you can vote against mother nature? The same old arguments repeated over and over in every blog on the internet, by the same people. When the deniers have real scientific data, have an analysis of that data by peer reviewed models then they might have something valid to say. Wild opinions and assertions are not science.
Add comment
I just want to know, how much will the world's temperature be reduced by Australia taxing carbon dioxide? Zero? So what's the REAL point of this tax?
I just want to know, how much will the world's temperature be reduced by Australia taxing carbon dioxide? Zero? So what's the REAL point of this tax?
Add comment
If the intent of the tax is to change behaviours and close power plants, what alternative source will step and provide the base load (25% in Vic alone when Hazelwood goes) that is reliable, competitive, and available?
Add comment
In the 1970s I remember being really worried by all the news that global cooling was going to change the planet as we knew it. In the 1990s I remember being told that global warming was going to change the planet as we knew it - and NASA figures showed the other planets in our solar system were also heating up at a similar rate (meaning it was clearly the result of solar activity). Now, in the 2010s, we're being told that the climate is going to become really unpredictable and possibly, maybe the planet will become uninhabitable unless we give our wasteful government our resources and create a harsher economic environment for everyone in Australia, but not elsewhere in the world. Given that the climate changes, no matter how much tax we pay, shouldn't we put our scarce resources toward adaptation and learn to suck it up?
Add comment
Why are you so terrified of honestly acknowledging and addressing the very real issues raised by unconvinced scientists. The role of the media is to make the public aware of the facts of an issue. Are you really interested in the truth or is your goal to push though a political agenda irrespective of the truth.
Issues such as why is there no hotspot in the tropics in the upper troposphere when this is one of the few explicirt predictions of the models the AGW theory rests on? Why does the atmospheric CO2 level jump during an El Nino and fall during the post volcanic eruption cooling when the AGW theory predicts the opposite? Why has it not warmed for 12 years now despite rising CO2 levels? Why do the models not include any effect for solar magnetic activity given the findings of the CERN CLOUD experiment? Why is it that with each revision of the historical climate record from sources such as NASA or UEA the temperature in the 1930's is shown as lower than for previous publications and the temperature post 1970 is shown as higher? Why did the National Academy of Science in a 1975 publication show 0.7C of northern hemisphere cooling between 1940 and 1975 yet UEA now shows there was no northern hemisphere cooling over this period? Rewriting history to support an agenda? Why does the raw temperature record for USA, China, India, Australia, New Zealand and others as published by reputable sources such as NOAA or the weather bureaus of the countries concerned all show no systematic warming, only random fluctuations?Why does the AGW hypothesis state that increased evaporation of water, a claimed positive feedback effect of rising CO2, lead to more high cloud and less low cloud? Rain only comes from low cloud so less low cloud means less rain which conflicts with more evaporation, since precipitation must balance with evaporation. Why are entities such as UEA so desperate to hide their raw data, why not just put it on the internet and let all see it? Why does the university of Virginia so readily pass over the emails of sceptics without objection yet spend vast sums to avoid handing over the emails of Michael Mann? Why are AGW supporters actvely trying to supress the papers generated by scientists who do not agree with them (as proven by the climate gate emails)?
If you are not preapred to address these questions and others like them you are the ones cherry picking and distorting the science. You are also abandoning your duty as journalists.
Add comment
Why aren't more Australians outraged and ashamed at the tactics our government has used to push this climate change agenda onto the population? Apart from the repeated lies from JuLIAR GiLIARD, we constantly hear arguments from the pro AGW camp arguing that we should act for the future of our children and grandchildren (presumably to save them from a slightly warmer world with more ocean views). What about our childrens financial future. Do we want our kids paying all their wages to the government via environmental taxes? Do we want our kids to learn that lying is acceptable if it supports their agenda? Do we want our kids learning science by 'consensus' rather than encouraging them to think critically? It seems to me that the political and sociological environment of the future is the real thing to fear!
Add comment
why is gw supported by habitual marijuana users?
why is gw supported by habitual marijuana users?
Add comment
Why is it that the IPCC can use the terminology "uncertain and uncertainty" +900 times in their report and then we are advised the science is settled.. Indisputable science can be measured, tested and replicated over and over.. with the end results always being constant.. computer modelling can be manipulated and the data hand picked to achieve the desired outcome.. i.e. Climategate emails... Considering past "natural global warming and cooling events" (medieval warming period http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/ ) where temperature is the driver and not CO2.. why all of the sudden are we led to believe the contrary is happening.. Now the most significant omission from the IPCC report and computer modelling is the "sun"... and apparently its sunspot cycles have no impact on our "global warming"... must be because we are actually currently cooling.. thus why we are now suffering from "climate change".. http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meananom&period=12month&area=nat
Add comment
When are we going to address the elephant in the room and acknowledge time has run out on the usefulness of this current economic system and start discussing new models? The solution to addressing dangerous AGW will not be found within the framework of capitalism for how can it the part of the solution when it a major part of the problem?
Add comment
What possible effect could Australia have on climate by taxing ourselves out of economic competitiveness
What possible effect could Australia have on climate by taxing ourselves out of economic competitiveness
Add comment
The Carbon Tax will do nothing for the climate but it will do wonders for for the balance sheet of this socialist government so they can spread the money to their pet voters. But ultimately it will destroy Australia.
Add comment
The majority of the Global Warming scenario is based on one chapter of the IPCC report: Chapter 8! It's the Chapter that says we humans are responsible and makes all those Armageddon predictions. However all of the computer models, code and data used for these terrible predictions are SECRET (even our own CSIRO/BOM keeps this very secret). If the predictions of Chapter 8 of the IPCC AR4 are the most important in human history so much so that we have to radically change our way of life WHY HAS THERE NEVER BEEN A FULLY OPEN AND INDEPENDENT INQUIRY AND WHY SO MANY SECRETS?
Add comment
The 5% reduction in CO2 emissions applies to the level of CO2 emitted in the year 2000, i.e. emissions in the future will be limited to 95% of 2000 levels. By how much will the emissions have to be reduced from the present levels to achieve this target? How much industry will be forced overseas because they will be unable to meet these targets imposed by the Government? How many people will lose their jobs because of this ridiculous tax?
Add comment
It seems that every type of weather and every piece of climate data supports AGW - wet or dry, hot or cold. I would like to know what conditions would have to exists before the majority of climate scientists would agree that AGW is NOT happening.
Add comment
Why is the Age opening up debate on climate change, they've never wanted to present both sides of the argument before? You can see from their Climate Agenda exactly what their agenda is!!! One sided commentary.
Add comment
Human induced climate change = 3%
Australian carbon contribution 1.5%
Australian's 2020 Reduction target 5%
Total Global Carbon Tax Reduction by 2020 = 0.0000225%
or
Assume Humans are 100% responsible
Total Global Carbon Tax Reduction by 2020 = 0.00075%
Is this economic vandalism to the Australian economy and it citizens by the Swan/Gillard duo?
Add comment
Why can`t we get the government and their advisers to conduct an honest and open public televised debate regarding climate science with those from the sceptic side of he fence?Such as the Galileo Movement?Carter, Jo Nova,Lindzen, Forbes?How can we make this happen?The public are entitled to see and hear both sides of the debate.If one has nothing to hide and have conviction in their opinion then they should be willing to have a debate.
Add comment
Given that Climate Change, whether you believe it is Naturally caused or Anthropologically caused, is and has always been one of the defining events that has forged mankind's destiny since the beginning, can the Politicians, Scientists, Economist, Academics and Media Commentariat please explain why they believe that humans today CA NOT adapt and overcome Climate Change as our ancestors have always done without reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions ?
Add comment
How much of my electriciy bill goes to the private investors in the poles and cables
infrastructure approved by the government
How much of my electriciy bill goes to the private investors in the poles and cables
infrastructure approved by the government
Add comment
Thanks Jason, Great question has the Prime Minister bothered to try and answer this question? I don't think she can? All I hear is carbon pollution, carbon pollution, carbon pollution, carbon pollution, carbon pollution, carbon pollution, carbon pollution, carbon pollution, carbon pollution! Then again CO2 is not a pollutant is it? None of the predictions made by the Global Warming people seem to be happening? THE NASA satellite data says the planet hasn't warmed for 12 years..... but the people from the ABC, and the CSIRO say its still warming. Apparently the Great Barrier Reef is in fine condition and the Arctic ice is not melting as much as it did a few years back. No one seems to mention the Antarctic that doesn’t appear to be melting at all. They say Al Gore is now a billionaire, I checked up... he is heavily involved in some kind of carbon trading business with a whole lot of people from the US Banks?......... Is there something going on here? What’s our Prime Minister and Bob Brown up to? Is this really about the environment.........???
Add comment
Lets stick with Jason (who asked this question) for a minute. He describes his question as "uncontroversial" in his comment 15 hours ago. But his explanation was full of misleading statements. He lamented the pain all the workers in the caol industry who will lose their jobs. NO Jason! no one in the caol industry will lose their jobs because of the carbon tax. Regardles of what you think of it the best estimates are the coal industry will expand at a rapid rate. The odd dirty power station may close (and probably will any way with or without the carbon tax) because they are very old and inneficient.
Nor will the cabon tax have any real effect on most families "struggling with costs of living pressures". They may be "struggling" for other reasons Jason but not because of the carbon tax. They will be more than fully compensated for the $3.80 pw power rise and the total $20 odd per week cost of living rise that the carbon tax will cause.
The recent rises of some 40% in power and water have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARBON TAX AND ARE MASSIVELY LARGER THAN ANY EFFECT THE CARBON TAX WILL HAVE.
So Jason it is important in your very reasonable and quiet commentary to not do a Tony Abbott and promote totally untrue propositions calculated to distort the debate in favour of your question (which is not a question at all but a statement of your position)
1.
Add comment
Why is it that the baby boomer generation remains so sceptical of the climate change science while younger people see the clear need for action? Are these generational differences explained by a "she'll be right" attitude from older Australians who have experienced the best of our modern life? Do religous views also have a role to play in framing attitudes to the science?
Add comment
I want to know now what penalties will or should apply to those politicians who will be directly responsible for causing irreparable damage to this country's economy and its very fundamental stability as well as the financial and social well being of the majority of Australian citizens because of the utterly disastrous and utterly useless carbon tax? In particular, is public condemnation going to be sufficient for those Members of Parliament who privately agree that a carbon dioxide tax amounts to economic vandalism self inflicted on our country but who do not have the strength of character to stand up and say so to the leaders of the Labor/Green Government. Shouldn't there be more of a punishment for such atrocious public behaviour other than just losing an election? If the country and its citizens have to suffer, why shouldn't the politicians responsible for their reckless and irresponsible acts when they have the power to avoid that damage?
Add comment
What is the difference between the CO2 reductions that the Government will make from the Carbon Tax and the amount of CO2 that will be emitted into the atmosphere from our exports of coal to countries like China and India? Surely this carbon tax is just sheer money grabbing hypocrisy?
Add comment
On July 3, 2009 "The Age" printed an item claiming that anthropogenic climate change was causing wild sheep on a remote Scottish island to shrink. Well, of course CO2 released by industrial processes in Western society is causing that. The shrinkage is settled. My question is: Will the expansion of micro-fibre wool industries offset the economic impacts of the 100-metre sea level increase ABC science presenter Robyn Williams told us to expect?
Add comment
Back to the basic science, given that carbon and carbon dioxide are very different chemical compounds– why do we refer to the tax as a ‘tax on carbon’ and not a ‘tax on carbon dioxide’ – is the answer part of the deceit in this debate because it is difficult to argue that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant given its importance to the earth’s life cycle?
Add comment
Science CLEARLY identifies c02 as a life giving gas.Yet this Govt/Media insist on calling c02 as a harmfull Pollutant that needs to be a target of a tax in order to reduce its amount/impact on the world.Yet ,no Scientific peer reviewed paper today exists that details c02 as a Pollutant.The IPCC reports also not once identifies c02 as Pollution.Q:On whose Authority does the govt/media use to keep calling c02 as Pollution?
Add comment
The science is not settled and it is time to discuss the actual science before any more money is spent or laws passed. Is there actually any empirical evidence that water vapour feedback to radiative forcing is strongly positive as the IPCC suggest? Is there actually any empirical evidence that backscattered long wave infra red radiation around the 15 micron band can actual penetrate or heat 70% of Earth's surface, the oceans? (It doesn’t matter that The Age journalists don't understand the fundamental importance of these questions, as hundreds of thousands of Australians do.)
Add comment
Why is it that so few seem to realize or accept that the projected catastrophic global warming effects used to justify the Carbon (sic) Tax are hypotheses based on highly complex computer models with hundreds of variables and subjective judgments, based on different interpretations of very short-term data. This is not "settled science". Scientific Method 101. QED
Add comment
The Government supports its proposed Carbon Tax with the assertions that “the science is settled” and the rest of the developed world is acting on it. The mainstream IPCC analysis is that, to avoid dangerous climate change, developed countries need to cut their 2020 CO2 emissions to 25% to 40% below 1990 levels. This is the EU target range – and specifically adopted by Germany. Why then has the Government set its 2020 target at 5% – a target not supported by ‘settled science’ and not remotely close to the practice of other developed nations?
Add comment
Here's a question that will sort out the skeptics from the deniers: If you do accept the "consensus", what future observations in the next 10-15 years would persuade you to change your mind? If you don't accept it, what future observations in the next 10-15 years would persuade you otherwise? Listen carefully to the answers: Some people have other reasons, not observations.
Add comment
Estimates of the contribution to CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels vary between >70% and <3%. Which is it? Can you interview some climate scientists, from both sides and ask them which figure they support and why?
Add comment
It seems Andrew Bolt has happilly answered your question--
“no, no funding to influence the debate”. Indeed, the official policy of News Ltd is to “give the planet the benefit of the doubt”.
It seems Andrew Bolt has happilly answered your question--
“no, no funding to influence the debate”. Indeed, the official policy of News Ltd is to “give the planet the benefit of the doubt”.
Add comment
How can we stop people like Bolt asking silly questions about 'temp drop' when the aim is to stop temperature rising any more.
How can we stop people like Bolt asking silly questions about 'temp drop' when the aim is to stop temperature rising any more.
Add comment
Super annuation in Australia is worth 1.3 trillion dollars.. A massive pool of money, more of which could and should be directed towards clean energy. Do you know what your super annuation is supporting? Do you think if just 5% were directed at Australian companies offering clean, green and renewable energy solutions to climate change that we could collectively become part owners of the biggest industry the planet has ever seen? That 5% is a $65 billion dollar industry kick start, dwarfing the Government Clean Energy fund, and securing the future. Should you ask your super fund to lean towards clean and green?
Add comment
How much will a carbon tax in Australia, even if successful, reduce global temperature ?
How much will a carbon tax in Australia, even if successful, reduce global temperature ?
Add comment
We are frequently told that moving early to a low carbon emission economy is cheaper than moving later. On the surface this is absurd. Firstly low emission technology is far more expensive to build and run than conventional technology so that the earlier you move the sooner you start paying cost penalties. Secondly, the cost of technology – especially technology in new areas keeps on falling. Therefore the later you move the cheaper it gets. I am currently using a computer that cost me $2000. If I had tried to access this amount of power 20 years ago it would have costed me around a million dollars and bankrupted me.
What possible justification can there be for the unlikely assertion that “going early” is cheaper?
Add comment
The hypothesis that man-made CO2 influences global temperature received wide support from people impressed with an apparent correlation between CO2 and global temperature that continued from the 70s to about 2000. But from the end of WWII to the 70s the two did not correlate, and they ceased to correlate after that period. This disproves the hypothesis.
Add comment
Why are we having this silly debate when the facts are so clear? No scientist with any credibility is arguing that warming is not happening.
In case you doubt this point you should note that James Hansen predicted in the early 1980s that climate change would emerge from the “background noise” of normal weather variations in about 2010. What a huge “coincidence” that 2010 was the equal hottest year on record at the end of the hottest decade on record in which all time peak temperature records were broken in 19 countries in the world's most deadly of a heatwave was experienced. Arctic sea ice at its lowest volume ever, Greenland had its greatest melting ever. It was the wettest year over land ever. Queensland, wettest year ever, sea surface temperatures off Australia, highest ever, wettest spring in Australia ever……there were way more climate related extremes in 2010 can be listed in this space.
What's more is that this all happened when solar activity was at its lowest level since the 1970s. Doh! There goes another doubter’s scapegoat!
Feet on the ground people! There is no coming back from runaway climate change, be responsible, care about the kids and focus on the real debate: why have the observations of climate change exceeded predictions of the IPCC and what can we do to protect our future?
Add comment
Gillard, Brown, Plibersek, Combet et al are travelling the country claiming that climate change will destroy the Murray-Darling, the Great Barrier Reef and life as we know it. Why has no journalist pointed out to them that nothing they are proposing will change this is in slightest and why are they being allowed to get away with the implication that the programs they are implementing will address the issue?
Add comment
Why is it that people think they are entitled to their own facts? I constantly see the same false claims about how poor the science and evidence is. Which misrepresent, distort or even invent flaws / issues with the research, data and theories. People arguing against a completely fictitious straw man version of what the science and scientists say and doing so with their own fictitious facts. Either from deliberate ignorance, deliberate tactics to destroy debate or not knowing any better. How can there ever be an intelligent, rational discussion in light of this? When so many don't understand, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
Add comment
under the copenhagen agreement that the goverment signed ,how much % or $ has the GOVERNMENT have to send to the united nation ?
under the copenhagen agreement that the goverment signed ,how much % or $ has the GOVERNMENT have to send to the united nation ?
Add comment
The AGW issue is both contentious and divisive. Why can't both side of the science be brought together at a public enquiry?
The AGW issue is both contentious and divisive. Why can't both side of the science be brought together at a public enquiry?
Add comment
if julia gillard really believes in carbon pollution she must also believe that the 500 biggest companies are not complying with australias health and pollution standards in which case she should not be taxing them but closing them down is she happy to expose australians children to there poisons just so she can raise a few more cents
Add comment
Labor and the Green harp on about Australia being the highest per person CO2 emitters in the world. With Australia only producing 1.5% of the world CO2 can someone give me and the other taxpayers a break down (transport, electricity, livestock, agriculture etc) of how we are the highest per person polluters.
Add comment
Why does the government Climate Change representatives feel the need to keep warning of the dangers of anthropological climate change whilst at the same time ignoring/dismissing deniers? Can't they just discuss the issues, in an open forumn, with the denier scientists and point out the denier's faults in logic?
Add comment
As any high school science student know, carbon is the basis of life on earth as we know it. It is exchanged between the atmosphere and the biosphere in the form of carbon dioxide as organisms respire and plants photosynthesise. Without the role carbon dioixde plays in this process, life could not exist. Given this, and the fact that plants thrive when it is at high levels, why do politicians and the media constantly demonise it as a pollutant?
Add comment
If the carbon tax is actually implemented in the country ,I want to be first on the list to tender to The government for the cartage contract ,Can you readers please tell me ,should I buy some new tankers ,refrigerated vans , tautliners ,or flattops ,Does the carbon have to be tarped and is it a dangerous good ?
Please can some of you intelligent pro carbon people please enlighten me ,I,m only a poor simple soul ,
Add comment
When will the socialist press like fairfax realise that not only are their journalists less well educated than most of their audience, they are also market poison? You couldn't give fairfax shares away, and rightly so.
Add comment
Why does immediate implementation of the 'clean energy' future not consider the inherrent problems current 'renewables' have with providing a strong, reliable base load electricity supply? Since the technology exists to provide cleaner, more efficient coal fired power plants, coal fire being the most reliable source we have to date, why is the option of implementing this as a primary means of supplying our grid (with appropriate use of renewables used for non-critical supply) in the immediate term, with a view to being replaced by renewable sources, once the technology is at a level whereby those source can deliver the same degree of reliability, not even being considered? Is this because a political ideology, which believes that they can cause science fiction to become science fact in the space of a term in office is driving this push?
Add comment
Australia’s reliance on burning coal for energy means that it, as a nation, emits about 20/t of CO2 per person every year, higher than any country on earth, and five times more than in China. Does Australia owe any responsibility to future generations to reduce its accelerating contribution to long-term climate change, or is the wisest course to continue along its current course of investing the least of any of the developed nations in renewable, clean energy?
Add comment
When scientists speak of uncertainty regarding climate impacts, do they personally feel that impacts will be more severe than currently anticipated, or less severe? Why?
When scientists speak of uncertainty regarding climate impacts, do they personally feel that impacts will be more severe than currently anticipated, or less severe? Why?
Add comment
Why just allow only CDM Kyoto CERs from international carbon projects into the Australian system? The VCS voluntary carbon system for instance is just as stringent, much faster in terms of project approval and much cheaper than the CDM CERs to buy. Companies internationally are using voluntary carbon credits (VERs priced under $10/tonne) to become carbon neutral, so why is the government only allowing CDM CERs which is stuck in red tape?
Add comment
Are the carbon emissions cuts proposed by both major parties fair in terms of Australia's contribution to the problem on a per capita basis, and are they scientifically adequate to solve the problem if all other nations committed to cuts of a similar level?
Add comment
The eminent US climate scientist, James Hansen, says to solve the climate crisis, we need to leave coal in the ground. Yet our prime minister, Julia Gillard, speaks of a bright future for the coal industry. How can that be, when, on current evidence, carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power may never work, and may pose risks of dangerous carbon dioxide leakage if it ever does?
Add comment
What are the true carbon emissions of nuclear power, and how can we ever accept this as a solution to the climate crisis when we have so many renewable clean alternatives that will never result in the kind of radioactive disaster we have seen at Fukushima, Chernobyl and other places?
Add comment
The threat to jobs is often raised in response to calls to shift to a low-emissions economy. Isn't it feasible to compensate the workers and not the owners of coal-fired power plants as we switch to alternative, renewable sources of energy? Why should corporations such as International Power be compensated when they have long known that their dirty power stations are "stranded" assets?
Add comment
The basic science of climate change - the trapping of heat in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that are produced by human activity - is relatively simple. Why has that not featured in the Federal Government's campaign to support a carbon tax?
Add comment
In his more sensible moments, Tony Abbott claims he believes in climate change, as does our prime minister, Julia Gillard. Will they both submit themselves to a test of their short responses to the top-ten questions identified by the Climate Agenda? Their answers could then be submitted to an expert scientific panel.
Add comment
The Age has reported that just “forty-two per cent of people [in Australia] believe in a wholly scientific explanation for the origins of life”, something which has been proven by science. By contrast, “thirty-four per cent believe in UFOs and 22 per cent think witches exist”, something which has never been proven by science. Given this track record of acceptance of science, is it realistic to have a fruitful public debate on the science of climate change?
Add comment
If we were simply to modernize our coal-fired power stations we could achieve the five percent cut in CO2 emissions by 2020 without having to buy carbon credits from dodgy sources overseas. By then we will have a much clearer idea of the empirical realities of climate change and global energy policies, without sacrificing our competitive advantage in the meantime. Doesn't this make alot more sense than the current policy?
Add comment
What statistics are recommended to monitor the adverse effects of climate change. For example, are there records of how many people died from heat related incidents in 2009 (excluding death by fire) - such as when the power failed and hospital back up generators failed, heat stroke incidents etc. Are there records of how many people were adversely affected by the 2010-2011 floods and record wet across Australia (Tas, Vic, SA, WA, NT, NSW, Qld) - how many roads were closed for how long and how many are still not yet repaired? Other useful stats?
Add comment
What are the more obvious things for home owners, small business owners and local councils to consider when preparing for climate change. For example, most air conditioners are only rated to around 43 degrees Celsius; guttering on buildings don't cope with the intensity of rain we can commonly get these days, street drainage is no longer adequate, underground car parks fill with water and wreck cars. And when people are ordered to evacuate from an entire region or state because of catastrophic fire warnings, where are they supposed to evacuate to - the moon? How many Councils and businesses have a climate change master plan?
Add comment
Can you provide some national statistics to demonstrate our progress towards a carbon free energy economy? For example, percentage of power from renewable sources by state, by source type with annual comparisons to show the shift over time. Stats on annual energy consumption by state and type of user (domestic, small business, manufacturing etc) would be good. Also, targets set by each state for changing to renewable sources and reducing fossil fuel consumption - eg South Australia plans 30% renewable by 2020 - but if its total consumption goes up by 40% SA will still be emitting more CO2 than now.
Add comment
What measures or modelling are governments in Australia and around the world undertaking in order to prepare for the ramifications of climate change "worst case" scenarios? For example, are there individuals or "think-tanks" actively investigating strategies for a country like Australia, to cope with the potential tens of millions of people displaced from low-lying cities by dramatic sea-level rise?
Is a 21st century Australia, caught in endless rhetoric surrounding "boat people" and the lingering cultural baggage of 1950's White Australia policies equipped, prepared or even willing, to deal with the victims of man-made climate change?
Add comment
Should we allow certain influential media figures (Bolta) to spread misinformation to fan the flames of redneck denialism so as to undermine action on climate change, or does this sort of advocacy exceed the limits of free speach to the detriment of the environment and hence the health of human society?
Add comment
Why are TV viewers repeatedly shown cooling towers supposedly gushing out "Carbon pollution" and why is it necessary to use this blatant deception?
Why are TV viewers repeatedly shown cooling towers supposedly gushing out "Carbon pollution" and why is it necessary to use this blatant deception?
Add comment
Why doesn't the Fairfax media tell the truth and report what the majority of scientists, now more than a thousand, who tell us that there is virtually no climate change happening, nor have temperatures risen in the last decade and that there is nothing at all to be alarmed about. Professor Lindzen described our government as being 'grotesquely dishonest' and he has been acknowledged by our Prime Minister and Tim Flannery as a very reputable and esteemed Scientist. Why hasn't the report by climate depot dot com of last December been made widely known? In this report they found that there are only 52 scientists left in the world who still go along with the alarmist hoax, yet more than a thousand contradict the fraud.
Add comment
Why was it under the Victorian state Government that Port Phillip Bay was dredged extensively. If climate change will raise sea levels why did we not wait till the ships couldjust float in and then maybe anchor somewhere in the Dandenongs?
Add comment
Why is the labor government now talking about a black hole in the budget should the carbon tax is scrapped by an Abbot government if they win power? Does that mean that this tax is just a tax to get the budget back in surplus and nothing to do with "man made global warming "? Man made global warming is therefore a scam being used to raise tax revenue because the GST cannot be increase without the agreement of all the states.
Add comment
Can we power Australia on 100% renewable energy - and how long would it take to make the switch?
Can we power Australia on 100% renewable energy - and how long would it take to make the switch?
Add comment
Why is Andrew Bolt paying for the carbon offsets on his flights? Why is Tim Flannery buying beachfront property? Why do we continue to export coal to overseas coal reactors and yet close down our own? People and governments need to be held more accountable for what they say. Please, Sunday Age, make a list of things influential people/NGOs/government has said and cross-reference it to see if they are actually practicing what they preach.
Add comment
At a time of fragile world growth why is our current government pursuing a climate agenda which will increase energy and business costs, drive down competitiveness of Australia and cause long term relative loss of jobs especially in Victoria and NSW, backed by a coterie of carpetbaggers funded by government eg Messrs paleontologist Flannery, economist Garnaut, Karoly et al?
Add comment
One proposed question was “who is funding climate change sceptics?” Surely this is just half a question and the wording is misleading. Funding for the true believers should also be explored. Here’s my question, very specific and very simple:
How much funding is supplied to both sides of the debate (human induced global warming believers versus sceptics) and by whom?
Add comment
Why is there so many misinformation about climate science and the *facts* that we know (I don't talk about computer models, I mean real observations)? How can it be possible, that the same false informations (e.g. there is no connection between CO2 and temperatures) get repeated over and over again in the media? Isn't it obvious, that people, who spread this misinformation, have a certain agenda for their own?
Add comment
Is the internet the "genie out of the bottle" for a public no longer prepared to accept the word of an increasingly dishonest political class and a complient mainstream media. The spin doctor controlled world of the AGW club is unravelling in front of the eyes of the true believers where everything we ever wanted to know and the mainstream press is too complient to publish is all on line form anyone interested enough to look, and increasingly more and more people seem to be doing so and day by day the "sceptics" get bolder. Q: Has the interent become the most important source of information for people really interested in climate change and mans relationship to it?
Add comment
What is the response being made to criticism of inappropriate sitings of temperature monitoring stations, eg next to air conditioner exhaust, runways and busy roadways?
What is the response being made to criticism of inappropriate sitings of temperature monitoring stations, eg next to air conditioner exhaust, runways and busy roadways?
Add comment
Forget the Sceptics, who is funding the AGW Propaganda Machine, ?
Forget the Sceptics, who is funding the AGW Propaganda Machine, ?
Add comment
Oil will run out with interesting consequences. One that the media have not spent much time on is the question of how to make roads when there is no new bitumen being mined? Trying to make them from concrete will be impossible due to the huge CO2 emissions it would entail.
Add comment
If we decide to vote against Julia Gillard because of Carbon Tax. It is likely that Greens or the Liberals will take the PM's spot. If this occurs Carbon Tax will be delayed not stopped, also Gas Mine Fracking will be the alternative which is devastating beyond climate change estimates. The water plane is being pumped full of chemicals to provide natural Gas. If the government care for the environment, then why are they giving us loose/loose options?
without any informative process for us to understand the concept of what is happening. If 50% of the government is against it then why don't the public
Add comment
Can News Corporation journalists (e.g. Anrew Bolt) be trusted to be impartial and objective on the issue of climate change?
Can News Corporation journalists (e.g. Anrew Bolt) be trusted to be impartial and objective on the issue of climate change?
Add comment
Wouldn't it be easier to believe in the reality of catastrophic global warming if those advocating this idea changed their own life styles, for example if they stopped flying all over the world to climate change conferences or to promote their latest book.
Add comment
The Federal Government has stated they want to move to a 'low carbon economy' and a 'clean energy future'. But they also say the coal industry has a bright future in Australia.
How does the government intend to achieve both these outcomes?
Add comment
Given the real-world empirical data and IPCC climate models continue to diverge to the point only the lowest scenario (IPCC low 1.3) has any statistical correlation, at what point are we permitted to start questioning these models? ("science is settled" and all that)
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/normalised.png
Add comment
Tony Jones is paid thousands of dollars to work each year at Carbon Expo. Can Mark Scott explain why he is not obliged to declare this interest?
Tony Jones is paid thousands of dollars to work each year at Carbon Expo. Can Mark Scott explain why he is not obliged to declare this interest?
Add comment
I couldn't agree more. I would like a simple table outlining the following information for the respective ALP and Coalition policies: total cost to tax payers; total revenue likely to be earned; how any revenue raised will be redistributed; total jobs the policy is likely to support; total jobs likely to be lost as a result of the policy; estimated impact on CO2 emissions in the next 5 and 10 year period; the companies that will be affected by the respective policies and whether they are Australian companies or not and how many Australian they actually employ. Australians could make a sensible fact based decision based on this type of factual information.
Add comment
We keep hearing this argument that solar power is not base load, yet the last time I checked the world is round and as Australia has an electrical power link between the mainland and Tasmania. So why can't there be a link between the American continent and Asia and Australia and Asia
Add comment
Why are the terms 'global warming' and 'CO2' being left out the present governments terminologies? Is it to do with the fact that the agenda is more about taxation considerations than environmental considerations?
Add comment
If we are purchasing a proportion of "Australia's reductions" from overseas, are we, in fact, actually reducing our own carbon footprint?
If we are purchasing a proportion of "Australia's reductions" from overseas, are we, in fact, actually reducing our own carbon footprint?
Add comment
Why doesn't the Sunday Age run a few articles with these headlines.
"The arguements against AGW"
"22 million Australians reduce emissions, the other 6.7 billion people on the planet Laugh"
or, how about; "Reality check, when you are a gnat on a elephants backside"
Just wondering.
Add comment
What is the dollar value that climate scientists have to gain from concluding that man made CO2 is the driver of increasing temperatures on Earth? What is the dollar value that industries that emit large quantities of CO2 have to gain from concluding that no action is necessary to curb emissions? Since there is a lot of talk about vested interests, it would be fitting to find out who actually has the most financial interest in promoting either agenda.
Add comment
The very point of Australia’s participation in Iraq and Afghanistan is to reduce global terror. If you don’t agree our presence will have no bearing on the final outcome, how much will Australia's contribution of lives and money reduce global terror by?
Add comment
Who funds the climate change denialists? Do you know if any PR companies involved in promoting climate change denialism?
Who funds the climate change denialists? Do you know if any PR companies involved in promoting climate change denialism?
Add comment
How many of the so called scientific 'skeptics & Institutes which support them are 'shelf' organisations which are funded by the coal & oil industries?.This was the case with the Cigarettes companies throughout the 80's & 90's.Which of these anti-climate change experts & 'institutes' can be trusted to be free from political and industry influence?.
Add comment
There is clear evidence of massive funding to deniers from the likes of the Exxon and Koch brothers, multi-billionaire oil magnates with a dreadful environmental record.Why is the media not at all interested in investigating and reporting on this corruption and subversion of the debate by these vested interests.
Add comment
The question about the effect of our proposed weak emissions targets on global temperature rise is a misguided one. Imagine if we had a global pandemic to which we were obliged to respond by closing our borders at significant cost to local business but with the aim of saving millions of people from death by halting the spread of disease. Would the usual denialists then ask exactly how many lives would be saved by Australia's actions, and claim that we would be economically disadvantaged compared to countries who didn't close their borders? Isn't the point of joint action its cumulative impact? The same applies to joint action on climate change. A more pertinent question is how weak action or no action on the part of Australia risks undermining an urgent response to a problem whose impacts we will all share, with Australia to have a bigger share than others.
Add comment
Why does CO2 which is a small part of the earth's atmosphere, have alleged miracile powers ? Surely such a miniscle amount has no effect that is able to be noticed. Why is the work of thousands of scientists and the common sense of millions of people be over-ridden by a noisy few dozen people who are followed with religious fevour and whose words remain unchallenged ?
Add comment
If it could ever be possible that the Carbon Dioxide theory of global warming is wrong, then what events would show that it is wrong? The same question, phrased differently, could be "Under what circumstances would you accept that the CO2 theory of global warming has been proven false?" You should be able to see from this question that Karl Popper's spirit is still here.
Add comment
I (and many others) maintain that there is simply no evidence to support a conclusion of dangerous, or even significant, anthropogenic climate change. When there is no evidence for a proposition, there is no reason one should even consider it, let alone believe it. And there is certainly no reason or need to come up with an alternative explanation for, in this case, the observed climate change. Would you please have some of these so called experts explain what they consider is the exact evidence that supports their conclusion of dangerous AGW and also, and most importantly, have them explain the logic that leads them to believe that those things constitute evidence?
Add comment
The myopic coverage is costing the Age (and the SMH) reader.
The myopic coverage is costing the Age (and the SMH) reader.
Add comment
The Government is compensating trade-exposed industries for the carbon tax, on the basis that our carbon-intensive exports could be replaced by even more carbon-intensive production in other countries. Is this “carbon leakage” a real possibility, and does it justify the levels of compensation for trade-exposed industries in the carbon price legislation?
Add comment
Temperature and carbon dioxide levels in ancient records such as ice cores clearly show a high correlation between global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. Closer inspection shows that the carbon dioxide levels lag the temperature by something on the order of 800 years. This results in the temperature record falling while the carbon levels are still rising. This raises a question of causality. Do carbon dioxide increases cause warming or does warming cause carbon dioxide increases. If it is the latter, what third factor is the real driver of global temperature?
Add comment
GOVERNMENTS across the world have paid billions to find links between carbon dioxide and the climate, but very little to find the opposite, shouldn't we spending a decent percentage of the billions to look at disproving the links to ensure we get a fair and balanced perspective to this issue?
Add comment
What are the likely economic, social and environmental impacts of business as usual CO2 emissions over the next 50 to 100 years and beyond?
What are the likely economic, social and environmental impacts of business as usual CO2 emissions over the next 50 to 100 years and beyond?
Add comment
We constantly here from that renewable cannot provide baseload power. However I've heard that there is the technology now to put solar panels onto the back of mobile phone satellites, then convert this energy into microwaves which are then beamed down to a receiver on earth which then converts it back to electricity from there. As there are no clouds in space this is 24hrs a day energy...apparantly the American Army uses the technology on a small scale when they are at war in remote locations. The technology possibilities are endless as is seen with ever evolving phones and computers, which are constantly changing. Why then is the energy sector so far beyond to establishing new and exciting possibilities like this? Could it be that the fossil fuel industry, vested interests and government policy are holding this development back? Do they have some of this technology patented already and will only use it once every last fossil fuel is dug up and burned? What is the truth on the viability and technological advancement of renewables?
Add comment
Why are there so many of Bolt's Parrots here, and how many of them are real people?
Why are there so many of Bolt's Parrots here, and how many of them are real people?
Add comment
Gillard has fumbled her opportunity to govern for all, reversing a firm pre-election commitment on Carbon tax, and allows a small minority (The Greens) to dictate policy. Why aren't journalists asking on a daily basis how Oakeshott & Windsor can support this undemocratic process? (Self interest, arrogance, fear or sheer bloody-mindedness ?)
Add comment
It seems to me that debate and discussion fail to come to grips with climate change, perhaps because these are verbal activities and it is difficult to keep track. Consequently, nothing is ever resolved, and assertions, true and false, are recycled. Given that Climate Change poses a "wicked problem" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem) for the human race, are there better ways of facing it and getting somewhere? If so, what are they?
Add comment
If Australia acted alone in cutting CO2 emissions, then yes, our contribution would be futile. However, we are certainly not alone in taking action on this important cause and as a responsible nation on this planet we have a responsibility to do our fair share. My question is, how can we as one of the largest per capita emitters justify NOT taking action when many similar countries are taking action and will continue to do so into the future?
Add comment
Why do so many lay people, as is evidenced in many of the questions on this site, continue to dismiss and question fundamental principles and facts established via a mass of evidence compiled and analysed by the best climate scientists on the planet?
Add comment
Why is the majority of the media (especially TV) so focused on showing things that they link to climate change but do not report on:
1. All the failed predictions of the climate (which are growing more by the day)
2. That climate models used for predictions cannot be used retrospectively on actual facts
3. How we have reduced emmissions in the previous years without the need for a tax
4. How other countries (including the EU) who have carbon schemes offer so many exceptions and raise pittance in revenue compared to Australia's proposed Tax
5. How buying credits from overseas actually reduces "total" emmisions
6. Why when we cannot predict our climate or weather accurately for the next month but we can accept they can predict accuratly in decades to come
7. Why do the governments own proponents of climate change refuse to debate
8. Why is the fact that Treasury modelling is based on $20/tonne and refusal to release its modelling not a big issue to be examined
9. And if climate change is accepted and there will be rising sea levels why do we not question why such beleivers in the science buy waterfront properties (eg Rudd, Combet, Flannery)
There are so many more anomolies and secrecy BUT i ask why?. If someone is confident on their facts there should be no reason to hide.
Add comment
If the science is all settled on alleged AGW, then why can't those that propose this view demonstrate in plain English what their case is for Man made Global warming?
If the science is all settled on alleged AGW, then why can't those that propose this view demonstrate in plain English what their case is for Man made Global warming?
Add comment
If all the demands of the "GREENS" on GW policies were actually followed through in full - just what kind of a world would we end up with?
If all the demands of the "GREENS" on GW policies were actually followed through in full - just what kind of a world would we end up with?
Add comment
There are a number of scientists now showing that a CO2 increase FOLLOWS a temperature increase in the oceans, as the oceans are releasing CO2 trapped during cooler times. How about giving these findings the press time they deserve? They are the scientists showing us that the science is not settled. The term 'settled science' is a political term.
Add comment
Given that we are supposed to be in an inter-glacial period, with ice still melting as a result - does anyone know just what is the "normal" amount of "ice" that should be held at the Poles?
Subsequently, given that we probably do not know that starting point, how in the name of Mother earth can anyone know when we have gone beyond it and a real planetary warming is occurring?
Add comment
Given that the amount of Global Warming that can be directly attributable to increased Carbon Dioxide is only 1degC per doubling of total atmospheric CO2, and that the Copenhagen Accord seeks to limit GW to 2degC, does this not mean that CO2 concentration can be doubled twice from current 400ppm to 1600ppm (ie 2 x 2 x 400) before the 2degC limit is reached?
Add comment
Why isn't any public money made available for dissenting scientific research, as to the extent that any man made Carbon Dioxide may or may not be in any way, affecting natural, normal climate change?
Why isn't any public money made available for dissenting scientific research, as to the extent that any man made Carbon Dioxide may or may not be in any way, affecting natural, normal climate change?
Add comment
Do you really believe that a Fairfax newspaper will publicize questions challenging the accepted mantra of Anthropogenic Global Warming, a.k.a Climate Change?
Do you really believe that a Fairfax newspaper will publicize questions challenging the accepted mantra of Anthropogenic Global Warming, a.k.a Climate Change?
Add comment
In 'The Greening of the Red' the SF (Socialist Forum, with an organizer by the name of J. Gillard) is talking about left-wing control via environmental activism. Does that mean that the environmental issues may have been exaggerated in the interest of a political agenda?
Add comment
Is the carbon tax really just Gillard, Brown, and Swans way of giving Wyatt Roy his birthday wish of the first surplus budget under a labour government in his lifetime?
Is the carbon tax really just Gillard, Brown, and Swans way of giving Wyatt Roy his birthday wish of the first surplus budget under a labour government in his lifetime?
Add comment
A significant proportion, probably the majority, of Australians do not accept that the science of anthropogenic climate change is settled, therefore one would expect ardent supporters of climate alarmism, such as Tim Flannery, David Karoly, Ross Garnaut and others to seize every opportunity to convince the doubters of the correctness of their view by publicly debating the matter with some of their eminently well qualified opponents. Why, then, do they steadfastly refuse all invitations to do so?
Add comment
Surely the real problem for the Earth is population growth? Fix that and any real or imagined climate problems are resolved along with a whole host of other problems.
Surely the real problem for the Earth is population growth? Fix that and any real or imagined climate problems are resolved along with a whole host of other problems.
Add comment
JASON FONG's question assumes that Australia's example will have little effect on the biggest polluting countries., Given that "a journey of 1000 miles begins with one step" how small a step is too small when it is the future of planet Earth at stake.?
Does he acknowledge that a "carbon tax" will raise the awareness of all Australians to become more "energy aware" about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels?
Add comment
Why don't politicians place enough emphasis on peak oil and too much emphasis on climate change .it is 100 percent certain that the world is going to use it's oil and petrol if things continue as they are going. So many people have focussed on the uncertainty of climate change that they have almost forgotten about the much more certain peak oil.despite recent discoveries off brazil and Norway ,they are only going to delay the need to switch to renewable energy in Australia. Europe has both forms of energy and can switch to electric cars as soon as the batteries are reliable. Australia is so far behind that we might never catch up ,yet the debate seems to revolve around how much climate change will affect people's lives. It is only necessary to read the questions in this forum to see how much everyone is debating climate change. It seems that only peak oil proponents realise the danger of massive social disruption, while the debate rages on about whether we need t tackle climate change. everyone listen up, the measures needed to take care of peak oil are totally necessary and are going to have to paid for by some mechanism. A peak oil transistion levy or climate change tax ?. Forget about calling it carbon pollution. What a stupid unscientific approach that is. Wake up Australia petrol is going to be consumed faster every day for each car that is sold in china and India and brazil as they benefit from the oil they sell. What are we going to do to prepare ?
Add comment
There is NO NEED and NOT EFFECTIVE to have a "TAX" which will turn into a "TRADING SCHEME" after 3 years, it's only a new way of some people making more $$$, DON'T BE FOOLED. THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY of protecting planet earth, reduce global warming is to FOR EVERYONE OF US, THOSE WHO REALLY CARE ABOUT ENVIRONMENT, TO ADOPT A VEGAN LIFE STYLE. UNITED NATIONS SAYS: BE VEGAN! That was over ONE YEAR AGO, ask yourself why haven't we heard about it, if the government really cares about environment, why haven't they told us about it? find out for yourself here:
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQlekfaPyaA"
WHAT ABOUT "A MOST INCONVENIENT TRUTH" http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/global-warming-film/
Add comment
I believe there is a consensus of scientific opinion which believes that the contribution of pollution from fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. I fully support this opinion. Although Australia only contributes 1.5% to global emissions, this is not a reason not to take action. We can't take our place at the global table when we do nothing. We are a wealthy country and should show some leadership.
If the climate change sceptics are right, and climate change is not a threat, would a reduction in pollution via carbon tax be a bad outcome?
Add comment
Will there be more or less jobs in Australia as a result of the carbon tax.
Will there be more or less jobs in Australia as a result of the carbon tax.
Add comment
Why does the government think that any financial self-harm that Australia engages in with regard to CO2 emissions will have any affect on more rational nations, that have so far declined to follow suit?
Why does the government think that any financial self-harm that Australia engages in with regard to CO2 emissions will have any affect on more rational nations, that have so far declined to follow suit?
Add comment
The carbon tax will inrease the input cost to business which they will pass on to the end cost.Even if 100% of cabon tax is given back the end prices of goods and services will increase. What is the government going to do with the extra GST revenue collected? Isn't taxing the cost of doing business the same effect as increasing the GST rate?
Add comment
Numerous peer reviewed papers (in science journals) refer to apocalyptic consequences of global warming including, but not limited to; vast areas of dead ocean leading to an extinction event known as an anoxic event, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanos caused by isostatic rebound (already potentially linked to Christchurch and Japan).Further discussion involves in numerous research papers involve the mass destruction of crops by volcanic ash clouds and the tsunamis and the subsequent global consequences. Despite scientists ever worsening warnings, extinction events no less, why is the media not repeating what the science journals are warning instead of focussing on trivial politics and the cost of a carbon tax when the cost of not acting is nothing less than horrifying?
Add comment
How can the community be educated about the real costs of alterative base load energy and the fact that government subsidies for ‘free’ (sun, wind, water, nuclear) alternatives, excessive as they appear likely to be, will not be sufficient to make any real impact on energy needs.
There have been two vast changes in society over recent generations: economies in the West are primarily dependent on their citizens buying things they don’t need, i.e. discretionary consumption, not basic food, clothing or housing; and an increasingly large proportion of the adult population depends directly on the risk-taking energies of other taxpayers, or foreigners, for their incomes, whether as public servants, including researchers, teachers, nurses, police etc, direct welfare recipients or politicians. These people would have no income were it not for the taxes paid by risktakers in the private sector, investing their own funds in their businesses.
For the most part (don’t bother responding if you are the exception), such people have no understanding of the economics of small business or international business and abhor people who work hard and take economic risks to provide for themselves and their families – just look at London burning. This is best demonstrated by their abhorrence of the very company profits which pay their incomes via taxation. It is also evident in their cries for more taxation for hobby projects, without seeing any need to cut some other government activity, no matter how worthwhile. Opportunity cost means nothing to these functional illiterates, which is why western economies are now moving from broke to broker without anyone going broke!! Sadly it will be those least able to look after themselves, pensioners off all kinds who will suffer most when the bill has to be paid.
I included nuclear as free, not because I don’t know that uranium has to be paid for, but because the massive costs of significant building of other ‘free’ solar, wind, water energy plants are blithely disregarded by their proponents.
Add comment
climate change debate and australia's contribution aside, why dont we value environmental health as much as economic growth? Why arent they at least on equal footing? why cant they both be achieved?
climate change debate and australia's contribution aside, why dont we value environmental health as much as economic growth? Why arent they at least on equal footing? why cant they both be achieved?
Add comment
Can the Sunday Age investigate and develop a method for holding a genuine (and comprehensible) discussion about climate change where the agenda is not hijacked and politicised by people like Andrew Bolt (as this discussion has been, for example)?
Add comment
Given that we only have one planet that can sustain human existence and that we are consuming the planets resources at a totally unsustainable rate, surely the responsible thing to do is to from a risk management point of view is to work on the basis that any significant chance that human induced climate change should be treated as the most pressing issue humanity faces. We need to find a way of living more sustainably on earth or we may not have a planet we can live on in a few hundred years. This should be a wake up call - "gold bars" versus a planet that can support human life! Isn't the sensible approach to ensure that we have a habitable planet?
Add comment
How do we expect the big and most important developing country (eg. BRIC countries) CO2 emitters going forward to act on reducing CO2 emissions, if wealthy countries like Australia with one of the highest per capita CO2 emissions levels doesn't pull its weight? The attitude of we won't do anything until everyone else has committed is so childish and short sighted. I accept that anything Australia does by itself will have little effect on CO2 levels, but how can we expect other countries to act if we do not given we have such a high rate of per capita emissions?
Add comment
I take task and my question in regards to the continual commentary/slogan re "making the big polluters pay". Well of course the "big polluters" don't really pay. They are merely the tax collection point for the government. The additional cost to these companies brought about by this tax is recovered by passing it through in all goods and services they provide and sell. Passing down through the supply chain additively (there's no output minus input credits as per the GST), plus margin, at every point down the chain to where the buck finally stops, with you and I. WE ARE THE ONES WHO ULTIMATELY "PAY" THE TAX! As we cannot past the costs down any further. Don't people see and understand this? The government knows this and their biggest (paid) proponent has said "Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of the carbon price" - Ross Garnaut. I have already calculated from my last electrcity bill based on tonnes of CO2 emitted to generate my electricity used (stated on the bill) that my electricity costs will rise by 18.6% (not 10% as the government has said). So what is the point of the "compensation"? Perhaps the emphasis on compensation only served to ring alarm bells in the minds of the public about the cost of living issue. It's like asking people not to panic. Why are they asking us not to panic? Why are they offering us compensation? What are they about to do to everyday prices to warrant that? What is the risk to the economy of this tax (high), versus the reward (how much will global temperatures be reduced by)? Would you invest in that?
Add comment
We should embrace the challenge of moving to renewable energy, so we have an energy industry to expand as the fossil fuel industry inevitably contracts. Isn't Australia with its ingenuity, technology, large land mass and coastline, sunshine, wind etc perfectly positioned to be a global leader in renewable energy?
Add comment
1 How many government bureaucrats will be required to administer the carbon
tax? What will be the total cost of their salaries, office accommodation,
pensions etc? How many extra people will private industry, small businesses , etc have
to employ to administer the tax, make sure the correct amount is paid to the
government, etc, and what is the estimate of the cost of this to our industries?
industries?
3 Presumably, before any money can be distributed as compensation to
households or to businesses , the above costs will have to be deducted. i.e
unless the government wants to pay its carbon tax bureaucrats out of say,
income tax revenue, it will have to collect the carbon tax , deduct the
costs of its collection, and only then it will have the net amount left to
pay to households, industry etc.
Further, before industry can be adequately compensated for its costs, it
will have to be firstly reimbursed the above costs of its administration of
the tax, and then paid the compensation to reimburse it for the extra costs
of the carbon tax itself. If these two sums are not paid then then there
will be a cost burden on industry and prices will have to rise.
Add comment
Why do so many people care more about the "gold bars" rather than the future ability of planet earth to support human life when we are talking about our children, grandchildren, great grand children etc? Is it that the human race is by nature just self centred and short sighted?
Add comment
Why has climate change grabbed the headlines when there are other crises on the way? The rising demand and falling supply of oil is one. The increasing demand for fresh water is another.
Why has climate change grabbed the headlines when there are other crises on the way? The rising demand and falling supply of oil is one. The increasing demand for fresh water is another.
Add comment
Our whole global economy is based around "growth" - growth of revenue, income, profit, population. This is not compatible with a sustainable future and risks the ultimate loss of livability of our planet. How can our global economy, which is obviously important, move to a model that is more compatible with a sustainable ecosystem on earth?
Add comment
We need convinving about"climate change" not "tax". What was "global warming" is now "climate change"? what happened? A carbon tax provides a great tax base for governments...an emmissions trading scheme provides a whole new industry where players will make new fortunes and governments huge tax bases (inc gst revenue). This is not about climate change this is about tax. Why is Aust...the world minnows in political standings and also carbon emmissions taking up the running...are we the worlds test case for a new tax base?
Add comment
Are Australians content to let future generations pay a considerably higher cost to address climate change and if so isn't that just a tad selfish, short-sighted, dangerous, unfeeling or are they relaxed and comfortable knowing that the suffering will not impact them during their lifetime but will force their grandchildren to hate them?
Add comment
Don't the climate change deniers realise that they are the only ones having this debate?
Don't the climate change deniers realise that they are the only ones having this debate?
Add comment
Why is the importance of the proposed Carbon Tax so inflated in the public mind when nearly all economists agree that it is nearly insignificant by all measures (both in economic impact and climate impact)? At only $9 billion raised it is smaller than many other measures that have received far less controversy. In terms of costs to households - those that will pay anything at all - it pales into insignificance compared to a small interest rate rise, a few cents a litre on the price of petrol, or a rise (or fall) of the aussie dollar by 3 or 4 cents - all things that happen all the time with hardly a whimper from anybody, let alone the kind of giant scare campaign being mounted by the opposition.
In short, why is the public mind so out of kilter with reality on this issue?
Add comment
What would the government do, if it was discovered tomorrow, that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change at all or that some other factor was entirely to blame? would they scrap the whole plan? Or what if 10 years from now the carbon tax/emissions trading scheme has provided no observable benefits and is found to be unnecessary? would they get rid of it then?
p
Add comment
Why does the media insist on treating all views as equal in this debate - when they are clearly not? The peer reviewed science is settled. Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening. I want to know why so much weight is given to reporting unscientific and baseless opinion and so little time is given to reporting actual fact. This exercise in and of itself proves the point - there are so many factually incorrect statements here amongst the most popular questions. It proves that the Australian and Global media are failing us at this most crucial time.
Add comment
How is it possible to look at our cities all over the world, with the thick clouds of smog above, millions of miles of pavement choked with vehicles emitting pollution plus millions and millions of acres of concrete and houses on our most productive land and NOT believe that we have had a much too damaging effect on the earth and NOT believe that we MUST clean up our act?
Add comment
Why does everybody argue about whether climate change will occur.? Jesus stated plainly that in the last days the wind and the waves would be roaring and men's hearts failing them for the things coming upon the earth. Climate science is therefore sported by god come to earth and all skeptics don't believe in Jesus ability to predict the future . Having said that , the skeptics will just say no point in trying then is there. Which is exactly why Jesus will be proved right. The investments needed to cope with running out of oil won' be made because of the ongoing clouding of the issues by climate change sceptics.If australia wanted to avoid carbon based energy the technology already exists. Australia could easily afford the solar thermal technology already used in Spain, but I expect we will go down the vey expensive nuclear road after arguing about it for years.
Add comment
How do the key media organisations compare in their reporting of the climate change issue? Survey 3 key outlets (say; ABC, The Age, The Australian) over a period of time (eg: the last 6 months). Use the statistics to compare their reporting on the issue.
Add comment
Shouldn't we rephrase Jason Fong's question to one that all Aussies can relate to? - Then we might get a measured answer. How about:
"Why shouldn't I piss in the swimming pool? It's a big swimming pool - I'm not full of piss, if the amount is negligible (which it is), then given that I think that everyone else is pissing in the pool (even if I can't see how much and if they have also decided to reduce the amount they piss in the pool), why should I stop pissing in it first?"
Add comment
Are these unanswerable questions? In the Cambrian period, ~500 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 concentration was ~7,000 ppmv - 18 times today's (IPCC, 2001). In the Jurassic period, ~175 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 concentration was ~6,000 ppmv - 15 times today's (IPCC, 2001). During these geological periods with significantly higher CO2 concentrations, there were temperatures lower than today, and higher than today. Since these periods, our planet has experienced numerous glaciations punctuated by interglaciation.
How is this possible? Climate science orthodoxy warns us that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 just slightly higher than today (but vastly lower than these geological periods) will cause 'tipping points' and 'runaway warming' (meaning Earth will never recover). Why didn't this happen when Earth was subjected to these much higher CO2 concentrations? The hypothesis was tested millions of years ago and failed. If this hypothesis were valid, we couldn't have evolved to be debating it here!
Henry's Law and CO2 partial pressure would have seen vastly greater amounts of CO2 dissolved in the oceans during the subject geological periods. According to current theory, this should have resulted in 'ocean acidification' much higher than today. Yet, during the Cambrian period, corals first appeared. During the Jurassic period, coral reefs started to form in the warm seas. Over thousands of millennia, these robust structures have survived all the intervening glaciation cycles. Why is the Great Barrier Reef now in danger?
Add comment
Putting to one side those who don't believe the Earth is warming, there are many in the community (sceptics) who don't believe that human activity plays a major role in increasing global temperature.
As the role of science is to explain the causes of things that we observe in the natural world, what is the principal scientific argument of the sceptics which explains the causal factors behind observed temperature increase? Where are the scientific papers outlining this argument and the models that flow from this scientific theory? How does the broader (the pro Anthropogenic Global Warming) scientific community respond to this scientific analysis?
Given the potential consequences of ignoring the warnings of the pro AGW science, I believe the science and modelling of the sceptics should be subject to the same comparative levels of scrutiny if we are to have a properly informed public debate.
Add comment
At what level would a price on carbon alone shift investment in base-load power generation away from coal fired power and what are the next most affordable alternatives?
At what level would a price on carbon alone shift investment in base-load power generation away from coal fired power and what are the next most affordable alternatives?
Add comment
which policy will be most effective in reducing the impact of climate change in both the short term and the long term, the governments clean energy future policy or the coalitions direct action policy?
which policy will be most effective in reducing the impact of climate change in both the short term and the long term, the governments clean energy future policy or the coalitions direct action policy?
Add comment
The ICC needs panic to gobble up more of our taxes so when will newspaper's report the actual temerature readings with reference to the actual historical figures and actual sea levels or do they need panic to sell papers. For computor generated projections remember Garbage in Garbage out as perfected by the ICC
Add comment
What part could Transition Towns (or Initiatives) play in addressing climate change in Australia? There are at least 12 initiatives in Melbourne and over 60 around Australia. Why is this movement inspiring so many people?
Add comment
Why doesn't the present government want to have this Carbon Tax question put to the people in the form of a Referendum ?
Are we a democracy or not ? ... That is the big question.
"Yay" or "Nay" people...
Why doesn't the present government want to have this Carbon Tax question put to the people in the form of a Referendum ?
Are we a democracy or not ? ... That is the big question.
"Yay" or "Nay" people...
Add comment
The Labor government's carbon tax is ill considered and based on a warmist view of climate science, one which is becoming more discredited each day. Why would any responsible Government even consider imposing a new tax in such difficult economic times, when the global economic climate is so uncertain and no-one knows when fiscal equilibrium will be restored?
Add comment
My view on climate change goes with mainstream science because science is not about proving something – it is about telling you what it consistently and repeatedly observes after all the crap is filtered out. Are there any credible alternative observations?
Add comment
Does Australia have the education system, people and capital to compete globally in the new economy? Or in other words, can Australian companies invent new products, services and solutions to wrestle the $60Billion per day spent on global oil consumption? Can we provide alternatives to world markets? Or do Australians believe that continuing to use fossil fuels that take 280-320 million years to be created for a once off use is still the best way to generate electricity and compete in the next decade? What type of economy will Australians pass to future generations?
Add comment
I want to vote for Jason Fong's question. Why are you making that so difficult?
I want to vote for Jason Fong's question. Why are you making that so difficult?
Add comment
If passed into legislation, to what degree would Australia's globally uncoordinated proposed Carbon Tax provide net advantages and disadvantages; 1) to the environment, 2) to other countries, and 3) to the Australian economy and people whose scale of global vulnerability in every area would appear to be both stunningly admirable and stunningly foolish. Answer these questions in 5 year, 20 year and 50 year time frames and Australians will have the information needed to make a balanced and appropriate decision.
Add comment
The science of Anthropomorphic Global Warming has been settled as definitely happening, by peer reviewed science publications since after 1970. Since then there is not one peer reviewed publication that disproves it, and this is not a conspiracy. Its a science question, and not a question that can be justly argued by public debate or opinion, or from scientific ignorance or deliberate misunderstanding. How come right wing nuts, shock jocks, and mouthpieces get to pretend otherwise?
Add comment
How much can you deny all at once? World population 7 billion and counting. Peak oil here now. Climate change. Ocean acidification. High rates of species extiniction. Oceans scraped by bottom trawling. Economies collapsing. Jobs disappearing. Resource related wars. Water shortages. Extreme weather, bushfires and drought. Global forests still declining. And extremely wealthy people reject a little carbon tax.
Add comment
Global emissions of CO2 are engineered by our modern lifestyle. If you recall past era's, before the 70's, goods were valued, made to last and were rarely thrown away. My plasma TV, for which I paid an enormous amount of money, has lasted less than 5 years. It is cheaper to buy a new one than to repair it. Every new one, produces enormous pollution. What incentives are there for producers and consumers to take a longer term view and for quality to be valued?
Add comment
GIVEN THAT.......•For its 1995 report, UN IPCC scientists advised five times there was no evidence of humans causing warming. Yet IPCC politicians' reported to national governments and media: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate";......Why is government looking at any form of tax on the air we breathe?????????????????
Add comment
What are the factors that determine climate and what are the interrelationships between those factors, It is worth noting that Earth appears to regulate and maintain a climatic range during the interglacial periods, what are the mechanisms that achieve this beneficial to us climate range.?
The follow on to that is to what effect has man in the last 10+ thousand years altered those mechanism's
Add comment
Sounds like Lisa is a major emitter- seriously! Aust a democracy??? Are we to take this as a serious and honest understanding of what it means and stands for??
Sounds like Lisa is a major emitter- seriously! Aust a democracy??? Are we to take this as a serious and honest understanding of what it means and stands for??
Add comment
If Australia does not cut its CO2 emissions and the rest of the world, including China and India, increases its pollution to the same levels per capita that Australia has, what effect would that have on global warming and the planet this century?
Add comment
New satellite data from NASA in July 2011 confirms the globe is not warming. End of argument!
New satellite data from NASA in July 2011 confirms the globe is not warming. End of argument!
Add comment
Why do the angry Australians share common traits of being white, middle-class, retiring and conservative? Are they now the "Grey NO-mads" that say no to long-term investments in our nation because they won't be around in the future years to benefit?
Add comment
If Australia stopped logging native forests it would meet almost half of its five per cent carbon emission reduction target for 2020, according to an expert from ANU. According to Andrew Macintosh, Associate Director of the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy, stopping native forest harvesting would generate enough carbon credits during the period 2013-2020 to meet 45 per cent of Australia’s abatement task. Yet the Baillieu State government continues to ignore please from many concerned individuals to cease logging in mixed age forest by spouting the rhetoric that it is mostly post 1939 bushfire regrowth. Will governments keep repeating this mistake and ever shortening the life span of our carbon sinking forests? Or will they be stopped in time to save what little remains of our naturally greatest carbon reducing assets, the forests?
Add comment
How can we get leaders working together for the future of mankind? How can we get away from shortsightedness, shelfishly ripping up the planet as fast as possible, not leaving anything for future generations, and not even contributing to smiles on faces of people in the street? How many planets will it take till mankind knows that to much selfishness is not good?
Add comment
What happens if the climate sceptics are wrong?
What happens if the climate sceptics are wrong?
Add comment
How effective would an end to native forest logging be in reducing Australia's emissions? Assuming that plantation harvesting took up the slack in wood production, how many emissions would be avoided, how much carbon would be safely stored in natural forests and how much biodiversity would be retained?
Add comment
Jason Fong, to quote the premise to your question: "The very point of Australia's carbon tax is to reduce global warming". The Australian government does NOT say that at all. Therefore, your subsequent question/s is a logical fallacy. You have based your argument on a false premise. Your 'question' attracted exponential growth in votes (and comments) when Andrew Bolt suggested to his audience that they should endorse your question. It certainly appears oher neo-con followers have 'hijacked' your question as well. They all push a common agenda - from the blogs of; Joanne Nova, The Climate Sceptics, Jeniffer Marohasy, the Galileo Movement, Alan Jones, 'Lord' Monckton, and so on. You have attracted the neo-con vote Jason, whether it was intended or not. Your premise, and therefore your question, is challenged Jason: the point of Australia's carbon tax is NOT to reduce global warming (contrary to your assertion) but rather to help transition Australia to a lower carbon economy, and to foster innovation and investment in alternative energy sources. After all, fossil fuels are a finite resource and it would make sense to slowly wean ourselves off them - it won't happen over night, despite the fear mongering of the rhetorical right. The planet will be going from 7 billion to 10 billion in 40 years - we will need more sustainable ways in the provision of the energy that will be required. I think it is very important to have a debate Jason, on how the transition to a lower carbon economy can be dealt with, when it should be done, and how it should be financed. Why it should be done is a being deliberately taken out of context, and out of proportion - by the 'business as usual' lobby and the 'tea-party-esque' strategies of a growing proportion of divisive nay-sayers in our 'enlightened' western society of today.
Add comment
Geoff, Spain is broke;
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/spain-cannot-pay-26-billion-defense.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/numerous-spanish-towns-face-bankruptcy_13.html
The party is over people, the world is broke, lets follow Spain into financial oblivion shallwe ? Wake up and look at reality.
Add comment
Will an Australian Carbon tax reduce the worlds temperature and if so by how much?
Will an Australian Carbon tax reduce the worlds temperature and if so by how much?
Add comment
In the recent London riots, one of the things pinpointed to prevent anything like this happening again is fostering an attitude of responsibility. Do the people who claim that we shouldn't have to do anything to lower our emissions because there are bigger polluters than us, also need to attend the classes with the London looters? I don't think the London courts will be accepting "I only took a 30" flat screen but my mate took a 52" as an excuse for their recent behaviour.
Are the people talking economic doom aware of the boost to our economy from getting on board the fastest growing industry in the world ie. renewable and clean energy technologies? Australia needs the be at the forefront of these industries so that we are not so dependent on our resources for wealth. What can be done to take the excessive emotion out of this issue and get people educated and excited about a clean energy future?
Add comment
Why is the thorium molten salt reactor not on the agenda for energy generation in Australia?
Why is the thorium molten salt reactor not on the agenda for energy generation in Australia?
Add comment
We know that Australia is one of the highest CO2 emitters per-capita in the world (18.9 tonnes in 2008 compared to China's 5.3 tonnes). By how much will that position change after the Clean Energy Package is implemented?
Add comment
Why is the conservative side of politics proposing a direct spend method to reduce carbon pollution while the labour government is proposing a market based mechanism? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Why is the conservative side of politics proposing a direct spend method to reduce carbon pollution while the labour government is proposing a market based mechanism? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Add comment
Whether the changes in the climate are being caused by humans or not, is moot. The fact is that the climate IS changing, it doesn't matter how; what matters is what we do about it. Reducing our own carbon emissions by using less energy, driving less, growing our own food, being careful with water, not buying plastics, etc. are all things that we as individuals can do to help. Start now. Say 'I told you so' later.
Add comment
The amount of C02 Australia might save may not be much, but is an example to other countries. More importantly it is a start to a cleaner world, and new technologies that do not have the dangers attached to nuclear power.
Australia is able to sell these technologies, and is already providing new jobs in the renewable energy field. What are the figures that support these facts?
Add comment
Could we have a system where people who have now taken time to consider new information through this forum are issued new negative votes - so they can help vote down denier questions they initially thought worthy of support? We must sympathize now they can't sleep knowing they have fallen into the denier crap trap. Let them make amends now Andrew has shot his Bolt.
Add comment
Many climate deniers and contrarians are conservative, older white males: is this because they find it too unsettling (or even disloyal) to accept what the climate science is essentially telling them - that the social, political and economic system they believed in was flawed and has inadvertently put the world at risk, and that the appropriate remedies call into question their group identity and belief system?
Add comment
Could you ask both 'for' and 'against' parties to sum up their views by writing (and sharing) a letter to their children/grandchildren to be opened in 30 years time explaining why they chose to support/oppose a carbon tax? I would actually find this more helpful than the current highly-charged, confusing debate. This exercise would make everyone express their view in a clear and understandable way, and it's our kids who will hold us accountable on both the environmental and economic consequences of our decision.
Add comment
Given that the top topics on the list are heavily 'loaded' questions will the journos use them as a stepping off point to present useful information rather than accepting the premise of the loaded question?
Given that the top topics on the list are heavily 'loaded' questions will the journos use them as a stepping off point to present useful information rather than accepting the premise of the loaded question?
Add comment
Should our generation consume the planets finite resources leaving behind a polluted environment for our children?
Should our generation consume the planets finite resources leaving behind a polluted environment for our children?
Add comment
Despite the vitriolic climate change debate, both sides of politics have committed to identical medium term emissions reductions targets of 5% with respect to 2000 levels by 2020. Consequently, the political issue appears to be how this target is achieved rather than the merits of the target. How do the economic consequences of the government and opposition policies compare?
Add comment
Ian A....Liars, deniers, dolts, dullards, ignorance, apathy..my my Ian you must be a really smart guy. You don't know that I am all of the above, you have assumed that just like you probably have assumed that whatever the government tells you is true. Don't you know that “ad hominem” attacks are not relevant in debate? I didn't assume that you were a fool because your previous post confirm in fact that you are indeed a fool! If you really wanted some impact with your non argument all you need to do is come up with some of your "so called scientific evidence" not the predictions and correlations made by the IPCC that are now proving to be false but the observed evidence where is it?...............waiting..........................................................
Add comment
What if the mainstream science is right? what next?
What if the mainstream science is right? what next?
Add comment
What is the percentage of scientists that agree that the enhanced greenhouse effect is human induced and that current CO2 levels are causing harmful global warming? (NB. That's relevant scientists - economists, politicians etc can pipe down for this one and stop confusing everyone)
Add comment
Although the Carbon Tax will gradually increase and then convert to an emissions trading scheme after 3 years, many Australians are sceptical that it will have any measurable impact on CO2 emissions. If the human race is to achieve a target of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius, then how many tonnes of CO2 per capita will we all (the whole global population) have to limit our emissions to, and how does that compare with Australia's current per capita emissions?
Add comment
With the world's population rapidly increasing, as well as their demand for energy, how quickly do we need to move to reduce our reliance on declining stocks of fossil fuels and move to more renewable energy sources (something that a price on carbon will assist our economy in doing). Discuss.
Add comment
There appears to be a common misconception that Australia is leading the world in implementing a carbon price and taking action on climate change, however my reading indicates that we are just one of many countries taking action. It is only a matter of time before large economies such as China and South Korea implement schemes. How does Australia compare to other countries and what are the ramifications for our economy should we fail to take take appropriate action to restructure our economy to reduce our emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Will the mining industry collapse overnight if we implement a carbon price given they struggle to find sufficient people currently to meet their demand for workers.
Add comment
No-one wants to imagine that life as we know it on earth may come to an end within a few generations and some people handle it by saying "There is no such thing as human-induced climate change!" But let's imagine, for argument's sake, that the actions of humans are continuing to cause major change in earth's climate - is it worth the risk to say "She'll be right, mate!" ?
Some people say "Australia is such a small country - what difference can we make by reducing our pollution? We should wait until our competitors reduce theirs first"
The point is that we are one of the most prosperous countries in the world, so if we don't start the ball rolling who else will??? Catch 22!
Add comment
If oil and coal were produced in a super greenhouse event triggered by co2 from volcanoes associated with the break up of Gondwanaland, then why can't it happen again if we release enough of that co2 back into the atmosphere? If it can, then how do climate sceptics explain the origin of oil and coal deposits?
Add comment
Why is global warming's ‘evil twin’, ocean acidification, almost entirely ignored in public policy debate on carbon pollution reduction? Is it not the case that once acidity levels in the water reaches a certain point, shellfish cannot produce their shells? Mussels, oysters, shrimps, krill, crabs and lobsters are all threatened, and by extension the entire food chain they are a part of. No computer models are necessary to assess this. Are we not ignoring this problem at the peril of our national dish? Isn’t ocean acidification enough on its own to justify urgent action on CO2 emissions?
Add comment
'Lord' Monkton claims that the cost of abating climate change is greater than the cost of the risk it poses. How true is this claim, and how is it measured?
'Lord' Monkton claims that the cost of abating climate change is greater than the cost of the risk it poses. How true is this claim, and how is it measured?
Add comment
According to Xstrata's own Environmental Impact Statement, it's proposed Wandoan mega coal mine will create up to 49 mega tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, a sizeable 0.17% of annual global emissions. How can the Queensland Government consider new mega coal mines with the Great Barrier Reef on the brink? It must transition away from coal mining, rather than supporting the largest coal expansion in our history.
Add comment
If every type of weather is apparently proof of AGW - rain & drought, heat & cold - what possible evidence should we look for to disprove AGW? Surely good scientific rigour demands that the hypothesis is tested, yet that is impossible to do when EVERY type of weather is held up as evidence of AGW.
Add comment
The Carbon Tax will only effect those who don't want to change their ways. Polluters will finally pay. Whether you believe in Climate Change or not, there is so much opportunity for the future through energy efficiency, renewable energy, buying locally and preserving our resources. Cleaner air and water, less rubbish and pollution, lower overall costs. So why do people get so negative about this positive transformational change for Australia and humanity?
Add comment
There is plenty of evidence to say that is is possible to be fully renewable in Australia and also create new jobs, that people want. I volunteer for a environmental job board and one of the most popular questions I received at the last AGE employment expo was - How do I get into a renewable energy job (wind and solar)?...because people want to make a difference in what they do? Can you provide moreprofile on what new opportunities are out there
Add comment
Believers in man made climate change seem to squel at those that doubt, I have doubts;
SBS has recently shown a number of fasinating shows on "Ancient Civilizations" "Our Planet" and similar, each raised more questions than they answered. If the Nazca Lines were created in 400 - 600 AD and then Climate change drove them away (a desert encrouged on their lands) how did humans cause that? what industry caused that? what agriculture caused that? obviously none, so why would would we believe that change is caused by man? (and the Nazca are not the only example)
Add comment
Most newspaper journalists are good at English and scientifically illiterate. The same goes for most politicians, TV presenters and radio talk back hosts. Do their opinions on climate change have equal weight? It is obvious that some of the comments below were written by people who are also scientifically illiterate. Are we going to listen to the climate science experts or are we going to think that everyone is an expert?
Add comment
At present I have to go with the mainstream science on climate change. Because science isn’t about proving something, it’s about telling you what it consistently and repeatedly observes when all the tosh is filtered out. I’ve been following what the science has observed over the past 40 years and I don’t like it. I would really like to know if there are any credible alternative observations and where can I find the published material?
Add comment
Consider these 4 scenarios:
1. If AGW theory is true, with no action there will undoubtedly be catastrophic economic, social and environmental costs.
2. If AGW theory is true, with action there will be economic and social costs.
3. If AGW theory is untrue, with no action we will be fine.
4. If AGW theory is untrue, with action there will be economic and social costs.
Does the risk of inaction outweigh the risk of action?
Add comment
why can't more money be allocated for solar power or alternative power sources
why can't more money be allocated for solar power or alternative power sources
Add comment
Please provide the justification for publishing emissions per head of population rather than by land mass? The per head figure provides a distorted comparison between Australian emissions with that of (say) China.
Add comment
When 97% of scientists working in the field of climate science have put their reputations on the line to alert the world to the problem of climate change, why does the media give "equal" time to the nay-sayers? If we don't do something, then who do you suggest does; if we don't move now, just when do you suggest we should?
Add comment
Many politicians, including Julia Gillard, keep telling us that "The science is settlled."
Yet, there is a huge number of climate scientists actively researching the anthropogenic global warming theory.
This being so, the science clearly is not settled, or the research would not be necessary.
So, why do journalists not challenge these politicians on clearly misleading statements?
Add comment
Why does the IPCC scientific report avoid the question of lag (e.g, the AR4)? Antartic ice core data reveals that when CO2 and temperature are measured carefully from either the same or different ice cores, CO2 generally lags by around 700 years if the quality and resolution permit. There have been many examples of studies finding lags, a couple of examples include: Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), Siegenthaler et al. (Science, vol. 310, p. 1313, 2005). These and many other scientific studies demonstrate that the temperature drives atmospheric changes in the CO2 content.
Add comment
What is the best thing for Australia to do about global warming? Jason Fongs question has most responses but the discussion seems to have strayed away from his original question. The question has big implications and may be analysed in several directions.
To a degree the question is rhetorical. Realistically, the world will not take much notice of an Australian decision to cut CO2 by 5% or indeed achievement of this objective. Other nations have bigger targets and achievements. Thus we may incur considerable costs without either improving the world climate or influencing other nations to make improvements. From there it is a short step to deciding that the problem is too large
and best ignored. If 5% were insignificant what would be a worthwhile and inspiring target? At the other extreme we could consider becoming fossil carbon free-- the Zero Carbon Australia objective. Then there is the question of Australian coal exports, again on the simplest level it seems futile to stop burning Australian coal here but export it to be burned somewhere else.Again on this basis it seems that we would have achieved no world benefit , but at considerable cost to ourselves.
So on two major arguments we would be best served by continuing business as usual and enjoying our lives on a warming world to the detriment of our decendants. nothing we can do lets party: a dance macabre indeed.
So in the face of this situation why do I think that we should decarbonize Australia as soon as possible?
This step would make a small but measurable improvement in the world climate but more importantly have value in inspiring other nations to follow suit.
It would give us the moral high ground, a nebulous benefit , but better than being an international pariah burning coal while the rest of the world is trying tp reduce coal burning.( Moreover we may be seen as a greedy and weak international pariah sitting on great reserves of coal and minerals A tempting target for invasion.)
Ultimately we must rely on the major nations realizing that everyones future is threatened by global warming and thus all nations must eventually decarbonize.
China and India are very aware of the dangers of pollution and global warming. They are working hard to minimise coal use against large social pressures. The population of India increases by the size of the Australian population every 18 months! They are bringing solar power to the villages rather than building large power plants.
The question of coal exports is one of equity.We are a developed nationand have had the benefit of cheap coal to deive our development. We can now afford to decarbonize and leave the coal to the nations who most need it.We have had our ration and must see that the developing nations now have theirs.
Therefore this is my answer to the paradox of Australia simultaneously decarbonizing and continuing to export Australian coal. It will give Australia an honerable place in the world as a responsible advanced nation. We may inspire similar international developments and help future generations enjoy our beautiful planet. There is really no better alternative.
Add comment
Sceptics want debate, but warmists fear it. Why won't climate warmists debate with people like Professor Bob Carter and Lord Monckton on the climate change issue? Do they have something to hide?
Sceptics want debate, but warmists fear it. Why won't climate warmists debate with people like Professor Bob Carter and Lord Monckton on the climate change issue? Do they have something to hide?
Add comment
"Carbon emissions" in Australia are said to be the highest in the world per capita. However if we recognise that Australia has a small population, and look at exactly how much we actually emit, Australian carbon emissions are actually quite small. When will the media stop supporting government propaganda and start serving the people of Australia free and fair information?
Add comment
Why is it left to the public to raise THE question that NEEDS answering. The brother/sisterhood of the media can be justifiably embarrassed and ashamed that their caper is being exposed. You do yourselves no favours.
Add comment
If climate science is so complex, how is it possible to offer such a simple solution to global warming - that being just reduce carbon emissions?
If climate science is so complex, how is it possible to offer such a simple solution to global warming - that being just reduce carbon emissions?
Add comment
When people talk about the effect of reducing carbon emissions, do they realize that the effects won't make any difference to the climate until 100,000 to 500,000 years?
When people talk about the effect of reducing carbon emissions, do they realize that the effects won't make any difference to the climate until 100,000 to 500,000 years?
Add comment
@ the people like Jason Fong who ask “why should Australians do anything about C02 emissions, let’s see if we can make it simple with a few facts and truisms
• As a country we needed to reduce our water usage – prices went up for water, incentives came in to help us save water – result – we use less water as a nation in general
o If you make industry aware that they need to reduce emissions by pricing it, and then help them with the costs to change – we use less power - simple
• As a VERY basic example... Do you think the building owners in our CBD’s will leave all their lights on at night to make their building “pretty” might re-think this idea ... hmmmmm you figure it out
• For a moment I’ll even say let’s not consider “greenhouse gas”... can a scheme to cut POLLUTION be a bad thing for a country? The only counter argument to that would be to argue a return to the “good old days” before we had things like the EPA and manufacturing dumped whatever it liked wherever they liked (The Yarra?) – was this the way we stayed globally competitive
You get the drift – we are part of the big blue marble – put a price on the pollution it will reduce – we know how to do it we lack the will, and this is when the “stick” replaces the carrot
(btw if you think China is not doing anything why do you think they built the worlds largest Hydro Powerplant at 3 Gorges with a 22,500MW output - cost them a LOT more than traditional methods but whether you agree with dams or not, it is part of their effort.. so dont tell me the big countries are not doing anything.... )
Add comment
A doubling of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been clearly shown through measurement and observation (rather than through unreliable models) to accompany a rise in global temperature of only 0.7 degrees. When will the IPCC and our very own government cease to hold onto their self-promoting distorted figures of 3.3 and 5.1 degrees for the same doubling of the same weak greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide)? How many times will the AGW proponents be allowed to change their alarmist goalposts before the general population has had enough?
Add comment
People who use green electricity are penalized with higher electricity prices. This is a powerful disincentive to people who are financially strapped. Why is there no financial incentive to people to do the right thing? This would also encourage electricity manufacturers to make a more con served commitment and move to cleaner energy. Your comments please.
Add comment
Why did people vote for incompetence on the 21 August 2010?
Why did people vote for incompetence on the 21 August 2010?
Add comment
Do we really want to be the nation that has the opportunity to take steps on mitigating climate change and chooses not to under the "Why should we go first?" argument? Australia's politicial leadership (on both sides) seems to stand only for re-election, scouring polls to inform the most advantageous position to take on any given issue. In 2011, the search for political integrity is the search for the proverbial needle in a haystack. So, it's astonishing to me that the Clean Energy Plan has made it onto the table and that it's not the greenwash it could so easily have been. Has anyone actually read the plan in full, or are we all responding to the soundbites that most reflect our unexamined views? My question is: why are Australians so determinedly focussed on the other major global emitters? We can't force other emitters to act, but as one of the largest greenhouse gas producers per capita, we can choose to make changes in our own backyard. And here's the opportunity.
Add comment
Climate science is clear and undisputed amongst the scientists who specialise in this field. To stand by and watch the slow destruction of our environment is unconscionable. What will future generations say about our failure to act. My question is why do we continue to question and criticize while our options to avoid destruction continue to narrow as the evidence mounts.
Add comment
With the scrapping of the Rudd governments proposed ETS, the amount of money earmarked for investment in clean energy dropped dramatically. Given that a) The climate is tracking along with scientests models for global warming b) we will have to move to cleaner energy eventually, preferably before we reach a tipping point of no return, c) a price on pollution has been demonstrated as the cheapest way to drive change and the sooner we do it the cheaper it is, what alternative policies are there for driving investment in clean energy, and how do they compare to the current scheme on the table?
Add comment
Many other first world countries have already put in place plans to significantly reduce their carbon emissions, whilst in Australia we squabble over what might happen in the next financial year or election period. Do we really want to lag behind the rest of the world on this issue? We have always been a nation of people who get stuck in and help out. Whilst our contirbution may be small, it may eventually mean so much. We are a young nation; when will the citizens of this country look to the future? Surely the bigger question is are we going to wait until we've ran out of our current energy sources and practices before we do anything about it?
Add comment
Isn’t warming from CO2 a diminishing return, such that each 10ppm of CO2 has less warming effect than the last 10 ppm?
And isn’t warming from CO2 asymptotic, such that total warming from CO2 is capped?
If this is true then CO2 warming is a NON PROBLEM!
Add comment
Have you seen this below because over 200,000 viewers have. These numbers equal the circulation of the Age with is pass on rate of one paper allegedly read by multiple people. http://vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2090/
Add comment
Reading comments saying we shouldn't even bother tackling this issue as we contribute so little compared to China and the US is like listening to a stroppy kid in the playground complaining that they shouldn't have to pick up their rubbish as there's so many other kids littering. This kid is Australia and he consumes 4 times as much as the Chinese kid and nearly twice as much as the German and Swiss kid, oh and he was also dropped off 2 metres from the playground in a 2 tonne 4WD! Facts are energy costs money, using energy from fossil fuels creates C02. So can we grow up and stop being fat, lazy and selfish or are we going to add stupid to the list?
Add comment
Why do I have to compromise my modest standard of living when the alarmists refuse to even consider the two gigantic elephants in the room?
Global overpopulation and nuclear power, the two issues which should be top of the list to solve the NON problem of supposed manmade global warming seem to be deliberately ignored, while harmless, plant food, trace gas, CO2 is demonised ad nauseum.
Add comment
Can anyone tell me how many more years before we run out of our energy sources coal, oil and uranium? If we run out of these energy sources soon, shouldn't we start investing in some other energy sources and benefit from being the forerunners?
Add comment
Temperatures are rising and sea levels are rising. Finding mistakes in models and IPCC data won't change that. The question is how much will they rise? That depends on what we do about it and other things like sunspot cycles.
Add comment
I understand that there is no universally accepted method of measuring sea levels. If this is the case how can the the scientists with any confidence report that there has been a rise in sea levels and that there will be further rises?
Add comment
Geoff's latest attempted obfuscation: "
"Harry Snape" will scrape the bottom of his murky barrel."
So far you've accused me of a number of things and provided not one jot of evidence.
And here we go again. I've pointed out a number of flaws in what you have written, mostly to do with the details of the capabilities of existing renewable systems. All you have been able to do is obfuscate.
"Bet he hasn't read Garnaut 2011 update and associated papers."
Another of Geoff's unsupported guesses.Why Garnaut is one of my favourite reads. He's a laugh a minute. That said, I don't know if I like being preached to about the environment by an environmentally unqualified economist that ran a company that poisoned an entire river ecosystem, but I clearly my tastes are different to yours.
The statement you quote is meaningless in the context of the discussion we are having. They argue for a rapid movement to sustainable energy.
You argue that the existing renewable choices already can replace existing power generation. I have just pointed out all the flaws in your rather facile analysis.
Nice try Geoff. All this proves is that you can't mount a cogent defense of you posts so you prefer to switch tracks to something that hasn't been discussed at all.
Add comment
The point of the carbon tax is to encourage the reduction of carbon intensive consumption: the carbon tax will only increase costs if consumption stays the same. Everybody and every household has capacity to reduce their consumption to compensate for the increase in costs and go further and actually save money with almost no effort or investment. Why is this message not being communicated?
Add comment
Why is scientific literacy in Australia so low and why do people who obviously have such a poor understanding of climate change think they can ask relevant questions. If you do not understand how carbon dioxide operates in the atmosphere and if your do not understand the the mechanisms of heat transfer then you will have no understanding of the outcomes of climate change and you cannot possible say if the scientists are correct.
Add comment
Could you please explain the climate science, in a step-by-step process from carbon as a greenhouse gas, right through to the effects of anthropogenic climate change on the lives of Everyday Australians, using a percentage score to indicate the certainty of each aspect of the science?
Add comment
Why are the questions ordered by number of votes? Surely this will influence the outcome as people are time poor.
Why are the questions ordered by number of votes? Surely this will influence the outcome as people are time poor.
Add comment
On the 16th August 2010, Julia Gillard said, "...there will be no tax on carbon while I lead the federal government." – Given that Mrs Gillard clearly and publicly lied to the Australian electorate, should Australian children follow her example and tell blatant lies whenever it suits them? ‘’There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”
Add comment
Most people have unconditional belief in science when it comes to the medicines that they take and the medical interventions that are recommended by their doctors and surgeons. What will it take for most people to have the same belief in the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports climate change?
Add comment
Many people argue that the carbon tax is a waste of time because it may only achieve a small reduction in global CO2 emissions. Further they often argue that Australia should not act as not all other nations are acting, especially the U.S., China and India (ignoring the facts that India has a coal tax, China is trialling carbon trading in some provinces, and a number of U.S. states have carbon trading). Underlying such argument is the question of equity. That is, those who argue against a price on carbon for Australia, seem to be arguing that other countries should pay the price for carbon pollution while we continue to freeload on the rest of the world. Given that our wealth is based on historic (hugely) inequitable use of carbon, and current incredibly inequitable per capita use of carbon, how can people continue to advocate such a selfish, unjust and inequitable use of carbon?
Add comment
If I tick the box to offset my carbon emissions when I purchase airline tickets what actually happens there after to neutralize the environmental impact of the plane's CO2 emissions?
If I tick the box to offset my carbon emissions when I purchase airline tickets what actually happens there after to neutralize the environmental impact of the plane's CO2 emissions?
Add comment
Makes you wonder if its a scam when there is no balance sheet approach, even if C02 is causing a heating effect, why isn't there any account been taken of the huge amount of CO2 removed by Aus flora?..... The landmass and billions of growing plants must be extracting millions of tons of CO2 dwarfing any Aus emissions! Does Aus get a carbon credit from the rest of the world? Research NOT funded? ODD THAT?
Add comment
The federal Labor government is running an advertisement selling it's carbon tax policy. Something is terribly wrong with how our governments can spend public education advertising budgets. This is proposed legislation without bi-partisan support. How can public money be used to have policy spruiked in such a shameless (and expensive) manner?
Add comment
I understand that this may be difficult but I'm afraid it's necessary. For some reason people seem to be shielded from what the complete theory of anthropogenic climate change really is. If ALL of the details were put on the table I doubt most scientists or the general public would believe in it or support ANY action on climate change at all. The public need to understand ALL of the underlying uncertainties in the data and ALL of the details in the "feedbacks" and their associated uncertainties. A thorough unbiased critique of data collection methods on all aspects of the science is greatly needed. For instance can we really say that the IPCC's statistical methods in determining the lack of warming in the medieval period are valid and significant? I can't I haven't seen any proxy data rise to the same level the instrumental record has. Sunday Age, can you please, please, please, hire statisticians and physicists (along with the usual suspects) both with and without an affinity for the theory to create a complete, honest and open two sided account of the data (not the POLITICS or the SOLUTION just the science please) so that everyone can decide for themselves? Please, we've all had enough of the cover ups and the lies. Present the science to the public in FULL and then let US decide. We don't need climate scientists with vested interests to hold our hands for us as we make decisions about OUR (notice the collective pronoun?) future.
Add comment
Why do climate science denialists never show any indication they have the slightest understanding of the scientific basis of man made climate change?
Why do climate science denialists never show any indication they have the slightest understanding of the scientific basis of man made climate change?
Add comment
Despite numerous inquiries and investigation that have fully cleared all the scientists involved in the so called "climategate" hacking scandal, why is a belief that these people committed scientific fraud still a commonly held belief?
Add comment
It is rejected than human carbon dioxide emissions are affecting climate, proved by the warmer medieval period and the mini ice age, neither correlating to human CO2 production but both correlating to solar activity. Despite this, the question posed is: How much carbon dioxide could have been avoided by the use of nuclear energy since the 1970s, and will the so-called Environmentally friendly parties explain their active opposition to this alternative, given their claimed damage to the planet through the continued use of traditional methods?
Add comment
What is the difference between a Carbon Tax and an Emissions Trading Scheme, with respect to it's effect on prices, business and greenhouse emissions reduction?
What is the difference between a Carbon Tax and an Emissions Trading Scheme, with respect to it's effect on prices, business and greenhouse emissions reduction?
Add comment
Yup, and within 10 years or so he could be talking about Australia -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=player_embedded
Yup, and within 10 years or so he could be talking about Australia -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=player_embedded
Add comment
How can we, as citizens, help raise the level of political debate to better reflect the integrity of the Australian people? Don't we have some social resopnsibility to act and not solely complain? For example, talking more about how we can act to alter our comsumption habits to lessen our own impact on the environment or think twice before getting inot some petty fight in a comments section.
Add comment
Why is climate-change science one of those fields where people with no qualifications in science might feel as if they have a "say" to the point where they might confidently dispute a growing and solidly established body of scientific evidence on the matter? If you go to a doctor and you're told you need to lose weight or to cut salt out of your diet or to take a pill, do you DOUBT that medical advice, or do you trust the person who has spent his or her life studying about medicine and now practices it as a profession? How come this is not the case with climate science?
Add comment
What further positive incentives ( ie solar panel subisidies-which were just reduced ) will the government be introducing as opposed to negative or disincentives (ie the carbon tx) as a way to motivate people into personal action?
Add comment
Why is it still acceptable for people to disagree with the science indicating the causes of climate change? And why do the cause make any difference to the need to lessen our reliance upon fossil fuels?
Why is it still acceptable for people to disagree with the science indicating the causes of climate change? And why do the cause make any difference to the need to lessen our reliance upon fossil fuels?
Add comment
What exactly is a carbon tax and how will it be calculated? What exactly is carbon pollution? Carbon is an element - will a carbon tax be a tax on everything containing carbon? Plainly ludicrous. Carbon is non-polluting but some of its compounds may be. Why not refer to oxygen pollution and hydrogen pollution when referring to carbon dioxide and methane? Because that sounds non-sensical - so does carbon pollution. Those who try to sound knowledgeable when talking about these issues show they do not understand the most basic fact when referring to "carbon" so why should we believe anything else they say on the subject? (Before the "common usage" excuse is trotted out, remember that those who use this excuse are either too ignorant to know better or too lazy to try and correct the issue.)
Add comment
Recent ANU research shows that forests are our biggest carbon capture and storage devices. Their protection from clearfelling could give us a quick, cheap and effective way to meet a large part of our traget for greenhouse gas abatement. Why is the government avoiding such an easy solution?
Add comment
Why do journalists not understand that we need to achieve zero carbon emissions and beyond? The carbon tax and small incentives to re-newables won't achieve this.
Fran Kelly on ABC R/N said that it was a bit late in history now to be mentioning that gas is as dangerous for climate change as coal. She redeemed herself today by pursuing someone from the fossil fuel industry who denied this but I felt that for her it was just one among many stories. If we transition to gas and continue to export CO2 we are violating everything scientists are saying about this decade to decarbonise being the turning point.
Add comment
What a CROC!!! I wanted to vote for a question, by the time I had signed up and returned next day the question was gone. Thanks for wasting my time.
You can have any oppinion as long as its "mine".
What a CROC!!! I wanted to vote for a question, by the time I had signed up and returned next day the question was gone. Thanks for wasting my time.
You can have any oppinion as long as its "mine".
Add comment
In the 70s people were distressed about pollution and wanted to reduce it. Why is the need to reduce the amount of pollution for which we are responsible up for debate? Climate change or not, we're a selfish, grotty bunch that need to change the impact we have on the environment.
Add comment
Why does this silly government muddy the water by mixing action on carbon with the realignment of taxation and income support. These are two separate issues and should be dealt with individually. This is why a market based system is so much better than a carbon tax and the creation of more wasteful bureaucracy.
Add comment
If the global temperature is not rising then why are glaciers melting and polar ice caps disappearing? If we are not experiencing major changes in climate, why are we having major changes in weather patterns and more catastrophic storms? If desertification is not increasing, why are more and more people starving? Climate deniers can dispute the science, but can they dispute the facts?
Add comment
Why is it that Climate Change Sceptics like Tony Abbott insist there is no proof when they are willing to believe in a God whose existence cannot be proven?
Why is it that Climate Change Sceptics like Tony Abbott insist there is no proof when they are willing to believe in a God whose existence cannot be proven?
Add comment
The tobacco industry knowingly lied over decades that cigarette smoking did not damage health. The fossil fuel industry and stakeholders have employed the very same "marketing agents". Their one product – doubt – has kept in “contention” the evidence both of climate change itself and what causes it at a time when the scientists are in almost complete agreement of the seriousness of the problem and the significant anthropogenic contribution to the problem. What motivates these various people – the moguls, tycoons, politicians, journalists, media personalities and spin doctors, to use their influence to put lives and ‘life as we know it’ at risk? Is it money and status, money and power, money and business interests? Or, in the case of the politicians of either major persuasion, do vested political interests trump their sense of responsibility for governance for the common good? Will these people behaving badly face the “retribution and accountability” that Gilding speaks of in "The Great Disruption"? These base motivations have brought the biodiversity of the planet, on which humans depend and are a part, to a precarious place. As a country perceived to have “laughed all the way to the bank”, can Australia expect to be looked on with dismay and disgust by other parts of the world when the penny finally drops?
Add comment
If we accept that we must limit global greehouse gas emissions to a finite amount, what is the fair way to allocate it across the world population? Should it be per dollar of wealth or per capita? Should we all share the pain of climate change equally or should the rich be allowed to buy relief while the poor suffer and die? This seems to be the great moral issue of our times but we hear nothing from religious leaders. Why are they quiet?
Add comment
How are you ever going to have a meaningful discussion with people that refuse to listen. Just keep fiddling boys, while Rome burns.
How are you ever going to have a meaningful discussion with people that refuse to listen. Just keep fiddling boys, while Rome burns.
Add comment
What are some of the exciting technologies that are being investigated by scientists as ways of mitigating climate change?
What are some of the exciting technologies that are being investigated by scientists as ways of mitigating climate change?
Add comment
There is little doubt in scientific circles of the human-based causes and disastrous effects of climate change. Why, then, is there such opposition to each of us making a small contribution through the carbon tax, towards reducing carbon emissions?
Add comment
What jobs will be created by alternative energy fields and will they equal the number of jobs lost in the same locations?
What jobs will be created by alternative energy fields and will they equal the number of jobs lost in the same locations?
Add comment
How has this issue become so politically polarised? When will people be given an understanding of the 'why' and 'how' of climate change rather than be buried under a pile of preaching 'facts'? Other (mis?)information from the climate change deniers delivers emotive fear mongering of the 'We'll all be ruined' carbon tax opponents. Clear communication might help voters understand. That and a focus beyond the short term
electoral cycle.
Add comment
How can industry and all people in Australia reduce their energy consumption to minimalize CO2 emissions and global warming?
How can industry and all people in Australia reduce their energy consumption to minimalize CO2 emissions and global warming?
Add comment
It would appear that Mr Bolt has been stirring the pot for all the denialists to flood Our Say with questions......well here's a question for the denialists? If you take out all the fancy jargon, like climate change and carbon tax, are you concerned about our future ability to provide our own needs for fresh air and clean water? The way that we fuel 21st Century western living is not sustainable for nature. Do you deny we need a healthy natural environment for us to stay healthy? Is it perhaps the denialists that are about fascist dictatorial control by the commercial mining giants? Where does your income herald from?
Add comment
What ever happened to the Scientific Method - did the Age of Reason end with the IPCC?
What ever happened to the Scientific Method - did the Age of Reason end with the IPCC?
Add comment
How can we best use the media to get our point across,we need action on climate change, not more talking and more committees dealing with obstructionist opposition and government policies ?
How can we best use the media to get our point across,we need action on climate change, not more talking and more committees dealing with obstructionist opposition and government policies ?
Add comment
What effect do bushfires have on carbon emissions?
What effect do bushfires have on carbon emissions?
Add comment
Do you think we have got too caught up in "carbon" and are missing many other vital sustainability issues as a result? The tax is being marketed as "hitting the big polluters" while the government brochures and ads seem to almost be promoting a handout for families rather than trying to push any environmental/sustinability agenda and encourage people to live more sustainably. How can the tax be taken seriously when it increases the incentives for vehicle over train use (especially for freight)? Wouldn't the money be better spent for personal and the nation's well being if it was put towards sustainability in a more holistic sense? There are so many issues that are being ignored by the tax and how will it address more sustainable housing and transport, that at the end of the day are the crux of our lives? Why isn't money being thrown at schemes (eg behavioural change programs, walking and cycling infrastructure) to address health, amenity, congestion, etc when they involve such massive personal and societal costs (eg in Aus $21B cost of obesity, MJA 2010, ~$20B cost of congestion by 2020)?
Add comment
Nearly everyone seems to miss the other and equally relevant side of the debate on reducing the use of carbon based (fossil) resources and thus reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Peak oil will be upon us sooner rather than later even if we reduce our oil consumption. Then the costs of these fuels will rise disproportionately to other costs.
Natural gas supplies may appear plentiful now, but the costs of exploitation continue to increase (vis the Gorgon project in WA requires disproportionally more investment because of the need to sequestrate large quantities of carbon dioxide).
Coal, in its many forms such as coking for steel making, black and brown mostly for electricity generation, is not inexhaustible.
We should reduce our global consumption not only to reduce carbon dioxide emissions but also to reserve these carbon resources for future generations. These carbon resources are very valuable particularly as transport fuels where there are no currently viable or economical alternatives in agricultural production and aviation. These carbon resources are also very valuable for the manufacture of chemical feed stocks for the many thousands of products that we now consider essential to our current standard of living, not the least of which are many pharmaceuticals. Biofuels are not the answer as an 18 month inquiry by Nuffield Council on Bioethics (The Guardian 13 Apr 2011) concludes current use of biofuels to meet transport targets in UK and Europe are unethical. They concluded that their production adversely impacts on the environment, food production, food prices and violates human rights.
What are we going to do instead of burning fossil fuels for energy? Renewable sources cannot viably meet the total demand. Thus, despite the fears arising from the disastrous accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, we must have a mix of nuclear power for base load electricity AND a wide range of renewable sources.
Why are these issues not part of the climate debate?
Add comment
The science is very clear about the most likely cause of global warming so why do Australians think the laws of physics can be changed through democracy?
The science is very clear about the most likely cause of global warming so why do Australians think the laws of physics can be changed through democracy?
Add comment
The decision about climate change is not a democratic one determined by opinions of the unqualified. It is not determined by whether or not you like the consequences. It is a complex scientific issue requiring significant intellectual effort. The science has been rigorously tested and validated by scientific observations for over 20 years. Australia’s best Scientists: the CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science say the question is beyond reasonable doubt, and our politicians know this as they are regularly briefed by the best minds. Why do you waste precious time discussing an issue beyond reasonable doubt which in turn delays making the hard decisions making the road to recovery even harder & the consequences for humans and other species more tragic?
Add comment
Whether one is a believer or a sceptic in relation to climate change depends largely on the degree to which one is educated in science and critical thinking, and on one’s personality (the Big 5 personality traits being openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism). Does the media have a responsibility to examine and educate the public on how such traits might be affecting our judgement?
Add comment
If we have the highest per capita CO2 emissions of any developed nation, then don’t we have the greatest responsibility to take action? The fact that much larger countries have higher total emissions is totally irrelevant. Visualize China and India as hundreds of smaller countries, each with Australia’s population, and it becomes obvious that we are producing far more than our share of emissions. Historically, we are among the countries that have used resources and produced pollution so that we can have a high standard of living, and now many want this to continue whilst denying the developing world any chance to improve their situation. Does this sound fair?
Add comment
The government plans to compensate the consumer for their use of electicity through the taxing of the "Polluters", the coal fired power stations (mostly government owned except in Victoria) for every tonne of carbon dioxide produced. Now assuming the fossil fueled power stations could convert to so called clean energy (not nuclear), then they won't have to pay the tax.
Question
Should the switch to "clean" energy be achieved, then the wholesale price of electricity will sky rocket as it is well known that "clean" energy costs a lot more especially when government subsidies are removed.
Government revenue from the Carbon Tax will drop dramatically as this transition occurs.
So how is the government going to continue to compensate the consumers for these higher prices?
Answer:
They can’t, and the consumer, that’s everybody will pay dearly for a policy that achieves nothing except the destruction of jobs and Australia’s standard of living.
This is a socialist tax to fund an incompetent socialist Labor/Green government, nothing more.
Wake up Australia!
Add comment
Geoff and others, Only one dataset (GISS) says 2010 is the warmest year on record. HadCRUT, RSS and UAH have 2010 lower. HadCRUT has long been touted by alarmists as a reliable data source, so why are they not making headlines about the disagreement of their dataset?
Alarmists ability to leave out important facts in order to make a story scarier could be mistaken for an inability of rational thought. On the issue of alrmism, the Fairfax press and the ABC (incorrectly) called 2010 "the hottest year EVER". What, in the history of the earth? Or just since we have records, since about 1850? The headlines are calculated to alrm and deceive.
Or just since
Add comment
How many of Australias 80% religious population base their view of climate change from a religious perspective ?
How many of Australias 80% religious population base their view of climate change from a religious perspective ?
Add comment
Why do climate change deniers continually put up false arguments? What are their motives?
Let's look at the top rating question on climate change as an example. It is asking how much will earth's temperature drop if Australia’s carbon tax goes ahead. Facts- Even if every country stopped emitting CO2 today the temperature would not drop for many hundreds of years. Either the author is ignorant of how CO2 acts in the atmosphere or he/she is manipulating the question to trivialise any action Australia may take. A carbon tax or ETS is not used to reduce earth’s temperature from current levels but to stop C02 levels rising higher and in turn to stop earth’s temperature from reaching dangerous levels. So the question is in fact a false question. Why do deniers continually do this?
Add comment
I am not a climate science and cannot asses made up climate science from real climate science. So I chose to visit the QLD Government Narural Resources an mines web site, the CSIRO website, the NASA and ESA web sites - all had published summaries of the science for the public - all said the same thing - Man Made Climate Change real and true. But 8 out of 10 news articles I read say th opposite. How do we get to space where science is reduced to speculation and everybody feels they know better than those with a Phd on the subject (and are not ashamed to say it)?
Add comment
A single volcano eruption causes more co2 release into the environment than all man made co2 release per year. Yet, there are 1527 active volcanoes in the world producing co2 emissions. Do warming alarmists really have such poor understanding of the facts to believe that a redistribution wealth tax will change the effects of these volcanoes?
Furthermore, bush fires release more co2 per year than all coal power stations. And the greatest cause of bush fires is lightning strikes. Again, there is nothing man can do about this. The old saying that "mother nature is the all powerful" exists because it is true. The universe acts in mysterious ways, and there is nothing that a wealth redistribution tax will do about it.
Add comment
Putting aside if you believe the scientists or not... developing renewable energy sources will give countries around the world energy security, so we dont have to be so reliant on buying primary resources from dictators in the middle east, northern africa etc. We have been involved militarily in the middle east for basically 2 straight decades, fighting for oil. Wouldnt renewable energy provide countries with greater security?
Add comment
Why are we not encouraged to move to green power rather than coal power? People who elect to choose green power are forced to pay a premium, which discourages use. Surely those who are contributing to climate change should be the ones paying rather than those who are doing what they can to reduce carbon useage
Add comment
When politicians quote research on the number of jobs gained or lost is it possible for the newspaper to list a table that shows a breakdown of the evidence and list the source of the evidence. At present, reports on this issue sounds like numbers made up by bias politicians or their private bias think tanks!
Add comment
The evidence of our degradation of the environment has been around for years, eg acid rain and melting glaciers. Why do the deniers carry on so much (or at all) when the weight of evidence is against them? What is their real agenda and what do they hope to get out of it? Do they not care that their children and grandchildren will end up suffering in a world heading towards a Soylent Green future? Wouldn't they rather live in a healthier world which is less polluted?
Add comment
Why didn't the government consult even one marketing specialist to frame the Carbon tax? If it had been called a Pollution Tax, or the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, then the denier flocks, led by their shock-jock shepherds, would look pretty stupid clamouring for MORE pollution!
Add comment
I do not "believe" in Climate Change (belief implies a level of faith not based on facts), but I "accept" the conclusions of thousands of people much smarter than me who know what they are doing ("scientists", I believe these people are called) that it is happening and needs to be addressed - so I suppose I am a Climate Change "Acceptor".
I'd rather that Climate Change isn't occurring, as it means we all have to change the way we do things a little bit, but life is like that anyway so I'll probably adapt. What I can't understand is why people refuse to accept a clear problem based on their only their own personal politics or vested interests?
The negative effects of Climate Change will be a bit like being a passenger in a bad car crash that can't be avoided, so why do people want the crash to happen at 60km/h (do nothing) rather than try and reduce the problem so it only happens at 40km/h (try and reduce the problem)? - I know which choice I'd make.
Add comment
Australian electricity prices are amongst the lowest in the world. How do subsidies for renewable energy in Australia compare with subsidies for the mining industry (in any form, tax cuts, fuel rebates, cheap water etc)? And what is the true price of energy when government funded (i.e. tax payer funded) subsidies are considered?
Add comment
How can you have a fair debate on carbon tax when 70% of Australia's print media is owned by Rupert Murdoch with his papers supporting the anti - carbon tax campaign!
How can you have a fair debate on carbon tax when 70% of Australia's print media is owned by Rupert Murdoch with his papers supporting the anti - carbon tax campaign!
Add comment
The weight of livestock on the planet is greater than humans and their impact is enormous. The livestock to wildlife weight ratio is about 7 to 1. Reducing atmospheric methane and reforesting the planet isn't just a good idea, it is
essential (James Hansen ..."Storms of my Grandchildren"). So why does no political party advocate slashing livestock populations?
Add comment
Why has our future trade opportunities not come into this debate? From a purely risk management perspective, if there is any sort of global consensus and action on carbon in the next 10 years, Australian exports risks being taxed (or worse, banned) because of their carbon content (based on energy generation alone) which will mean less jobs, closing factories and a reduction in economic GDP, which could take years to recover from. Why not get ahead of the pack (as we did in the 80s by deregulating our economy) and prevent this risk from materializing by doing it on our own terms, rather than those imposed from an external agenda?
Add comment
Your one vote isn't going to change an election. Why vote?
1500 Australian soldiers aren't going to defeat the Taliban. Why send them?
Pissing on a tram isn't going to derail it. Why hold it in?
Cutting our CO2 isn't going to save the world, but it is a step in the right direction. Why are so many Australians afraid of joining dozens of other countries in reducing the amount of pollution we pour into our already struggling atmosphere? The economy will continue to grow. Sure, it'll cost money, but so do firefighters schools and hospitals.
Add comment
The IPCC is made up of approx. 1000 of the world's most respected and renowned Scientists who have studied global warming intensively for the last 3-4 decades. Isn't it wise to listen to these scientists and follow their recommendations, which is what is already happening throughout Europe, New Zealand, much of the developing world, and is now being attempted in Australia? Isn't it more logical to accept their advice, rather than that of commentators vexed on right-wing ideology or closely aligned with coal and other fossil-fuel interests?
Add comment
Like abortion is there a faith dimension to denying human influence to climate change.
Like abortion is there a faith dimension to denying human influence to climate change.
Add comment
What will it cost to import all our goods, clothing food etc. from overseas when you add the carbon tax.? Shouldn't we be making our nation strong again with manufacturing, and value adding to products being done in this country.? By shipping all our goods here we automatically contribute to pollution. Why not make our own like we used to in OUR back yard of Australia? sue house
Add comment
Climate skeptics are peddling the politics of fear regarding a suspected insidious green movement. Should politicians and scientists fight terror with terror, by more regularly noting the devastation inherent in projected global warming?
Add comment
The success of the Coalition's direct action plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and slow climate change is largely dependent on sequestering carbon in soil. How for they justify this policy when there is no known technology or techniques to permanently sequest carbon in soils? (Further there is little scope to sequest carbon in Australian soils due to climate and soil quality constraints.)
Add comment
Given the lack of understanding of the basics of Climate Science among the general public, as exemplified as nauseum by the cherry-picked and uninformed nature of the 'questions' posed by so called 'skeptics', questions answered and rebutted ad infinitum already, why hasn't the government or the media instituted a meaningful process of explaining the science to the public? Not the usual anodyne motherhood statements - but meaningful and in depth description of the science in language the layman can understand so that they can understand the misconceptions and distortion presented as so called skeptical questions - as exemplified by many of the other questions here.
Add comment
The big issue with solar power is that it can not (or does so at a decreased level) provide power 24/7
Likewise wind is dependent on...wind
Geothermal Power is available 24/7, and works in Australia.
Why hasn't there been much focus on this, both in the media and government?
Add comment
During the Mediaeval Warm Period much of the world was at least as warm as it is at present. The hypothesis arising from this is "The recent warming is due mainly to natural phenomena". Before seeking other causes, those proposing them should first prove the null hypothesis "Recent warming is not due predominantly to natural phenomena". This is what good science does. Why is this not addressed?
Add comment
Why is there not more reporting of the risk of collapse of wild fish stocks due to acidification of the oceans as a result of their absorbtion of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. How are people in the future to gain healthy fish to eat, which we know is a greatly beneficial part of the human diet? How are people to have opportunities to enjoy dramatic and exciting experiences of marine life which can wonderfully nurture the human spirit if vital sections of the marine food chain go missing bringing the whole chain down? I don't understand why so many people seem so relaxed about the dramatic problems that too much CO2 in our atmosphere will create, according to the wisest heads.
Add comment
Are many people aware of the "tragedy of the commons" explanation as to why we must "think global, act local"? If we just think our efforts on climate change are not worthwhile because other countries are also needing to act then aren't we failing to think things through.
Add comment
Why does the climate change and carbon tax debate in Australia focus on the amount of CO2 reduction, compared to current levels? I thought climate change policy was developed to reduce the acceleration of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and prevent it from exceeding 450 parts per million by 2050, which is still an increase in absolute terms compared to current levels.
Add comment
If the government has an obligation to protect Australia and its citizens from their own ignorance and selfishness, shouldn't the Federal Government be taking action to combat climate change without inviting its ignorant and selfish citizens for their opinion?
Add comment
How will climate change deniers and people who aren't climate change deniers but don't want to do anything about it because in may cost them a couple of dollars be able to look their children and grandchildren in the eye in 20 to 30 years time when the effects of climate change are so stark and evident affecting every aspect of their descendant's lives?
Add comment
Seeing that effective global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions depends on international cooperation , how could Australia , a rich country and the highest percapita emitter among significant developed countries ,justify a refusal to take speedy and effective action to reduce its own emissions , as European nations , the UK and certain US states have done?
Add comment
The carbon tax is designed to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by Australians by sending a price signal to consumers, directly offsetting emissions through credit trading and utilising carbon tax funds to stimulate renewable energy. Schemes such as the Carbon Farming Initiative are in development to govern the creation of carbon credits that will at least partially meet the needs of Australian emitters. What are and how well developed are domestic programs aimed to fulfil the requirements of the carbon tax? What will the domestic renewable energy and carbon offset markets look like in 10 or 20 years as a result of the carbon tax?
Add comment
Why has this website been designed to make it easier to vote for questions with more votes? Wouldn't a random presentation of questions for voting result in a more comprehensive "average" set of questions? My browser returns to the top after each vote and to get back to questions with few votes I must press the "more questions" button repeatedly. Has a statistician been involved with the design of this democratic forum to ensure that it is representative?
Add comment
Psychologically, why are Australians so fearful of taxing big polluters like the manufacturing and mining industries? Western countries in Europe, Canada, NZ (even China now has a solid plan) with emissions trading schemes have big industry - and their "tax" was voted in successfully. All the data suggest that they have been effective at both reducing emissions and financing new green technology. What is the problem/difference here?
Add comment
Is the Sunday Age regretting this exercise in the use of social media to contribute to reporting and analysing climate change, due to the nature of lobby groups identifying this tool as a means to promote their agenda, rather than open up debate and increase our understanding of a very complex scientific, economic and social issue?
Add comment
In 2010, Australia contributed 1.33% or 0.0133 of the total Global emissions of CO2. One of the worst case IPCC models, Scenario A2, suggests a mean increase of about 3.3OC for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just when a doubling will occur depends very much on what countries do to reduce emissions. In reality, it seems almost inevitable that doubling will occur before the end of the century, unless China, the USA and India significantly curtail their emissions below current commitments. But the timing is really not that important. If Australians do little more to reduce future emissions, and our relative contribution remains the same up to the time the doubling occurs, we will have caused only 0.0133 x 3.3 = 0.044OC of the total global temperature increase. This means that even if Australians could immediately eliminate all CO2 emissions, the full extent of the consequent reduction in temperature towards the end of this century would be only 0.044OC. Politicians and much of the media are trying to persuade Australians that we will make a real difference by implementing the much more limited reductions claimed to be achievable by the proposed taxing or pricing of CO2 . In the face of the simple fact that anything less than complete elimination of CO2 emissions must also result in less than an 0.044OC reduction, can someone please explain why we should be burdened with a complex system of taxation which is demonstrably ineffective, and futile from the beginning?
Add comment
Regardless of whether climate change is ever proven to result from mankind's use of fossil fuels, cant we all agree that energy sources that dont create pollution of any kind must be better for us all and our planet's future?
Add comment
Jesus, Mary & Joseph Anthony
You cite a brief monograph, barely 2 pages long, with statements such as "To identify the influence of the absorbing gases on the climate and particularly the effect of an increasing CO2-concentration on the warming of the earth, a two-layer climate model was developed, which describes the atmosphere and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers and Planck radiators. Also heat transfer by
convection between these layers and horizontally by winds or oceanic currents between the climate zones is considered.".
Golly Gee Whiz. They consider some convection between layers and ocean currents. Thanks for that in depth analysis. In 2 pages.
Add comment
If activist climate scientists want us to consume less, eat lower on the food chain and live more simply, why don't thet just say so?
If activist climate scientists want us to consume less, eat lower on the food chain and live more simply, why don't thet just say so?
Add comment
I can understand a political party being held to account over their pre election policy promises if they won the election but the Labour party didn't win the 2010 Federal election. We have a minority government of Labour, a green member and the independents. Why are we so tied up on the NO Carbon Tax promise by Labour and PM Julia Gillard given that they didn't win the election and all the pre election policy promises have to be renegotiated?
Further, isn't it beneficial to the policy process that different political parties are involved in policy development as different views and ideas regarding a certain policy would add value and would ensure that a greater representation of the public’s views would be taken into account?
Add comment
The Coalition, Greens and the Labour party believe that climate change is real and they all have climate change mitigation policies. Given that they are all agreed on climate change action, the only question is how it is achieved. By far the majority of Australian and International economists believe that a market based mechanism, whereby a price is placed on carbon emissions, is the cheapest and most effective way to mitigate for climate change. Given this, why is the Coalition apposing this policy and preferring a policy that will cost the Australian tax payer more with fewer reductions in carbon emissions?
Add comment
How come whenever images are show of coal fueled power stations, we are shown plumes being emitted from the stations, which may indicate that the plume is harmful for the environment, the reality is, that these plumes are actually steam, h2o, not co2, which can be deceptive to the general public. Therefore, how can these plumes be damaging to the environment?
Add comment
We are constantly been advised that "the science is in", whatever that may mean! I am not a scientist, but some things I do know, our atmosphere contains approximatey 78% Nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and these rest is made up of other elements. When looking at the scientific periodic table, I can determine that co2 is heavier than air, falls to the ground collects with trees and soil (which is predominately carbon), I am curious to know how this can create Climate Change of any sort?
Add comment
Paul, I do think some of your concerns are relevant, but I don't agree with the point you made in your initial question about all livestock information being propaganda, and I think the issue is far more complex than just methane emissions. But with regards to Africa and South America, there are important environmental issues that could be easily worsened by an uninformed closure of livestock industries. In Africa, if livestock were removed from the diet all wildlife would be declared "bush meat" and would effectively be hunted into extinction in a very short time. Poverty and hunger could lead to mass human migration, stripping forests bare along the way which has happened in the past. Recently a local agronomist and biological fertiliser consultant visited parts of Africa with World Bank representatives. They witnessed, among other things, sorghum crops producing 40% more yield with biological nitrogen fixing bacteria, led by Australian and British companies. Although farming is local, it is also global. In South America, rainforests are equally being cleared for cropping as well as livestock production. And herein lies the problem - with food and other soft commodities being globally traded on the free market, farmers, in poorer countries in particular, will chase whatever market provides them with a livable income at the the cheapest cost. There needs to be a major rethink about food security worldwide, that is providing reliable food at a reasonable cost to the consumer, while delivering a constant reliable income to food producers, to enable them to invest further in environmental and productivity increasing technologies.
Add comment
The Government has arguably taken the most sensible course of action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by putting a price on emissions and allowing private industry to find the best ways to reduce their own emissions. With that in mind, why interfere in the markets by banning one of the low-carbon energy production methods available, nuclear energy.
I am not arguing that the government should definitely invest in nuclear energy, but the option should be on the table for private electricity generators, who pay carbon tax, if they find that that is the most cost (and carbon)-effective method available.
Add comment
The trickle of asylum seekers who come by boat is dwarfed by the number of truly Illegal immigrants who overstay their visa. What is being done about them?
The trickle of asylum seekers who come by boat is dwarfed by the number of truly Illegal immigrants who overstay their visa. What is being done about them?
Add comment
What will OurSay.org do in future to prevent the use of false names and impersonation of real people by hoons who steal the name? According to my understanding, under Australian law impersonation is fraud attracting criminal sanctions including imprisonment. Perhaps OurSay will have to set up a system where volunteers can check with the Electoral Commission to verify full name, current address etc. of everyone due to the fraudulent activity of a few. In addition random checks of phone numbers would discover people who continue to steal real identities and report them to authorities.
Add comment
How can we stop party politics getting in the way of the adaptation and mitigation measure required for Australian society to cope with climate change?
How can we stop party politics getting in the way of the adaptation and mitigation measure required for Australian society to cope with climate change?
Add comment
Four legs good, two legs bad! Why won't they listen to me? Coal train = death train. Listen to me. Listen!
Four legs good, two legs bad! Why won't they listen to me? Coal train = death train. Listen to me. Listen!
Add comment
Does the name "Anthropogenic Global Warming" do the issue a dis-service given that "Anthropogenic" is a technical word and "warming" has connotations of mildness and pleasantness. Would calling this problem "Human Caused Global Overheating" (HCGO) make any difference to people's perceptions of the issue?
Add comment
What do the leading climatologists think are the closest, most dangerous potential "tipping points" that would lead to runaway global overheating and what would they recommend we best do to avoid them?
What do the leading climatologists think are the closest, most dangerous potential "tipping points" that would lead to runaway global overheating and what would they recommend we best do to avoid them?
Add comment
What are comparable countries (in terms of domestic energy use and energy exports) doing on climate change?
What are comparable countries (in terms of domestic energy use and energy exports) doing on climate change?
Add comment
It's a no-brainer that we need to care for our environment; but to what extent will Carbon-Tax-Inspired higher electricity costs hinder Australian manufacturing and simply transfer production of goods to overseas where there is no Carbon Tax but still environment-impacting production?
Add comment
I have recently been to a logging coupe for Australian paper and it makes me physically ill that they are claiming that this disgusting archaic clearfelling technique is sustainable. I stepped over a fern trunk at least a metre long, which means it was over 100 years old (growing 10cm's a year). This is going to be burned alongside native animal habitat. I walked along a 'bridge' that was pretty much a dam, across a stream, a stream which used to lead to Melbourne's water supply and the Yea river. Please tell me how this is sustainable. Also please tell me why Vic forests seems to be exempt from The native forest charter legislation which states that there should be a buffer zone around any creeks or streams.
Add comment
Our lifestyle is based on a couple of hundred years of hydrocarbon and there are 20 million of us. The people of Asia and Africa deserve the same level of lifestyle. If we develop alternative sources we will make squillions. Where will the investment come from? A price on carbon????
Add comment
Inaction Now = Apocalypse later?
If we fail to see this crisis for what it is there will be no turning back as biospheric points of phase change are crossed. This is not a drill.
All too human
Humans are good at handling sudden emergencies and bad at dealing with slowly unfolding catastrophe. At the “gut level” we just don't get it when some boffin tells us global warming is liable to destroy global civilisation. We didn't get it forty years ago, when some boffin told us smoking or asbestos was bad for us. The operational time scale of our biological emergency response systems deals in seconds, not decades. We are programmed to respond to the tiger's leap, not a gradual change in the weather.
This can becomes a major disability for human institutions focused on daily, weekly, quarterly, annual or three year cycles. They can simply fail to recognise a need for expanded time frames. Institutions also have a problem refocusing on bigger issues than immediate self interest. The time to act is now but we are hampered our own biology, plus short termism and greed.
Two models follow.
Policy Paralysis:How Business Interests Trump the Public Good
Model 1: The Tobacco Wars - smoking and health
Smoking became an issue for developed countries in the early 1960's. The ensuing battles provided a curtain raiser and ready made strategies for the continuing conflicts over the environment which began a decade later.
Scientific evidence on the health effects of smoking had accumulated since the 1940's, and public health officials had warned of the dangers. The tobacco industry saw its core business under threat. Instead of redirecting resources to the production of less harmful products it used them to attack, subdue, subvert, corrupt or destroy any institution or individual that threatened its profits.
The battles over smoking introduced new orders of sophistication to the resources and strategies available to corporations and politicians wishing to override the public good in pursuit of private profit. The pernicious effects of these strategies, and the outrageous interference in democratic processes, have bedevilled the world ever since.
The interests of the tobacco industry consistently trumped the public good. Over the decades the industry honed strategies in pursuit of its vested interests, while millions sickened and died. Governments consistently refused to take effective action until the sheer weight of scientific and medical evidence led to public outrage at their failure to act. The deaths, and enormous burdens on the world's health systems, continue.
How could this happen? - Money, Power & Influence
With the enormous funds at their disposal the tobacco companies could afford to hire the best professional lobbyists, PR and legal firms in any country. Politicians were compromised by exceedingly generous campaign contributions. Through a variety of financial and other instruments, including bribery and more subtle forms of corruption, pressure and influence peddling they were able to set up and fund the political, academic, campaign, research, or community organisations they needed. They could also afford to buy the services of key people in any business, private or public sector.
The tobacco companies could not be seen to be directly involved in activities ranging from influence peddling to virulent campaigns targeting public officials, anti smoking advocates, academics and scientists. The companies directly employed corporate lawyers, professional lobbyists, consultants and public relations firms. It was the PR firms which were largely responsible for the recruitment of armies of “supporters” from across the demographic spectrum. Existing organisations were co-opted and new ones established. Think tanks, pro-business organisations, the media, political pressure groups, and ersatz “grass roots” organisations were funded via plausibly deniable arrangements. Many supporters had no idea who was really behind their organisation.
Campaigners and Supporters: the “troops”
Apart from the organisations in their direct employ the most effective tobacco industry supporters included openly sponsored or indirectly funded:
media groups, actors, celebrities and media “personalities”;
national sporting organisations, clubs and teams;
local, state and national politicians, political parties and groups;
scientists and doctors, academics, think tanks, publishers, journalists and authors;
professional and business groups;
farmers' organisations, and unions;
local social and sporting organisations, and surprisingly,
religious groups and the military.
Campaigns
Every opportunity was taken to promote smoking as a healthy lifestyle choice and counter any moves to curtail their activities. Supposedly "grass roots" campaigns, talk back radio, health professionals, scientists and a compliant media were used to sow public doubt and confusion about the health effects of smoking. In addition to advertising tobacco company wares the media presented the public with a constant stream of favourable coverage of:
sponsored sporting events and outdoor adventure activities;
carefully placed and presented “news”, opinion, advertorials and current affairs;
endless product placement opportunities, and
outright propaganda, including “scientific reports”, editorials and opinion pieces.
The media were used to make personal and general attacks on ideas, opinions, evidence, policies and people seen as a threat by tobacco interests. Regulators and public servants, independent minded politicians, doctors , scientists, anti-smoking groups, academics and concerned scientists were typical targets.
Defeats and Victories
For decades the tobacco companies were able to successfully:
paint independent, peer-reviewed scientific research and modelling as just another matter of opinion or judgement;
lend credibility to the findings of their own researches and those they funded, in the absence of credible peer review or publication in reputable scientific journals;
use propaganda and lies to misinform, confuse and divide public opinion;
browbeat, corrupt, blackmail or displace public officials; and
promote smoking as a healthy lifestyle choice;
lobby public officials including politicians judges and legal officers;
counter any regulatory moves;
use key opinion makers including a core of co-operative politicians, and
infiltrate politics and sabotage democratic processes to the point where effective policy making was stalled for decades.
And they are still at it!
Model 2: Global War: Industry v. the Environment
The environment became a “hot button issue” in the early 1970's.
It quickly become a war of conflicting imperatives:
promote economic growth to avoid market collapse
sustain the environment to avoid global collapse
The third imperative is the global reconciliation of the other two. This is what makes mitigating climate change such a diabolical and urgent problem. Whether we recognise it or not it is the nub of a national and global crisis.
Over thirty years ago the citizens of many developed countries became aware of the devastating environmental and health effects of many common industrial processes. Books such as Rachel Carson's “Silent Spring” sent shock waves around the world despite strenuous efforts to stifle and discredit them. New research demonstrated just how far reaching the ecological damage had become. It also revealed the negative effects on the economy, and on communities of people, as well as communities of plants and animals. For a brief time it was generally agreed that the damage could not be allowed to continue unchecked.
During the same period the first “oil shock” had severe economic, security and political repercussions, and the Club of Rome's “The Limits to Growth” made dire and prescient, if badly timed, predictions of imminent food shortages and a general Malthusian collapse resulting from resource scarcity and global stagflation. There were, however, some beneficial outcomes.
Governments and industry responded to widespread public concern in different ways. New environmental policies, plus new agencies, educational faculties, research and legislative measures promoted environmental gains and more efficient resource management. Research and development was boosted in many fields, particularly in agriculture, biochemistry and resource development. New agricultural methods and biotechnologies were taken up by multinational agencies and companies. The “Green Revolution” sustained the growth of human populations in developing countries and made food supplies more varied, abundant and affordable in the developed world.
In developed countries the new regulatory frameworks provided a measure of environmental protection, curbed the worst excesses of dangerous and polluting industries, and effected profits. As with the tobacco industry the perception of threats to “business as usual” blinded almost all industrialists to the business opportunities offered by reorientation towards genuinely pro-environmental activities.
Business was alarmed but it had learned much from the “Tobacco Wars”and quickly developed new skills and strategies to counter what it saw as unwarranted government interference and profit threatening restraints.
Since the mid seventies business has successfully employed much the same methods as the tobacco industry. This time the scale is orders of magnitude greater, with new refinements and a universal reach. Unprecedented inter-corporate co-operation has enabled far more effective campaigns to be waged by big and small business. Billions have been spent on orchestrated attacks on regulators, governments, green parties, conservationists, scientists, academics, and all or any others perceived as a threat. Many of the 1970's environmental regulations have been rolled back and attempts at new ones watered down or blocked. Effective propaganda and misinformation campaigns, usually supported by compliant media, have ensured sufficient public confusion and doubt over the wisdom or necessity of environmental policies to make governments unwilling or unable to act effectively.
Add comment
If the Carbon Tax is really about climate and alternative energy sources, then why is the solar rebate being phased out?
If the Carbon Tax is really about climate and alternative energy sources, then why is the solar rebate being phased out?
Add comment
Could you please provide an estimate of how much money has been spent by the fossil fuel industry both in Australia and overseas to deny climate change and promote fear and doubt about the science. Also how much money is spent on political lobbying against action on climate change?
Add comment
fossil fuels are a non renewable resource. How many years of usable fossil fuel reserves does the earth have? What would be the effect on climate if all known reserves were used.
There are numerous by products of fossil fuels-plastics, pharmacueticals etc. What alternatives to those by products that we take for granted are available to replace them when reserves are dissipated. For example is there an alternatiove method of plastic manufacture.
Add comment
to those woh wonder what life will be like in the future without oil and natural gas, you should read social history
to those woh wonder what life will be like in the future without oil and natural gas, you should read social history
Add comment
If the carbon tax legislation is passed in Parliament, what will the balance of funding be once the concessions and repayments to compensate are paid out? How can we be absolutely sure the funds will be directed towards renewable energy and not into reducing the deficit as 'long term investment'? How will the funds be distributed between the various renewable energy options?
Add comment
Given the evidence presented by reputable scientists across the world, proving a strong relationship between climate change and carbon deposits, please explain why australian business leaders are not protecting their own interests, and the interests of people world wide by participating in carbon reducing practices. There appears to be little to gain from a dead world with noone to purchase their products.
Add comment
Hi Bob. This is a climate change forum, and that's what I've focused on throughout, while also mentioning some other serious environmental issues. I'm unclear on why you insist on raising animal welfare issues, when there is a wealth of evidence from authoritative sources on the damaging environmental impacts of animal agriculture.
Add comment
Climate Scientists Warn: The End Is Nigh. Leading climate journal 'Scary Climate' will this month publish a new Peer-Reviewed paper confirming what climate scientists have long feared; that the End is now Nigh. Professor Doom of NASA's Climate N' Stuff research division has concluded that the tipping point has now been reached and there is no way humans can prevent the Earth becoming a giant Webber BBQ. "The End is now Nigh, we can't be sure how Nigh, but we do estimate with a 98 % accuracy that the End will be Nigh before Christmas this year", the professor said. When asked to comment on what is the best course of action for humans in face of the coming apocalypse Professor Doom replied, "I recommend 2 parts mescaline, 1 part ketamine and 4 parts vodka. You got a better recommendation?".
Add comment
Lisa! being a "houswife" is no excuse for an endless steam of trite one liners. For my part I believe that the vast majority of qualified scientists in the Australian Academy of Science are right in their assessment that there are real dangers ( & possibly catastrophic changes) from climate change. My concerns are for my children's and grandchildren's future. These scientists could be wrong but what if they are not? The idea that they are all part of some conspiracy to get more research money is puerile and unworthy of anyone serious about our young people's future.
Add comment
This question has been deleted, as it breaches our terms and conditions. See http://oursay.org/privacy-and-terms.
This question has been deleted, as it breaches our terms and conditions. See http://oursay.org/privacy-and-terms.
Add comment
Julia Gillard said there will be no carbon tax under a government i lead. Why is one now being put in. What alternatives did she have to avoid this? Some examples are: Another election? Standing aside as PM? Letting Tony Abbott form government? She says she had no choice, but she did and she chose to put her own political needs ahead of what she promised Australia. What can be done to hold governme ts accountable for their promises. 3 years is a long time to be living with this mob.
Add comment
There is scientific consensus that human induced climate change is occurring, that our emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses are the main cause of global warming over the last 50 years, and that the problem is getting worse. We from wealthier nations, who have gained more than our fair share from the earth, have a greater responsibility to help. And we need to do it now.
Why then, here in Australia, is there not general acceptance of this?
Is it our anti-intellectualism and tradition of cutting down the tall poppies?
Is it the Australian “She’ll be right” ethos?
Ignorance? Laziness? Selfishness?
The consequences of the world community not making changes to bring global warming under control will be devastating – extreme weather events like floods and hurricanes, heatwaves and bushfires, continuing and increasing desertification of agricultural land and acidification of the oceans, species loss, food-chain breakdown, societal breakdown, starvation, wars, disease, death.
We need to act.
Add comment
Charlotte, here's the link:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047711.shtml
Your warnings of impending doom are hysterical. You should calm down. The world IS NOT about to end no matter how much you believe it is. Global temperatures have moved up and down throughout history (that's not just the bit that humans have lived though). A 0.7 degree C increase in global temperatures in 100+ years is well within natural variation. The earth's climate is not so sensitive that a small change in temperature (either up or down) will cause all the catastrophes you list. Look at the graph showing global hurricane intensity and number. We are at a 30-year low. It is grade 2 graph reading.
Add comment
Why is the Fairfax press not investigating both sides of the global warming debate? Nine out of ten articles assume that man is causing global warming, such as those by Paddy Manning. We rely on the press to be sceptical but where is the scepticism? The experts told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, believed by the US, British and Australian governments. The press accepted the word of the experts. Is the same happening with global warming?
Add comment
Is the cost of carbon tax larger than the associated costs of climate change, which brings extreme weather patterns, ie prolonged droughts/ flooding/extreme bush fires / earhquakes as we have seen in the last years?
Add comment
The key issue on carbon being released into the atmosphere by human activity, is the accelerated rate in which this has happened over the past 200 years. Is this true?
The key issue on carbon being released into the atmosphere by human activity, is the accelerated rate in which this has happened over the past 200 years. Is this true?
Add comment
If Australia does not change its current carbon intensive lifestyle now will it miss the chance to become a more efficient economy now and loose out on the long term benefits as a consequence of looking at short term benefits/impacts of carbon action?
Add comment
"The very point of Australia's carbon tax is to reduce global warming"
What? This is the most voted "yeah I agree" question?
I thought the point was to tax the big polluters in an attempt to make them turn to MORE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION so they don't have to pay for carbon emissions. Never have I seen the govt concentrating on "global warming". That is the media's take... and what people have decided to hear in order to question why they have to pay for a new tax, which they don't! The govt did a terrible job at marketing this "tax" - and the people of Australia have done an even worse job at learning the facts about it.
Add comment
In the interests of debate the age must answer the following. Why scientific opinions have more value than others. Why the peer review process prevents bias. Why it is unethical to do nothing just because Australia's actions have a small global impact. What it means that we speak about probability and not cause. Why it is about insuring against risk, just like insuring your house, and so if there is any probability that life as we know it is under threat, doing nothingnothing is lunacy.
Add comment
Do industries have the opportunity to pay less carbon tax? How? If so, what are the current government incentives to aid possible transitions within the workplace?
Do industries have the opportunity to pay less carbon tax? How? If so, what are the current government incentives to aid possible transitions within the workplace?
Add comment
How is climate change related to other social welfare issues, such as poverty, unemployment, health, and the economy in general? In other words, how can protecting our environment (such as, ensuring abundance in species diversity) help the human population in the short term and the long term?
Add comment
How will the carbon tax help the environment and reduce carbon?
How will the carbon tax help the environment and reduce carbon?
Add comment
My understanding of the proposed carbon tax is that in a perfect world, the tax will force carbon creators to reduce their carbon emissions to zero similar to the "azoolum bird" of the 1940s & 50s that flew round in ever decreasing circles until it disappeared up its own rectum in a shower of s**t and feathers. The word 'tax' should not have been used, rather 'levy' or 'fine', descriptions much easier to sell to the Public and much easier for the Public to accept. If we assume that carbon emissions will decrease and the tax receipts drop, my question is:" will the sweetener payments to the Public drop accordingly"? Rob T
Add comment
Climate change denialism is strongly associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks. Who funds these lobbies and think tanks? Any what are the ideals of these think tanks? Moreover if the utterly free market has lead to the ruin of this earth ought government not intervene as we have some value for our nation and planet?
Add comment
When the Victorian and NSW Liberal Governments came to power, in the main they slotted their Shadow Ministers directly into the shadowed portfolios. By this process, the National Party now controls Water portfolios in NSW and Victoria. It appears that the Liberal Party has abdicated any responsibility for water. If the same process were to apply should the Liberal National coalition come to government, this would mean that Barnaby Joyce would be the Minister for Water. This would have the effect of placing control of water across the eastern seaboard into the hands of the National Party and the vested interests which support it. Australia's iconic Murray Darling Basin would be in the sole hands of the National Party. At the 2010 election the Nationals scored 3.73% of the First Preference vote. This does not include Qld's LNP vote of 9.12% which would include Liberal voters. The Greens vote was 11.76%. Do Australians want to give major water resources and an iconic part of Australia's natural heritage into the hands of a rural rump political party?
Add comment
Animal emissions as documented by United Nations: The Long Shadow report, are
the "inconvenient truth" we all must face of animal agribusiness impact on our planet and global warming. Go Vegan for yourself, the planet and the victimized farmed animals.
Add comment
IS THERE A LESSON TO LEARN FROM EASTER ISLAND? I think this is a solid question
and may possibly engender some contemplation as in, it may possibly engender at least a few steps of lateral thinking. It is merely a lack of lateral thinking that is now causing an easter island situation, on planet earth there is no overview from the worker bees in government they merely squabble like fools
it is brain deadening to all who hear it apparently i assume it is a technique used to secure their salarys and also to feed their celebrity hunger they squabble like fools and even use the debate debilitating tool of sarcasm which makes any decent discussion impossible. the ecosystem of the earth must be protected the 5% of the remaining forest of this planet must be left there is nothing more important than this the buildings do not bend with the weather the forests bend with the weather the forests absorb the weather they protect and feed all life including, us.
Add comment
