When Björn Lomborg wrote that Green jobs were overhyped, a visiting European friend agreed and sent me examples of the spreading inanity of the green-tape-jobs-market that has taken over Europe.
Stefan points out that most Green jobs created by building windmills or solar power are short lived. The permanent “green” jobs are, insidiously, the expanding green bureaucracy and police. In Europe, the green-police fine people for putting plastic in a glass recycling bin. They force people to write lists of what’s in their rubbish bags; to use electricity when it suits the wind-generators, and not the people.
The Green-police are self propagating. They unwittingly create problems that then need even more auditing, advising and checking. Green-police closed off the natural drafts in houses, then when people got sick from the fungus, they sent around officials to create artificial airflow to stop “sick building” syndrome. When green bureaucrats demanded everyone use less water (whether they needed to or not) stagnant ponds were created in places that had water to spare, and that then led to the creation of a new army of green-water-specialists to sort out the putrid ponds. In an exponential pattern, the populace was slowing co-opted from productive tasks into the big-government-green-merry-go-round.
Thus the patron class of big-government dependent voters expands, and that of independent free citizens shrinks. And we are all poorer, because of the missed opportunities for all that wasted human talent and labor. — JN
A warning from Europe
If you comply with the European follies this time, your brave soldiers will have fought and died in vain. You will be no longer be free citizens, able to hold the politicians responsible. You will be regarded just as stupid ATMs, just like the Europeans are now.
Dr Lomborg is right, many predictions about green manual jobs in the manufacturing of windmills and solar panels were overhyped. Most jobs are shortlived. Many companies manufacturing renewable energy in Europe pay just the legal minimum wages. They frequently go bankrupt and offer little job security.
The big increase in “green jobs” in the last 20 years in Europe has been in the public sector. A whole new caste of people are working to expand green tape. Green tape is now the reality, and has created millions of new public sector jobs in Europe. Typical green jobs are mainly public sector jobs – enforcing regulation, taxing, and surveillance of people. An ever-increasing tax on carbon will speed up this transformation of society.
Let´s give some examples.
1. My mother-in-law was moving house in 2001, in a small village near the Czech border in former communist East Germany. Since unification, this part of Germany was showered with tax money from western Germany. One day I took nine black sacks of rubbish in my car to the local rubbish heap, which in the communist days was just a rubbish dump surrounded by a rusty fence.
Now there was a three storey office for the staff at the dump, with modern dark mirror glazing. It could as well has been the office of a small IT start-up. When I arrived, I was asked to go into the new office to fill in forms. One form to specify the content of each bag, and each form had three carbon copies, blue, red and yellow. So I filled in 36 forms (including the carbon copies). I did not remember the content of each bag, so I wrote just “Misc. Rubbish”. The officials watching me writing this were satisfied. I asked: “Why the forms? For how many years will they be archived ?”
But nobody knew, and nobody cared. Then I could pass the brand new automated gate and throw the rubbish into the containers. I got rid of the rubbish, but it took me 15 minutes to fill in the forms.
Today, 10 years later, I would have to pay at least 90 Euros, and risk a fine if I did not declared the contents correctly. Now they would inspect each bag.
2. In Germany, in every office or railway station you can see four or five rubbish bins. In an office with four people you can have 20 rubbish bins. I am not joking, this is true!
Many of those bureaucrats have higher salaries than the British prime minister Mr Cameron.
If you have all those rubbish bins, you must make sure people don’t put the rubbish in the wrong bin. Therefore the councils must also have surveillance cameras and inspectors. In the UK, some local councils require people to sort the rubbish into up to nine different bins. Some councils are now enforcing fines to up to £100 if you put waste in the wrong bin. The bin inspectors must be administrated by managers. On top of this you have more senior people setting the strategy, administrating the whole chain, and advising the politicians about climate and green living. Many of those bureaucrats have higher salaries than the British prime minister Mr Cameron. If people think they have been wronged by the authorities, they can bring it to the magistrate’s court, so the petty crime of rubbish in the wrong bin can be argued by barristers in front of judges. These are typical green jobs.
3. The European Emission Trading System has created a whole new class of well paid white collar jobs. The best paid are the emission rights traders and the electricity traders. They work for big banks or electricity generators. Most of them make millions a year (thank you consumers).
Every company in the emission trading system has to be certified and audited. This creates jobs for an army of auditors and inspectors. Two billion reports about emissions are filed every year in the EU. The professional service companies thrive on more regulation and red/green tape.
Trees jungles will now be audited and counted. That’s why KPMG and PwC are so keen to have this system in Australia. KPMG hired the former UN bureaucrat Yvo de Boer as their global lobbyist. He was the man behind the idea of the RED scheme, under which you could pay for and trade emission rights from developing countries. For example, you could pay Indonesian billionaires to “save” their rain forests. So even Indonesian billionaires have green jobs nowadays, dipping into western tax money.
4. Expensive “smart” electricity meters will be the central technology to transform our lives. The old fashion way is to use electricity when you need it. That means that the supply companies have an obligation to supply their customers when they need it. If you want to wash you clothes or run the air conditioner on a hot day, they have to generate the electricity as required. This normally comes from baseload coal-fired plants, supplemented with gas turbines for peak load. Those plants emit a lot of carbon dioxide.
Windpower is the future, but unfortunately it does not work when the wind does not blow. Solar panels work well in daytime, but not when its dark. The whole idea with smart meters is demand management. Because electricity is difficult and expensive to store, the goal is to make consumers use electricity when it is produced, rather than when they it is needed. If you want to use air conditioning on a hot day, it will be very expensive. But if you use it on a windy rainy day, it will be cheap. The same applies to electric cars, which have lithium–ion batteries but relatively low capacity. The use of cars in future will be more like having a sailing boat: if the wind blows, you can drive.
Denmark has built a lot of windpower. Denmark has got a high carbon tax as well as the EU emission trading system and feed-in subsidies for windmills. Some days the wind blows too hard, so the electricity generators have to pay to get rid of the surplus. Fortunately for Denmark, they can export electricity to Norway, that can store it in hydropower dams. The Norwegians can then stop their own production to sell the Danish electricity to their captive customers with a hefty profit. If it blows harder than a gale, the windmills must all suddenly stop in order not to overrev. Then Denmark buys back electricity from Norway for a very high price. Fortunately, Denmark has almost no manufacturing left. Even the windmill manufacturer Vestas Wind has moved most production abroad, because of high manufacturing costs. But Denmark has got one of the biggest public sectors in the world. They are indeed doing well!
the interesting side effect was that many of the tight houses started to rot. People got sick from fungus, and sometimes also from radon gas.
5. Insulation of buildings has created many green jobs. In the 1980s the Scandinavian countries encouraged people to better insulate their homes against the cold winters, and thus save energy. The authorities introduced new building codes. Tightening the houses and reducing drafts did indeed save energy. But the interesting side effect was that many of the tight houses started to rot. People got sick from fungus, and sometimes also from radon gas. So most of those houses had to be repaired and rebuilt once more to get rid of the dangerous fungus, and many houses got mechanical ventilation and heat exchangers to keep the indoor air healthy. Later on this Swedish building code to save energy became an EU-regulation, so these flawed buildings are now mandated all over Europe. To enforce the flawed building code you need bureaucrats. Then you can have an army of building inspectors, insurers, and building engineers to sort out the problems and conduct further research into upgrading the building codes. These are typical green jobs.
6. Twenty five years ago you would never had believed that a cow was indeed a pig. But in fact, cows and sheep are climate pigs, worse than many gas guzzling big SUVs according to environment scientists in the EU. The poor animals are farting methane gas, whose greenhouse effect is 21 times larger than carbon dioxide. So a lot of research money now goes into reducing emissions from animals. There are EU and UN programs about farts from animals, so thousands of engineers and veterinarians are studying the problem. Because the problem seems so serious, in some countries they teach children in school to drink less milk and avoid eating meat. Many more green jobs.
7. Most parts of Europe have sufficient natural drinking water, but some big cities have a problem getting enough fresh water. So the EU introduced a regulation to save water, but it is enforced in northern Europe as well as in Spain and Greece where it is needed. So water consumption in Germany and Sweden is now falling year by year, which created a new problem of stagnant water with thriving bacteria. So there are yet more scientists researching this, and engineers and workers changing the water pipes.
The great transformation of society needs a great surveillance apparatus, to monitor and punish the stupid people who don’t understand what’s best for them. The EU has made this a reality. People there are no longer citizens, but treated simply as stupid ATMs.
The European Union has in less the than twenty years been transformed from a group of sovereign democratic states into a political union that has much in common with the medieval German-Roman feudal state or the former Soviet Union.
The politicians and the bureaucrats in the European Union headquarters in Brussels know that Europe is not doing very well economically because of all the red and green tape. So they try to export what the EU can do best – regulation – to other parts of the world. They are spending billions of taxpayers Euros on propaganda to influence politics in other part of the world. They use the UN, and NGOs such as the WWF, as front organizations to spread the emotional and manipulative message.
As a Swedish tourist to Australia and New Zealand in the last months, I have visited the war memorials from the two great wars last century. It is amazing how many thousands of brave young men gave their lives saving the Europeans from themselves and the dangerous ideologies dreamt up by European intellectuals.
If you comply with the European follies this time, your brave soldiers will have fought and died in vain. You will be no longer be free citizens, able to hold the politicians responsible. You will be regarded just as stupid ATMs, just like the Europeans are now.
Stefan
Swedish born – now living in Switzerland, which is outside the EU.
Lomborg’s commentary in The Australian, 2nd March. “No Windfall in the false promise of green jobs.”
PS: Lomborg doesnt’ always get it right. It’s good to see he stopped the namecalling. My previous post — Lomborg: uses irrational name-calling and denies the evidence
In what are deemed as a decadent “wealthy” developed economies, is it any wonder those who have the capacity choose to dis-engage as much as possible from active involvement in the economy & the tax system?
Sure we need a benevolent government operated social justice system to provide the services & infrastructure to maintain a standard of living, but a burgeoning bureaucracy based on & administering a fraud is a cancer on society. Furthering the medical analogy, if the healthy cells give up under stress the organism will wither & die & simply become sustenance for other life forms.
10
No kidding – this will not survive as it will inevitably collapse under it’s own inefficient weight, and sooner rather than later.
10
“Sure we need a benevolent government operated social justice system to provide the services & infrastructure to maintain a standard of living,” – arrant garbage – there is no such thing as a benelovent government.
Governments evaporate the value created by productive people. Government needs to be reduced to the absolute minimum necessary to maintain the rule of law.
Social justice is just another name for theft. Who has the first call on the fruits of your labour pattoh – you or those who need to take from you because they haven’t bothered to create any value themselves.
10
On the subject of the Fallen, how would the RSL feel if their administration perceived that the government of the day was moving to cede our economic sovereignty & control of our resources to a global entity such as the UN under various protocols & treaties?
Does it give you confidence to know that your rights & standard of living could be dictated by face-less un –answerable bureaucrats (subject to human frailties) in a global entity?
10
Jo
Australia already has a bloated public sector. Right Jab sums up Green policy.
We need to challenge strongly the push for Green jobs. In a meeting yesterday both bureaucrats (ecologists) made it clear they will vote Greens in upcoming election and hope for increased Green vote across the board. The ideology has become self perpetuating and this element is what we have to fight. One way to do this is to challenge radical elements like Marrickville MayorFiona Byrne who boycotts China and Israel. Ironically Liberals preferences to Labor will ensure her defeat but one has to wonder if this will happen.
10
Here they are!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq58zS4_jvM
10
You Aussies had better jump on these ideas good and hard. I can’t comment about what happens on the continent (of Europe) but here in England it has, in some areas, reached the ridiculous excesses described above. We question it, but get no satisfactory answers, and we seem to be in a spiral of increasing lunacy in all “green” matters.
Our last Prime Minister, Brown, promised (as if his promises were worth anything) 800,000 new jobs in “green” industries in the UK, but always avoided answering the question as to what exactly these jobs would be – but we knew in reality that all of them would be names on a public payroll – not in gainful employment as we used to say.
I’ve caught up with last week’s interview on Melbourne radio – Bolt and Price with the EU carbon trading “expert” Jill Duggan. If any of you heard it you know now what we’re having to contend with. She implied that people in Europe accept the increase in energy prices resulting from carbon taxes. In England most people don’t know that they’re paying them. There are five different taxes in the UK (indirect, hidden and not all called taxes) and people assume that they’re being overcharged by rapacious energy companies. Calculations show that the average addition to family outgoings for “green” energy is around Stlg.600 – 750 = Au$900 – 1200 per annum.
There seems to be a lot more awareness in Australia than here, and one of the biggest culprits is the BBC which doesn’t report fully on these matters and plays down anything negative in “green” and AGW matters.
10
Green taxes to pay for green regulators; buying the rope to hang yourself.
10
Graeme From Melbourne @2
True; it was the excessive weight of bureaucracy that eventually caused the collapse of communism.
Unfortunately it took about 50 years for that to happen.
On the positive side democratic countries still have the ability to throw off the yoke, when the stupidity of it all dawns them.
Hopefully people will wake up to this before it causes the total collapse of their economies.
10
In South Australia, they simply have a 10 cent deposit on cans and bottles – this is enough to stop people from littering and I suspect encourages recycling.
The free market rules!
Cheers,
Speedy
10
I’m surprised you are quoting Lomborg, he would consider nearly all that is written on this blog site as unadulterated garbage. Perhaps you should quote some of his other opinions on climate change. You might just be cherry-picking otherwise!
[When he get’s it right, he’s right, when he’s wrong — Lomborg: uses irrational name-calling and denies the evidence. Yes, I’ve busted him for that. He seems to have managed to avoid the namecalling this time.
10
And another thing. Paying kickbacks to your kronies and killing off industry is what made the Zimbawean dollar what it is today. The green experiment has failed in Europe and now it is a face-saving exercise to disengage from dodgey carbon trading schemes and expensive “green” energy subsidies.
10
This is one of many examples of government just being government.
Government DESIGNS its policies to fail so they can do more of the same in an ever aggrandizing cycle. At the same time, they blame the victims of their policies for the failure and never bother to question their malignant policies nor themselves.
By their reasoning, or whatever substitutes for it, they were successful. The policy failed as planned and they were able to grow government intrusion into the lives and livelihood of its citizens. Citizens who, by the way, are rapidly being reduced to the status of feudal serfs in thrall to faceless unaccountable lifetime employed bureaucrats who are “only doing their job”.
Tell me again why we need government and what part of government is actually doing the job that we need it to do. Whatever that part is, it is a minute fraction of what they are now doing to us (not for us) and is becoming an even smaller fraction as we speak.
10
The British sewage systems were designed, back in Victorian times, on the basis that there would be plenty of water flowing through them to keep the debris moving. Now we have been forced to fit smaller cisterns to our toilets using about half the previous amount of water and urged to have showers rather than baths, is it surprising that we now have more blocked sewers and far more smell?
Yet another example of the “Law of Unintended Consequences”, which is becoming quite familiar these days.
10
Ah, but if it was a free-market the price for cans and bottles would be set by the market, with different recyclers offering different prices for different commodities (empty cans/bottles), as it is the price is still rbitrarily set by government, the 10c is really more of a subsidy than a fair and free price.
Agree about the effect on littering though.
10
I remember some wag hilariously commented that the way to solve the space-junk problem would be to put a 10cent recycling deposit on it, armies of hobos armed with coathangers would soon clean up the near earth orbits as easily as they had cleared the Adelaide streets of rubbish:)
10
If Julia seeks to alienate herself from skeptics she really couldn’t do better:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/gillard-says-a-carbon-price-must-be-set-this-year-or-it-will-never-happen-20110316-1bxea.html
I quote the statement at the end of the article:
Therefore every single skeptical scientist is, in her opinion, disreputable. Way to go Joooolya!
10
I can’t wait to see what the warmists who visit this site have to say about THIS article. I hardly ever see them actually address the article they comment under. note the revious article. None of them actually had anything to say about why it would be a good idea to tax our breath for ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFIT. Still waiting…..
10
Bulldust:
There’s nothing like having your opponents tell you, ‘keep trying – you have almost won’
10
Bulldust:@16
Just another example of the nauseating sanctimony of the left. If you don’t agree with them you are just wrong.
10
I know its OT but Gillard in her maiden speech at Unleashed:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45244.html
Spot the lies; generally she relies on Garnaut who is critiqued here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/garnaut%e2%80%99s-second-update-sceptics-are-the-white-swans/comment-page-1/#comment-476880
10
why aren’t our Unions fighting the carbon tax?
14 March: WSJ: Stephen Power: EPA Tangles With New Critic: Labor
Several unions with strong influence in key states are demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency soften new regulations aimed at pollution associated with coal-fired power plants. Their contention: Roughly half a dozen rules expected to roll out within the next two years could put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and damage the party’s 2012 election prospects…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704076804576180384094409812.html
if we think we’ll take a financial hit, imagine what it will do to the developing countries? the UN Green Climate Fund is all about more bureaucracy at the UN, money for NGOs, money for putting expensive solar and wind power in poor countries, all at great cost to the poor and with no benefit to the “CLIMATE”:
16 March: Mining Weekly: Terence Creamer: SA moves to finalise carbon tax this year, despite global loose ends
Head of tax policy Cecil Morden indicated that a revised document should be presented to Cabinet by September and enter into the Parliamentary process by November. However, the process may be accelerated to enable lawmakers to assess the policy ahead of the 17th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP17, which will take place in Durban from November 28 to December 9…
National Treasury also dismissed calls for earmarking the carbon tax revenues for green investments, with Momoniat arguing that the allocation of revenue was pursued, through the Budget process, in an an accountable and transparent manner. The aim, he stressed was not a “sinister plot” to garner billions in additional revenue, but rather to change behaviour – it was also possible that other taxes could be lowered to ensure that the carbon tax was revenue neutral…
Morden refused to be drawn on how much revenue would be collected through the imposition of the new tax, saying only that the National Treasury would only make such calculations once the scheme had been fully designed and modelled. In a recent exercise, Deloitte calculated that government could collect an additional R82,5-billion, based on a price of R165/t of CO2e.
He also rejected the notion that electricity prices, which could rise by over 25% a year between 2010 and 2015, were sufficient to ensure a change in consumption patterns…
But Morden warned that South Africa could not afford to adopt a wait-and-see approach, notwithstanding the lack of progress on reaching a globally binding accord. He also cautioned that a number of countries were already considering border tax adjustment policies, which could result in the imposition of taxes on products imported from countries not participating in global emissions reduction agreements…
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/sa-moves-to-finalise-carbon-tax-this-year-despite-global-loose-ends-2011-03-16-1
10
Joolya is a lying weasel. The lies just keep getting worse.
Oh, and Graeme from Melbourne needs to read some history from the 1850’s about what society was like with no social safety net. Not a very pleasant place unless you were part of the aristocracy.
A little moderation all around would be a good thing.
10
Looks like Gillard is either genuinely spooked, or playing political games by seeming to distance herself from the Greens.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bob-brown-says-by-calling-the-greens-extreme-the-pm-is-just-trying-to-appear-different/story-e6frg6xf-1226023131780
IMO the word ‘extreme’ doesn’t go nearly far enough. Lunatic fringe with an utterly and irrationally skewed worldview, ultimately, Gaia worshippers who are humanity haters (hey, an eco ‘final solution’ such as mass starvation by limiting agricultural efficiencies and water will take care of that population issue they all seem so worried about and so much less icky than gas chambers as they could put it down to eco-collateral damage, without getting their hands dirty – directly that is). Oh, where was I? That’s right, lunatics hell-bent on crippling the economy is more like it. Since their cherished wish is to take us back to a pre-industrial economy, may all Green voters be the very first to lose their jobs, their homes and all the conveniences of a modern economy!
Problem is, too many of them are bureaucrats who are always good at causing the loss of productivity and other peoples jobs, while securing their own.
10
I once toured the BMW factory in Munich. We found out that there worker satisfaction was very high and their turnover rate very low. They were well paid and building cars they were proud of for export all over the world. I know the history of this company and it’s many interventions by the state of Bavaria but now it is thriving independent car company. It’s funny how just letting people build what they want and selling to people who freely want to buy it can create a massive industry with huge wealth effects for all the employees and diplomats involved. People are dreaming if they think this sort of industry can be created by mandating that people build things others don’t want to buy for industries who only exist by government edict. How many soviet era companies exist today? None. How many of the nationalized UK companies still exist today – virtually none. Who would bet on GM still existing in anything other than name only in ten years? But still governments are fixated with creating industries out of thin air.
10
OT – early this morning it was reported that the UN Atomic Agency was concerned that it SUSPECTED that the water in the 4th reactor MAY have evaporated exposing the rods thus giving off radiation.
By lunchtime ABC news was saying ” Nuclear crisis deepens, Agency says water has evaporated from reactor 4 and the rods are exposed giving off intense radiation”
I can’t believe how much unadulterated speculation is being reported as fact by the fear-mongers at the ABC!!
10
Garnaut has come out suggesting a “carbon tax” between $20 and $30 per tonne:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/garnaut-calls-for-carbon-tax-of-up-to-30-a-tonne-20110317-1by6p.html
He advocates protection of trade exposed energy-intensive industries (in a complete turnaround from his previous position) and a drop in fuel excise to match the new tax.
If both of these are implemented teh Feds will only collect a tiny fraction of the $10 billion+ per year I originally spoke of a couple days ago. Much like the bold health reform we were supposed to have it is starting to look like the proposed “carbon tax” is going to be a tokenistic effort.
No Doubt Labor will try to get this past the Greens with the promise of ratcheting up the tax in future years.
10
Bulldust most of the takings were being redistributed to lower and middle income earners… so instead a reduction in fuel excise will (1) be politiclly popular (2) tangible (3) not really cost anything as it is just a different way of redistributing $$
10
janama @ 26:
Every MSM outlet is pandering to the nuclear fear craze. Yes, it is tragic what has happened there, but so far I believe there have been 2 deaths attributed to the power station accidents. It is sickening to watch the newscasters salivating at the pospect of a big nuclear disaster. They have no shame.
If only Mr Sheen could pull a few more outrageous stunts, or Britney get jailed again … then maybe the media would get sidetracked for a little while. I am not sure whether I rate MSM above or below politicians and used car salesmen ATM. actually that is unfair … used car salesmen actually contribute to the economy.
10
MattB:
Oh I know… but the Greens will spin the 90% concessions as a major subsidy of the “high polluters.” Cue Bob the ironically named Brown in 3…2…1…
10
lmwd: @24
I think Gillard actually bought the b/s that the Orstraylyan people really want action on climate change, because the Canberra Press Gallery said they did and we want one because its the “right thing to do”
Please. GIVE ME A BUCKET.
She’s been as deluded as Brown, I mean just have a read of this gem from your link from Brown.
This guy is incorrigible.
He actually thinks his party is “extremely popular” and that Gillard and Co should adopt “more green policies”.
What alternate world is this clown living in?
He’s a case study in the delusional effects of dope smoking that’s for sure…
10
This is classic at The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/australian-greens-use-japan-crisis-to-refuel-nuclear-power-debate/story-fn59niix-1226023048133
Clearly unhappy that they have no nuclear industry to attack in Australia, the Aussie Greens are now calling for the global industry to be auditted.
I am speechless… I think the brush with the balance of power in Australia has sent the blood rushing to their heads.
10
Lots spin being spun:
Global warming became climate change
Climate change is now pollution emissions
The latest I heard was “be geen by redusing your carbon foot-print”!!
Now my primary school days ~ 40-odd years ago taught me all about photosynthesis and how plants used sun energy for food and then expired CO2 during the day and O2 at night. Greenhouses were there to increase CO2 content and improve plant growth rates, less water requirement, more sub- run off, etc.
Surely INCREASING my carbon-foot print is better for greener planet! Especially with more people and more demand for food.
10
Loaded Dog @ 31
I’m counting down to the NSW election and just hoping that the people show the Greens just how popular the are, NOT. Fingers x’d.
10
Cutting the rate of the fuel excise to adjust will not happen. Apart from meaning no hang ( until the rate is increased). It also means a shortfall in taxes which means either cutbacks (unlikely) or it means carbon dioxide tax going into consolidated revenue. Which we’ve been “promised” wouldn’t happen!
10
Commenting on Gillard’s speech (ref. cohenite’s link @ 21).
She follows the usual train of flawed logic common to all alarmists viz. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’, levels have risen since pre-industrial levels, so has the global temperature (allegedly by ~0.7°C), ergo the added CO2 must be the sole cause.
Facts like the temperature had been steadily rising since the LIA, long before human CO2 emissions could possibly have been a factor (around 1945), or that the LIA was about as cold a period as any during this interglacial, that the current global temperature is in no way unusual and hasn’t moved for 15 years despite ever-increasing CO2 concentration, would pass through that head without stopping.
And anyway 98% of scientists, the Department of Climate Change, the CSIRO and Tim Flannery all agree and that’s good enough for her besides the extra revenue would be quite useful to balance the budget and provide a bit over the buy the next election.
The new buzz-word now is reform, a word which usually means to change something in order to improve it.
David Hetherington, director of Per Capita (sort of GetUp for grownups) uses “reform” 16 times in his piece in the Australian today.
He is encouraged that now there is to be a debate, trying to dress it up as an advance in our democracy, overlooking the fact that the ‘carbon tax’ is to be introduced before anyone has a chance to vote on the issue.
Reform has joined climate change, CO2 pollution and the rest as a deliberately deceptive misnomer.
As Bob Carter wrote in a recent Quadrant essay,”…control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate…”.
10
Bulldust: @29
The situation at the nuclear plant must be close to being completely under control. Because I’ve noticed the media has now swapped from stirring up panic, to reporting on the panic that they have stirred up.(Complete with a ‘shock horror how could people be so irrational’)
I tuned into the 7:30 report special on the situation in Japan the other night hoping to get an overall view of the extent of the damage and how well Japan was coping (any reporting away from the nuclear facility is fairly vague)
However instead of seeing an in-depth report on the effect of the earthquake and tidal wave, along with the current status of recovery efforts.I found myself looking at images of Hiroshima and listening to an attack on the integrity of the company that owns the nuclear facility (I lasted less than a minute)
10
Bulldust@32
Yes I would like to see Mr Ludnam tell the French they need to shutdown their nuclear power industry.Good luck with that Scott best do it from Australia I understand the French can be very excitable at times.:-)
10
“The Italian Embassy in Tokyo carried out a radiation level reading from the Embassy roof on March 16. The radiation levels typically recorded in Rome are three times higher that recorded in Tokyo on Wednesday.”
Kind of puts things in perspective doesn’t?
I read yesterday that an Australian teacher in Japan were so unnerved by the panic mongering of the Australian media (fed to him by his brother-in-law in Australia) that he was contemplating physically assaulting a colleague and stealing his car so that he could escape.
10
Don’t knock the change from “global warming” to “climate change” and now to “climate disruption”. I look forward to having a Minister for Climate Disruption in the government.
Julia will win the debate though, she has $59M to spend on swinging opinion, and as usual, there will be one side lying and one side trying to bring out the truth.
(Sorry to be so off topic but I wanted to get that off my chest today, listening to that senile old fool Garnaut babbling about the conflict between knowledge and ignorance.)
10
Dear oh dear Jo, if you have the evidence that can debunk all this supporting evidence (your “killer blows” are like being flogged with a warm lettuce) then why on earth don’t you publish it in a reputable peer reviewed journal? Then the mainstream might listen, otherwise it’s just howling into the wind.
10
lmwd @ 34:
Unfortunately you’ll probably find the Greens vote will go up. People hate the Labor stooges, but many of them hate the Libs too, so that leaves the Greens as an alternate/protest vote.
10
July:
I am sure Jo will get back to you in her usual incisive manner, but you completely misunderstand her role here. She is seeking to educate lay folk based upon the peer reviewed work already in circulation. I have never seen her blog that she wishes to add to the peer reviewed literature. She is not about reinventing the wheel, but simply explaining how it works.
10
What a cop out (you said it “Bulldust”), if she had the faintest idea of what she was talking about she would be able to publish and as I, and many others have said before, win herself a Nobel prize. Fact is she can’t because it wouldn’t stand a moments scrutiny by any competent climate scientist. Like others who use one ice core as a proxy for global temp; that’s junk science and wouldn’t/didn’t pass any competent review.
10
July:
You simply don’t get it… carping on repeating your line when you disingenuously chose to misunderstand the obvious is troll-like behaviour.
10
Garnaut is losing the plot:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9028322/taxpayers-better-off-under-ets/
Here is the choice quote:
So Garnaut clearly believes that Australia can change the global climate by dropping a $20-30 per tonne tax on CO2. That will result in a global average temperature reduction of 0.00000… yeah whateveh. Pointless even writing a number down, it would not be measurable. The poor chap has left all sense and reason behind.
10
July why doesn’t Flannery publish? Why not Al Gore? Thus site is for discussion of existing issues and papers. If you don’t understand that I’m not sure what you are hoping to publish. Oh, and by the way there are plenty of published papers that overturn the cagw hypothesis. Google will help you out here.
I suppose your next comment will suggest we go and read realclimate for some unbiased science?
10
I apologise if this has already been published here.
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Christy.pdf
10
July-
When they told you you have a room temperature IQ you shouldn’t have been congratulating yourself on the improvement- they were talking Celsius. (Sorry- my attempt at humour- again sorry).
But seriously folx- does anyone with a room temperature or better IQ believe- the oceans are turning acid
corals won’t live in warm water
“carbon pollution”
the “hockey stick”
base-load solar power ??
Help me out here folx. There are other scare stories which can be debated like “the hottest year since…” or “less/more rainfall” etc, but some of the lies are simply too overblown to be believable by even the most credulous believer. Shouldn’t there be some attempt to catalogue and emphasise the grossest examples, like the above, to make even the believers feel a bit ridiculous, and make fencesitters realise they are being lied to?
10
manfred; try this:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
And for something nastier, noting especially the videos using children:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39750.html
10
Thanx for that Cohenite- lots there to go on with- I wish I had a worthwhile internet connection to look at that lot. (Vidoes are well beyond a vodafone mobile connection which drops out about every three minutes or so, except after 2.00AM)
How do can they live in a normal society, believing everything they are told like that? Some lies are clearly too small and remote to bother checking, but some are so clearly big and unbelievable as to be risible, yet they believe? Is there a term for it?
10
If anyone thought that this was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet as Simon talks about how environmentalists seem to want to believe that the end of the world is nigh because they think the Japan Earthquake was caused by global warming.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/03/acm-comment-the-retreat-of-reason/
This is one thing I really hope isn’t true.
10
We’ve had dual-flush toilets in Oz now for years. Only had a problem with one, which I use only for peeing anyway. Always smelled a bit iffy, but I use the full flush now and everything’s fine.
Doesn’t cost much more either, since almost all of the water bill is service charge (fixed) not actual water volume used.
Saves a heap on Blue Duck.
10
Is Juliar GillBrown getting cold feet at least with her support of the Greens?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bob-brown-says-by-calling-the-greens-extreme-the-pm-is-just-trying-to-appear-different/story-e6frg6xf-1226023131780
10
MattB@#28
Once the bureaucracy has been fed it’s share of the new tax there won’t be that much left to distribute to lower or middle income workers. A carbon tax (or ETS) is an inefficient tax (unlike GST or VAT). As the carbon tax is raised from its initial electorally ‘palatable’ levels to higher levels this will just feed the ever-growing bureaucracy required to regulate it. The recent scams in the European Carbon trading market will only ensure even greater bureaucracy in Europe to try to avoid re-occurrence.
In Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy a big reason they had to be bailed out by the richer countries of the EU is that their public sectors’ had continually grown over the years to a point where it was simply unsustainable (the ‘GFC’ was the prick that popped the balloon).
For an example closer to home (for us Aussies), we had the NSW State Labor Government raking in a windfall in stamp duty taxes during the recent property booms but now they are still broke and the public hospital system is a disgrace. The only sector that did well during this time was the NSW Bureaucracy. They will always employ another bureaucrat before they add a hospital bed or employ an additional nurse or doctor.
A caveat on all this is the Australian government might still wish to return 100 cents in every carbon tax dollar collected but will go into ever increasing debt to finance the required bureaucracy. Unfortunately that just defers the problem (paying for the bureaucracy) to future generations or deferring investment in greener technologies for example.
10
Great idea July. Got any reputable ones in mind, or were you just thinking she should try publishing in one of your…”special”…journals?
You know, the ones that engage in that “redefined” and “special” form of peer review.
10
scaper @ 48
That is top stuff. John Christy is about the most highly credentialed climate scientist in the business. Check out his CV. Further he is still at the coalface of satellite data collection and is a genuine practicing scientist. Many of the others are merely academics and IPCC neophytes.
One can argue, pro and con, till the cows come home, about the positive feedbacks from a theoretical basis and on compromised data. That’s all good fun for academics but has little to do with scientific research. Christy and others are collecting real world data that is showing the model projections, which perversely are based on an increasingly less credible hypothesis, do not match with how the real climate behaves. That is devastating news for the alarmist position.
If one reads, the IPCC reports it soon becomes evident that its whole rationale for investigating human CO2 emissions is that it assumes, without any evidence, that extreme weather events are on the increase and can only be due primarily to anthropogenic causes. The IPCC has a small allowance for natural climate variability but supposed human causes are its main focus.
Christy and others have shown that there is no evidence that there has been any trend in extreme weather events post the IR and particularly no increase over the last century or so. He does a sterling job of showing that evidence less view is unscientific and thus it destroys the only rationale for blaming human activity for so called “climate change”.
My view is this is a devastating area to show that a belief in CAGW and even a more benign AGW has, to date, no credible data that indicates there has been any climate change, beyond a long history of severe weather events which were, are and will be due to internal and external natural climate variability.
Also interesting work on the nature of the feedbacks. If however it cannot be shown that there has been a trend in more severe weather events post IR the CAGW position is unsustainable on that basis alone.
10
Mike W @ 15
Fair point – the South Australian bottle and can deposit scheme isn’t really a free market but you must agree that it’s better than the Stassi-style methods used in Europe. On the other hand, you could (maybe) consider the guys scavenging the cans as (very) minor entrepreneurs!
Thanks,
Speedy
10
Bulldust @ 43
Why not suggest to July that he/she read up the ClimateGate emails and observe how the
peerpal review process is manipulated by the insiders of climate science? That would answer the question easily enough.Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Jo,
Politicians in power want to generate a legacy of being remembered for their achievements. Unfortunately, they do not look at projecting what cause it will do in the future, nor where it will effect.
Prices for most items are set by markets due to any products composition and freight to move it.
Global competition was suppose to generate on open market but regulations by governments and subsidies have generated monopolies that have destroyed competition and put pricing in the hands of markets. Governments keep coming up with “new programs” that is suppose to stimulate the economies but that fails due to where this stimulation is aimed at.
Currently food prices are sky rocketing due to the competition of have and have not. With more and more global events, these prices will be uncontrollable. Especially when governments keep slapping in more taxes and user fees.
Where is the incentive to draw in new companies when every country is trying to draw in these same companies.
There is a great deal of bad technology being pushed for the greater good but they do not work and are far more environmentally unfriendly and hard on rare resources.
I do not see a very rosy future with this current path. A great deal of hardship for low income and fixed income will create a desperate society for just basic survival.
10
The general thrust and tenor of recent posts here is about the futility of Australia taking action to combat climate change. And of course, this is obviously true. Without major international cooperation, any efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will fail.
The problem is that while the whole world suffers (at least according to the majority of the scientific community working in the field) if the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps increasing, any country that decides not to reduce its emissions stands to gain, by having cheaper power.
In the past, we seem to have coped with this sort of problem by making some once public resource into private property, so that the owner(s) had a strong motivation to protect it. So rather than hunt wild (unowned) game on unowned land, we now have farmers who own land and own the cattle and sheep that live on their land. This works better. Before this, while no doubt everyone realised that killing too many deer was a bad idea for the common good, managing to kill a deer yourself was very good for your personal good (and blow you Jack). So private property solved the problem, because now the owner carefully manages their herd, in their own self interest – which turns out to be in everyone’s interest.
The idea that you could own land, must have seemed very strange to begin with. No doubt a lot of people fought and died over this rather dramatic change. It would have been very difficult to develop the institutions necessary to support the ownership of land. Exactly what power was the land owner granted? Did others have the right to walk across your land to get somewhere more quickly? You would have needed courts to settle disputes, and sets of rules. Despite all this beauracracy, it was still going to be a better system than the one it replaced.
We are now at the point in history where we need to see what institutions the world needs to be sustainable. You might not like the idea of change – but it has to come. If not to tackle climate change, then to tackle some other world wide problem (deforestation, over fishing…).
So how about some creative thinking guys – stop with the pollie bashing, and be part of the solution.
10
The solution to what?
10
The solution to the problem that political power in Western Democracies is limited. There is a reason why none of the Totalitarian countries are pushing this — they already have complete power. They don’t need to (further) cripple their countries to achieve it.
10
Here’s an interesting point I picked up recently. My municipality is starting to get people to sort garbage into separate bags. The neighboring municipality is going to let people keep throwing everything in one bin. The reason is that they say they have machines that can do a better job of sorting. I know nothing about those machines, but considering the subject of this post, they may of course be potentially threatening the jobs of some of those green police types.
If I remember correctly, representatives of this municipality are defending their choice of strategy by saying it improves people’s awareness of what they throw out. So lucky me, I’m having my mind forcibly improved.
10
I see that JULY in posts #11,41 and 44,offers nothing of value in the thread.
What about answering what she wrote HERE,instead of waiting for it to show up in some “qualified” publications.
Since you said NOTHING about what Jo wrote in her BLOG entry in itself in any detail,your comments can be easily deleted with absolutely no loss.
Here in this BLOG (I have to point this out again and again to people like you),you can make a reasoned counterpoint to what she wrote.I am sure you have something to tell us…..
Snicker
10
John Brookes:
Right with you until the end of that post there mate. What problem exactly? Without China, India, the US etc taking significant action, none of whom will, our tax gesture would be an act of abject futility. We are sending plenty of jobs to China as it is, partly because they like to have their currency coupled to the sinking US dollar. Add another tax on all industry (which is what a tax on energy would be) and you are just sending more jobs off-shore. The only reason we have a thriving economy, especially in WA, is because we have abundant resources required by China. That includes boatloads of coal from NSW and QLD.
10
John Brookes
Unlike Bulldust I was not with you right to the end. Your third sentence assumes CO2 needs reducing.
Wow that’s a big statement to make and impossible to prove without parroting IPCC propaganda! Besides, it’s not about deciding not to at all, it’s about deciding to when doing so will send us down the gurgler if we continue to brand CO2 as the villain.
One could equally suggest the same from yourself wrt sceptical science bashing! If you were prepared to think outside the square you would be more prepared to listen to reason on CO2 and it’s relationship with Climate change/warming, CAGW. This blog is far more than pollie bashing and the real solution includes enlightening guys like yourself. Sadly sometimes the horse will not drink!
10
Now here’s something to read. Christopher C Horner’s Power Grab Power Grab exposes the Obama Administrations dream to organise society with Green jobs and Cap and trade. essential reading for Australians before they drink too much Brown/Gillard Kool Aid.
10
Jo @62
The manufactured problem of course.
How can you have any “creative thinking” unless you first manufacture a problem; and how else do you rally the dull to action?
10
“Sadly sometimes the horse will not drink!”
Or think.
10
@John Brookes #61 says..
I dislike characterising you in the following manner John but you leave me no choice.
You are disassociated from reality. Typical really, your ilk (Juliar, Bob the Red Brown et al) thinks ‘having conversations’ or ‘lets get together n sing kumbaya’ will solve problems. A utopian unreal world perpetuated by arty farty types who frequent ABC and SBS (Oz left wing media) lectures and ‘conversations’.
How is it that you can’t see the reality that getting any group of people together actually slows down decision making? The red (green, blue, black)tape often stops decisions from being made.
Do I really need to detail the glowing example of the United Nations type gatherings to get my point across to you?
Take the very current crisis in Libya. How many meetings/sittings so far and NO DECISION? People are suffering and dying NOW. What about Kosovo? nothing happened whilst thousands were being butchered until Clinton said enough is enough. Rwanda? Cambodia? HAH!!! WHAT ABOUT THE FU$%#NG UNFCCC COP MEETINGS FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS JOHN??? ANY GLOBE WIDE BINDING DECISIONS???
Wake up and smell the roses. The pollution dogging the then developing western nations wasn’t cleaned up because of any ‘group hugs’. They were cleaned up because of decisions made by individuals. It was a ground up scenario, not top down. And these decisions were made possible because of the individuals financial independence. Do you think the Indian fakir wants to bathe in a filthy Ganges?
Imagining that a bunch of kaftan wearing tongue pierced greenies will be able to make global decisions that the world will be happy to adhere to is delusional, naive and pig ignorant of the world and realpolitik.
But don’t take my word for it, do a little internet search and study the history of our civilization. You will find very very few global agreement on anything.
If you don’t want to study, do the following contemporary thought experiment. AGW has divided a small nation of 22mill for many years now. If however, the decision was left up to the electorate of Adam Bandt (Green polly)for instance, you may get a clear majority. If was left up to the folk of Byron Bay, you may get 80% agreement. If Nimbin, 95% agreement. If you left it up to Bob the Red Brown and his Greens party alone, you’d have 100% agreement.
So no John, a world government, which is effectively what you are espousing, will not work. In fact nothing will get done under that scenario and I’m highly surprised you think it will work.
p.s. If in the future a commentor suggests that this whole AGW scam is about world governance, I expect you won’t be dissing them, seen as that’s what you espouse.
10
Baa
A friend sent me this today.
There’s no denying the UN Weather Weapons Treaty 1977 but try searching on UN One World Government and there literally hundreds of conspiracy theories.
John Brookes?
10
John Brookes @ 62
Wow, do you guys have a book of analogies to roll out? Is there a greenpeace publication on ‘obfuscating climate change facts by talking in abstract analogies’?
But John, these private property laws people supposedly fought and died over – I assume you discuss tribal societies, because the concept of private property is as old as recorded history. These laws already have plenty of scope for claiming damages and/or seeking relief when other peoples actions impinge on our own health and private property. If you dump effluent upriver, I have recouse. If you release toxic chemicals and kill my livestock, I can sue. If you dump chemicals and poison the watertable, you can expect a class action from my fellow citizens and I. I can even stop you having a noisy party to all hours by calling the cops. There are even international treaties on this so canadian factories can’t poison american rivers. So there is no new paradigm to enter – the courts and rules are already on the books.
Here’s where it gets sticky for the co2 haters. In order to get a legal result, you’ve got to provide evidence of harm in a court, using the rules of evidence and procedure. You can’t walk in and talk in generalities or implore a judge and jury to think of the children, or implore that they be the leading edge of a new paradigm. You have to provide solid, concrete evidence that co2 is causing real problems that cannot be refuted or disproven or cast into doubt by the opposing team. You have to be able to prove real harm with real cause. You could start by showing where someone has died or suffered economic harm solely or largely because of increased co2 emissions. There doesn’t need to be any new taxes or rules, and ‘big oil’, shock jocks and deniers aren’t to blame because these rules existed long before these propaganda terms. You can get the evil co2 emitters shut down tomorrow if your case is strong and your evidence stands up to real scrutiny. Just turn up in court with your evidence and prove your point beyond doubt. Money is not an issue, Greenpeace have an army of lawyers and a pile of cash, and are spoiling for this fight. The only thing standing between the co2 phobic and total victory is a complete lack of real-world evidence.
By the way, how is that lawsuit by Micronesia against the Czech energy company going?
10
baa humbug you asked of Johnnie boy
You had already answered your question.
Further to your great comment (that I completely agree with) all these meetings are held because no individual has got the BALLS to make a decision. A lousy decision can always be blamed collectively on the committee.
Maybe we should use the “signal” and summon Action Item Man. And he’ll save the day!
But then again, maybe not…..
10
Baa and Loaded Dog
My mentor in the 80’s was a very successful businessman. I’m particularly fond of these two quotes.
Both quotes have profound implications to this thread and it will be most interesting to see how they are interpreted.
10
I’m sure Mr Brookes writes his “stuff’ simply to goad someone and elicit extreme responses. Most of it is not worth replying to IMO.
Sure read the comment, but then ignore it and move on.
10
Most informative post from Bob Tisdale on OHC. I have to admit that as with much of Bob’s work, I have to read it several times.
Link
It’s at WUWT as well. Looks like as more ARGO data comes in, more of Trenberth’s heat disappears.
Probably into his already febrile brain!
10
Mark @77.
loved this link.
10
Speedy in 10,
Its not all beer and skittles in the NT the state government put a price on recycled silver bladders of wine flasks. After a few days the government fund went broke.
With any luck the green revolution will do the same.
10
John in 61,
Sorry John but i have to join the chorus here and ask what the hell are you talking about?
You are either a profound fool or part of the problem, if you are a profound fool then surely after all the bullshit about how AGW is gonna gitcha the latest revelation that scientists are researching ways to make cows fart less must surely turn on that tiny part of your brain still capable of rational thought and lead you to question why?
On the other hand you may just be part of the problem and if so get the f*&^%$k out of my way.
10
I live in a 20 apartment block in Hamburg Germany, about 2100 hours on a Friday evening I opened the door of my apartment to find 3 environment police complete with pistols one with a machine pistol and all with bullet proof vests, the problem? someone had put 5kg of plastic wrap in the paper bin.
There were 12 police in the building until 0400 hours.
The results, although searching (no warrants, they don’t need them ) all the apartments and breaking into 4 were the occupants were absent no plastic was found, all garbage containers in the houses were emptied and checked for ‘illegal’ objects (nothing)
Costs
a 250 euro fine to all, at a meeting on Saturday it was decided to fence off our 11 different colored bins ( each color has its own product ) this was done at a cost of 3,850 euros,
The moral of this story ? don’t take your rubbish out at night and forget the key, to leave the rubbish unattended will cost you 500 euros.
10
“The whole idea with smart meters is demand management”
I think that is wrong, this sounds more like supply managment to me.
10
George Tetley #81.
Depressing how history repeats itself even in the same country, isn’t it? Clearly there had to be a “dobber” and that’s what facilitates all types of fascism.
10
George #81. Can you get in touch with me? Please check your email…
Jo
10
“Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” — Ronald Reagan
In words from a song from the hippie generation, “When will they ever learn?”
10
George in 81,
Thank you for your post, if ever the John Brookes of this world want proof that this TAX is nothing more than a power grab you have just supplied it. I feel sorry for you having to live in such a way and it saddens me that this great country (Oz) will soon be similar. George do you think it is time they dropped the charade and started waering brown shirts rather than police uniforms?
All the best
Crakar
10