Australia (orange line second from the bottom) has a lower energy intensity of use than many countries (see below for more information). On this graph. Japan is the lowest. The world average is the dark purple line. China is so high it is off the scale.
It’s part of the spin game that almost every statistic is spun-into-oblivion, and here, thanks to Mike Wilson, is the analysis of why “per capita” statistics are meaningless.
Ross Garnaut (and dozens of others) claim Australia has a high emissions intensity of energy use. Yet Mike Wilson shows below that Australia’s energy intensity is not just declining, it’s below the world average, and below Canada, South Africa, China and the US.
The Garnaut Review:
“Relative to other OECD countries, Australia’s high emissions are mainly the result of the high emissions intensity of energy use, rather than the high energy intensity of the economy or exceptionally high per capita income. Transport emissions are not dissimilar to those of other developed countries. Australia’s per capita agricultural emissions are among the highest in the world, especially because of the large numbers of sheep and cattle.
The high emissions intensity of energy use in Australia is mainly the result of our reliance on coal for electricity. The difference between Australia and other countries is a recent phenomenon: the average emissions intensity of primary energy supply for Australia and the OECD was similar in 1971.” — Garnaut Climate Change Review
Mike Wilson has found the statistics that expose the myth that Australian is a high energy intensity nation. We may use a lot of energy, but we produce a lot of goods, our intensity of energy use is lower than most. Garnaut and others quote figures “per capita”, but that’s misleading if the nation in question has a small population that produces a lot of goods for the rest of the world, and especially so if those particular items are high energy creations.
Australia’s GDP is growing faster than our energy use, so even though our energy use has doubled since the mid 1970’s, Australia is using that energy more efficiently and producing more with it. Compared with the rest of the world Australia is doing very well. China may run at a low energy use “per capita”, but it’s energy use is not as effective as ours. In other words, if we push high energy manufacturing into China, it will use more energy to get the same product, and so produce more greenhouse gas in the process. At the moment China uses three or four times as much energy as Australia does when compared on a GDP basis. — JN
——————————–
Australia’s Invisible Energy Trade
Guest Post by Mike Wilson (aka Bulldust)
There are three reasons that claims that Australia is a massive per capita consumer of energy, are irrelevant.
Australians are:
- below average energy consumers on an energy intensity basis (i.e. energy used to generate GDP);
- massive net exporters of energy goods; and
- massive net exporters of energy embodied in non-energy goods.
- Australia produces largely energy intensive goods for export, and therefore taxing the energy sources makes our domestic producers less competitive on the world market. The inevitable result is that multinational companies will go offshore for energy intensive projects.
- Australia is not the end user of much of the energy she consumes … much of it is destined for overseas consumers. The moral imperative for “carbon” taxation is therefore largely misplaced. If there were no overseas demand for our energy intensive goods we would not be consuming the associated energy in the first place which created the emissions
Australia’s Total Energy Intensity has been declining since the 1970’s.
Australia vs the world
People keep carping on about Australia being a high consumer of energy on a per capita basis. Well here’s Australia’s energy IU plotted against a selection of other countries:
Australian Energy Intensity Use is low compared to many other countries
…
It is a tad difficult to make out the trends when China dominates the graphic (note the downward trend in China’s energy IU mentioned earlier). So here is a scaled up version of the same graph without the Chinese trend line:
By removing China it’s possible to see just how low Australian Energy Intensity Use is.
That puts things in perspective, no? We are below average, and I mean that in the best possible way … compared to the average for all the countries. So, not only are we below average when it comes to energy consumption relative to GDP generation, but much of that energy ends up going overseas, as demonstrated previously. (If that doesn’t dispel the myth that we are intensive energy consumers in Australia, I have no idea what will.)
…
Australia exports Energy
Australia’s trade is going gangbusters. Australia exported merchandise (does not include services) to the tune of $231 billion in 2010, over $102 billion of which came from WA. On the flipside Australia imported $210 billion, while WA only imported $26 billion. If it wasn’t for WA we’d be running a massive trade deficit in Australia, instead we have a decent-sized trade surplus.
But what is it Australia sends overseas, and what is it we import? We export predominantly ores, metal, energy fuels and agricultural goods (iron ore $49b, coal $43b, gold $14b, petroleum $10b, natural gas $9b, etc). We import mostly highly manufactured items, with petroleum being the main exception (petroleum $16b, cars $16b, petroleum oils $10b, medicaments $8b, telecoms equipment $8b, gold $7b etc).
Now the key question … how much energy is embodied in the exports and imports from Australia? It becomes clear, after looking at the disaggregated manufacturing industry graphs that Australia predominantly exports energy intensive goods, but imports predominantly goods that are less energy intensive. In other words we send a lot of energy overseas congealed into other forms such as aluminium metal, copper, LNG etc. The amount we get back in highly manufactured goods is dwarfed by the amounts we send out.
The policy relevance
Australia a massive net exporter of energy products, but we are also a massive net energy exporter in terms of energy embodied in other goods (primarily metals and petroleum products). So when politicians seek to penalize us for our energy consumption, you must first have them stare these facts in the face and admit that much of this energy consumption is by proxy for consumers in other countries … not so much for our benefit.
I would highly recommend reading Tony Abbott’s piece in The Australian as he touches on many of the points I have covered.
The full PDF Report: Australia’s Invisible Energy Trade.
(The report also has a breakdown of the different manufacturing sectors and their energy use. Yes, mining and metal products use a lot of energy).
—————————————-
Thanks to Mike for all his work.
Jo
Is the link to the PDF, intended to take me to an expanded report. When I click on the link I only get a repeat of a graph in the posted story.
10
For more than three years now I have been trying to dispel this bogus myth of per capita CO2 emissions.
For so long now those people pushing this agenda have pointed to that as an accusing finger, when it is a completely false argument.
This Post is from November of 2009, and explains it succinctly.
That Bogus Per Capita CO2 Emissions Comparison Again Raises Its Ugly Head
It’s not because we are environmental vandals, but because we here in Australia, every one of us, has access to a constant and reliable supply of electrical power in every aspect of our lives, while in China, almost a Billion people have no access whatsoever to any electricity at all at a household level, let alone having access to a constant and reliable supply.
There’s only two ways that will change.
Either we allow them to reach the standard that we already have, or we go back and join them as they are now.
Tony.
10
Bob, thanks. I’ve fixed those darn links. How did that happen?
The PDF file:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/wilson-mike/australian-energy-trade.pdf
10
I write solely to comment on the worth of considerations of ‘per capita domestic energy use’. Please note that I have no desire and no intention to intrude into Australian domestic politics.
Energy use is a function of industrialisation and prosperity.
Industrialised countries use much energy to power their industries: e.g. everybody benefits from the enormous energy consumption of an aluminium smelting works that a non-industrial society does not need.
Very poor people cannot afford to buy energy (e.g. electricity) so can only use the energy they obtain by collecting and burning fire-wood.
People with some wealth spend it on activities which use energy; e.g. refrigerating food, obtaining medical care, building houses instead of mud hut, etc..
People with much wealth spend it on luxuries that use energy; e.g. holidays, travel, more than basic clothing, etc..
Increased energy efficiency increases energy use by releasing funds that the energy users spend on additional activities which also use energy. This effect is known as the ‘Jevons Paradox’ after the economist who first discovered it in the nineteenth century.
Therefore,
the only ways to reduce ‘energy use per capita’ are
1. to reduce industrial activity
and
2. to increase poverty.
These two facts are inescapeable: they are merely the way things are and must be. They are independent of any politics, belief system, ideology and/ or technology options.
Any person – politician or not – is delusional if he or she pretends ‘energy use per capita’ can be reduced other than by reducing industrialisation and/or increasing poverty.
However, a country can hide its energy use per capita by exporting an industry (e.g. a manufacturing plant) to another country. The energy used by that industry can then be accounted as being energy used by the country that imported the industy. One effect of this export of industrial activity is transfer of future wealth from the country that exported the industry to the country which imported it.
Richard
10
Jo, can you change “that” to “than” in the caption of the top graph?
Many thanks.
10
Jo
Once again an excellent post. How interesting that Peter Smith touches on the subject from a different perspective.
Smith talks about jobs moving offshore where cheaper labour/process makes them more economical.
It’s just dawned on me why Gillards Green jobs push won’t work for Australia….the mines can’t be moved to another country!
10
At risk of possibly being rebuffed — why are we debating these things when it is so bloody obvious that CO2 just plain doesn’t matter?
10
Australia’s per capita emissions only add up when you include coal exports.
Which is how they came up with the original figures.
Somewhat ironically while simultaneously taxing carbon emissions in Australia, the government will not only ‘not’ tax exports will actually increase them.
But when you’re dealing with a religion facts and logic are relevant.
10
Roy Hogue:
Not only is the science unsettled, the justification for a carbon dioxide tax is also misplaced. Can’t hurt to attack this on the policy front, because there are plenty of people who still believe the IPCC dogma.
10
Off Topic:
The propagandists, will be out in force tomorrow. Watch Julia, bring the media spotlight on these little outings.
Say Yes Australia June 5 Rally Details:
Sydney: Prince Alfred Park, 11am
Melbourne: Outside the State Library, 11am
Adelaide: Victoria Square, 11am
Brisbane: Riverstage, 1pm
Perth: Perth Cultural centre – Wetlands stage, 11am
Hobart: Franklin Square, 11am
Canberra: Regatta Point (near the bridge), 1.30pm
May they all enjoy their evangelical experience.
10
Bulldust @9,
Fair point. But I wonder if it’s any harder to convince people that there simply is no real evidence of a problem than it is to leave them with the assumption that there is a problem and then argue that to do anything about it is bad policy. I’m especially bothered by arguing that CO2 emissions are dropping without anyone taking action as a reason to do nothing. I believe you that it’s true but it leaves the real problem unaddressed.
As far as the science being unsettled — the whole AGW thing seems to exist only in theory and computer models. And even if there is warming how will we tell if it’s GHGs or natural variation? That’s a question that probably can’t ever be settled.
10
I never said CO2 emissions are dropping … they would be increasing in Australia. The emissions intensity is probably dropping, because our GDP grows faster than our energy consumption does. Hence the ratio of (Energy use):GDP is dropping, which would lead us to assume that CO2 emissions relative to GDP would be dropping as well (not that I quantified that ratio).
Energy consumption in Australia will continue to increase as long as our population and/or standard of living (GDP per capita) don’t shrink, as others said above 🙂 The only way emissions can be reduced in absolute terms is by a radical shift in energy generation which is completely ridiculous given the cost of the renewable alternatives. The size of the problem is best visualised with that spaghetti diagram I am so fond of linking:
http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/mapping/files/australian_energy_flows_2006-07.pdf
When you take that diagram, the costs of renewables (which I linked a couple days ago – MCMPR papers) and my paper above… it is obvious that Australia is in no position to do anything serious about reducing CO2 emissions in absolute terms. It is folly to even suggest it.
Which leads us back to why this is being done anyway? The $20ish per tonne “carbon price” will change nothing. No single genrator will even switch from cheap coal to more expensive gas at that price. You need a price of at least $40 per tonne to achieve that shift, which is politically unpalatable.
Ultimate conclusion: The “carbon price” is simply a revenue raising exercise, and the “saving the planet” meme is simply the smoke and mirrors to sell it to the ignorant voters.
10
PS> I agree with you Roy, naturally. When the smoke settles, scientists will be able to get back to what they are supposed to be doing, which is science and not propoganda mongering.
10
PPS> Thanks for the heads up Bob… I might have to wander down and ask some inconvenient questions 🙂
10
Bulldust/Jo
Thanks for an excellent article which again exposes the utterings of Ross Garnaut & Co. for what they are – lies.
Ironically, the recent decision by Xtrata to close down its Australian copper processing operations is achieving the green objectives. This is because exporting the unprocessed concentrates to the market will reduce energy consumption in Australia by several megawatt years and reduce our per-capita energy intensity.
Unfortunately it will also put another ~1000 Australian workers on the employment scrap heap; and the smelting and refining may well be done in countries where the environmental controls and energy efficiencies are lower than in Australia.
Can someone explain the benefits of this to a non-economist type like me?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
So we use our energy very efficiently to generate GDP, but we also use more per capita than any other country? How can you reconcile this apparent contradiction?
It depends on how you make your GDP doesn’t it. If you are busy smelting steel, making fertilizer (no not the CO2 sort), and manufacturing things, you’ll use a lot of energy for every bit of GDP. If you make your GDP by thinking, growing stuff and digging stuff out of the ground, you don’t use as much energy per unit of GDP.
So in Australia we don’t do the energy intensive things to generate our GDP, and our per capita income is very high. Meanwhile, China, the world’s factory, does the energy intensive things to generate its GDP.
10
John Brookes,
it’s a difficult thing to try and explain this correctly.
As China rapidly industrialises, the benefits of that are flowing through to the vast population.
In Australia, 38% of all electrical power being generated goes to the Residential sector, so that every household in Australia has access to a constant and reliable supply of that electrical power.
In China barely 8% of all power being generated goes to the residential sector.
So, in effect the same amount of generated power in both China and Australia goes to the residential sector.
The problem with that is that the population of China is 63 times that of Australia.
As more and more power plants get constructed in China, the benefits of that in the way of access to that electrical power at that household level flow through to those people.
Currently, STILL almost 1 billion people in China have no electrical power connected to where they live.
For the sake of reducing CO2 emissions, should we stop that expansion of power plant construction in China, denying those people what we now take for granted as a staple of life.
Then, in the same breath to reduce our own emissions, should we go back to a situation where we are in the same position as they are right now.
Tony.
10
[…] There are three reasons that claims that Australia is a massive per capita consumer of energy, are irrelevant. More » […]
10
TonyOz, well argued mate; I don’t think you’ll convince Brookesy; he now doubt is rejoicing at the latest news about the scarcity of sceptics:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-sceptics-endangered-study-20110603-1fjo0.html
10
Our emissions are high per capita but not highest in the world, and we are behind the USA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
This doesn’t stop the pollies saying we are the highest, but then politicians lie as a matter of course. It is how the world is…
10
cohenite@18
I’ve only seen the newspaper article, not an analysis of the questions/answers.
But I’m sure it’s just another bullshit stitch-up job by Fairfax & co.
Oh, and ANU “climate scientists” are claiming death-threat emails today. Just like CRU did some time ago. We never saw any documentary proof of that, did we? Or any prosecutions.
10
Is anyone else cynical about the timing of this article – Climate Scientists receiving death threats
Sounds bad doesn’t it. They’ve even been moving people to safer locations (would that be RealClimate?)
If this is happening, it must stop. Threats are for Team Catastrafaria, not the sceptic camp.
But then, right at the end of the article :
Funny how this sort of thing comes up within a week of the latest Tax us more Propaganda push?
10
Like they say in computer gaming (re. the threats):
I wouldn’t put it past these jokers to make up any number of things to position themselves in the supposed moral high ground.
I just love this quote:
We shouldn’t have to put up with climate “scientists” suckling at the teat on our tax dollars and making up scaremongering BS to try and justify a Government tax. I seem to remember another head of state in France some years ago who decided to tax the bejeebus out of the populace … I think a few of the elite leaders lost their heads in that one. It seems politicians don’t pay much attention to mistakes made throughout history. We live in more civilised times, it is true, but I am not surprised that some people are taking a more aggressive stance on the issue.
Perhaps if the scientists stayed in their field instead of spouting garbage way beyond the scope of their expertise then they wouldn’t be receiving nasty emails … just saying.
10
PS> Tp be clear, Steffen and Garnaut are both from the ANU Climate Institute … so three guesses who’s receiving the threats (no prizes).
10
These so called “death threats” are no doubt as credible as the ones that tony WINDBAG windor supposedly received !
In other words nothing more than Lies and Propaganda !
10
Re: cohenite (18),
Here’s a link to that sober interpretation of the survey.
10
Speedy (15) I don’t think Garnaut is knowingly lying, I think he is simply senile. He isn’t even aware of his environmental vandalism in PNG because he thinks it must be someone else’s doing, or any minor misdoings by a man of his high standing don’t matter anyway. Great men after all shouldn’t be judged by the standards which apply to the rest of us.
I believe his capacity for logic is gone. His support for renewable energy demonstrates his loss of contact with reality. I imagine he will soon disappear from public life.
( An alternative theory- which I don’t accept- is the powerful mantra of his formative years “only Nixon could go to China”. An environmental vandal talking about climate change is not just a hypocrite but seriously concerned.)
10
gnome
I think Garnaut is a shifty character – even this article from 3 years ago identifies his shortcommings. http://newmatilda.com/2008/02/25/who-ross-garnaut%3F (Interesting comments in this also)
He doesn’t now, and never has been held responsible for his mistakes (especially in PNG).
He’s a clever manipulator of people and money as his life experience has proven. He would even refuse to acknowledge this excellent post by Mike Wilson (aka Bulldust).
10
Great work, Mike Wilson.
Thank you for putting the Great Big Per Capita Lie to rest. Another one bites the bulldust…;-)
* * *
Crikey, I’m so sick of being lied to by OUR government, by OUR ABC, by pretentious (and often fake) experts…and now a bloody actress (whom I once respected.)
I want to believe that we live in a sane country, with a sane government, an honest government which is trying to do its best. With a taxpayer funded national broadcaster which really strives to honestly inform the Australian people about all matters fairly. I want believe in our democracy and the fair dinkum nature of our national conversation. I want to trust that ALL Australians are honestly striving for the best possible future for our nation as a WHOLE. Of course, we will disagree! That’s what democracy is about, but, ultimately, we are all on the same side. Right????
I want to be able to relax, get on with my life and trust that our country and my family’s future and all Australians are in good hands, because those hands are their OWN hands!
But since the climate debate hotted up a few years ago my trust in the honesty, rationality and goodwill of our national polity and our academic institutions has been in slow decline. I thought it had hit rock bottom last year with the absolute collapse of any rational reasoning behind a “carbon pollution” tax. I reckoned that honest pollies and fair dinkum Aussie academics would soon get up to speed on the science and the global economics then quietly step back from the brink of national economic self-harm. I was wrong.
I no longer believe that all of us are honest or fair or rational, or even simply love our country. No longer is there a unified national Australian society which shares the same goals while disagreeing on the means… We have been divided into an elitist, self-interested “Us” and a bogan “Them.” “Us” being the wise, rich, worldly, beautiful and fashionable who control the media and our national institutions. “Them” being the majority, hoi polloi, the rest of us, greedy, dumb bogans all, the culturally disenfranchised, scrabbling for a living…
Our elites hate us. We embarrass them. There is the scent of malice in the air. The opposition leader is shown as a sub-human ape in TV adverts. They sneer at any idea which doesn’t fit their political correct version of reality. They hate science and rational logic. They hate dissent and debate. They hate ambition, hard work and merit-based reward.
The only tool of rhetoric persuasion our elites have left is the Orwellian inversion of truth combined with memory holes.
Skeptics run scare campaigns, not climate fearmongers. Skeptics hate, Alarmists love. Truth is false. Heads they win, tails we lose. Religion has no place in policy debate until it does. Cooling is warming. drought, snow, big wets, storms and all foul weather are all caused by AGW. Good weather isn’t climate, bad weather is. The only cure is more government and less freedom. Parliament can command fine weather for us all if only we surrender to them the sheer POWER necessary to so. For to control the Earth’s climate our rulers must be empowered as Gods. More taxes and less freedom. Austerity for us and living high on our tax money for them. Us versus them. It’s a zero sum game. They’re entitled to steal, we’re morally required to surrender… Or else. The threat is always there… Or else…The planet will DIE.
Death threats made on climate scientists? A Freudian slip? More inversion of truth propaganda to hide the fact that a “‘carbon pollution” tax is a death threat on Australia’s future. Just like Tony Abbott’s “scare” campaign against the climate scare campaign. Inversion of truth. Our government and the ABC have so committed their entire being to a fabricated reality that nothing they say, no matter how tangential can escape being part of the great mendacious gestalt they have created. To tell the truth has become the ultimate heresy in Australia. The elite have no clothes.
Are we really past the day when our democracy was strong and we all worked together for a better Australia? A very dark political climate change is occurring. I’m no longer confident for our future. I’m afraid. As a student of history I know what could come next if we don’t all stand up tall and make our voices heard now. Speak up now—shout the truth from the rooftops—or you may well be forced to forever to keep your peace!
10
Wes George: #28
Great stuff, Wes. While reading it, I had the anthem from Les Miserables running through my head – how did you do that?
10
So sue me!
10
it is truly farcical to see the ANU climate scientists received death threats stories all over the MSM – do a search to see what i mean. now one or some are being RELOCATED! HELLOOOOOOOOOO!
anyway, it’s a ploy that has been attempted in the past as a meme –
6 July 2010: Change.org: Jess Leber: For Climate Scientists, Death Threats Come With The Job
When a steady stream of vitriolic hate is directed at a whole pack of prominent scientists whenever they dare venture beyond obscure journals, I think this line is surely crossed…
The Guardian in the U.K. has compiled some of this hate mail, much of it directed at scientists whose private email exchanges were published by unknown hackers last year…
“The effect on me has been tremendous,” Stanford University scientist Stephen Schneider told The Guardian. “Some of these people are mentally imbalanced. They are invariably gun-toting rightwingers. What do I do? Learn to shoot a Magnum? Wear a bullet-proof jacket?”…
http://news.change.org/stories/for-climate-scientists-death-threats-come-with-the-job
but it didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.
just as farcical is the lineup of aspiring presidents amongst the american republicans – romney, christie etc – who are “coming out” for CAGW. romney is turnbull, US-style, yet whilst republican voters online seem to be responding with it’s time to say bye bye romney, they don’t appear to get romney is spruiking on behalf of the financial sector, and has no interesst whatsoever in science or even the politics of the matter.
btw re the morgan poll thread – i simply don’t buy that australians are evenly split on CAGW, and they are certainly not evenly split on the commodifying of carbon dioxide. polls are a funny thing.
10
As a BSc I have normally believed the reports of research results.
Recently I have found myself treating everything that comes out of any of our universities, & particularly the ANU just another bit of propaganda. It is not possible to believe that highly educated professional people can not have any doubt regarding much of the garbage coming out of climate science. If they will not voice those doubts, they show a total lack of respect for those providing their funding, the public.
I can not help but assume that academic solidarity is much stronger than even that displayed by unions such as the builders labourers federation members.
I now find I distrust anything coming out of academia, treating it as doubtful, probably propaganda, until proven otherwise.
It is doubtful I will live long enough to regain that trust, & now believe every cent spent on these places is just money wasted.
Well done “scientists”.
.
10
Madjak@21
You mentioned something about interesting timing with the alleged death threats. Check this out from the SMH last week. Pity little Nemo, y`all, he will get eaten due to climate change;
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/reef-fish-face-new-climate-threat-20110601-1fg6e.html
But it sounds a lot like they may be referring to a more than 2-year-old paper…
https://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/nemo-could-get-lost-in-acidifying-seawater/
If so, what would be the point of re-hashing old news…right now…?
10
Bulldust @12,
I sincerely hope that Australia’s standard of living continues to increase. I’ve no doubt that the population will as well. 🙂
A nation’s net worth is its greatest asset. It’s because the U.S. is still so very wealthy that we’re not any worse off than we are. We’ve been hit hard and it’s caused a lot of trouble. But we’re still open for business because we could absorb the losses. Never let anyone tell you that wealth is anything but good. Only the misuse of it is bad.
I guess I’m just an old romantic but back a while when Jo wrote about the “sun burnt land” (I hope I remember it right) I sensed the same feeling I get when I see the Stars and Stripes waving in the breeze, or was in Yosemite, or stood staring in awe down into the Grand Canyon. I see your patriotism, your anger at dishonesty, your desire to get your country back on track. And it touches me. You are us. We are you. So if it means anything, I’ve found myself caring deeply about Australia.
Keep up the fight!
10
You are so right Hasbeen @ #32.
Here is yet more socio-political spin being given the acadaemic treatment, for some air of authority. This one being presented at the Brisbane South Bank on 16 June. It looks like being prepared at great public expense.
Public Risk Perceptions, Understandings, and Responses to Climate Change in Australia and Great Britain: Interim Report.
and it’s only the interimn…
Isn’t it amazing how the application of acadaemic methods is often enough to beat most normal people into submission and to just accepting that – it must be right.
It seems particularly interesting where people might show signs of disagreeing with the ‘underlying science’ , that’s just dismissed as ignorance. The whole exercise is predicated on the ‘underlying science’ being unquestionably right of course.
Joe average doesn’t need 86 pages to say that it’s all b*!!5&;t though. That’s just the Acadaemic way.
10
Roy Hogue:
Having lived in both countries (my Masters was from the University of Arizona) and being married to a New Yorker, I still keep my eyes on developments across the pond. At least you guys realise “it’s the economy, stupid”, and you are focusing on the debt issues over there. I doubt the American people would have much tolerance for an emissions tax/market of any kind with the other economic woes at the momment.
The US is battered and bruised right now, but it will never go down without a fight. Obama is a one-termer and he knows it. Like our Rudd he turned out to be more hype than substance.
At least the level of debate between US politicans is superior to what we experience here. You may find that hard to believe, but if you watch “question time” in our Parliament you’ll see what I mean. Sure, it can be entertaining, but it’s a circus which has nothing to do with sensible policy-making.
10
Bulldust,
Well…it is most of the time.
I used to watch the similar Q&A in the British Parliament when I could get it on CSPAN. I know what you mean. It was high comedy. Since it was televised it was always about making points with the voters. Same in your Parliament I’ll bet.
10
Roy Hogue:
At #38 you say;
With respect, I think you need to know the British Parliament discriminates between assessing the policies and assessing the Ministers who will apply the policies.
The policies are mostly refined by negotiations outside the Chambers (i.e. Commons and Lords) of Parliament, and this is why most debates of policies are so poorly attended within the Chambers. Attendance at debates is much higher – and the debates have substance – when the negotiations fail to achieve a ‘stitch-up’.
Each week each Senior Minister is subjected to Questions (Qs). This includes the Prime Minister (PM) who is subjected to Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) at noon each Wednesday when Parliament is in Session. The purpose of PMQs is to put the PM under pressure and to assess his performance under stress as a method to demonstrate whether he/she is up to the job: a PM who does badly at PMQs does not last long. And one way for a PM to fail at PMQs is to fail to present the Government’s case in a manner which would appeal to voters.
So, the “comedy” you saw was pure theatre and is intended to be so. It is not about policy: it is all about the person who is being put under pressure. Policy is dealt with elsewhere and elsewhen.
This is very different from the US political system where the personalities who are Government Ministers are not deliberately challenged by Congress.
I hope this explanation helps understanding so this debate can get back to its subject of Australian enery intensity.
Richard
10
Hasbeen @ 33
I understand where you are coming from.
Having my daily glance throught the new threads on WUWT I find the “definitive proof”
you are looking for to back up your comments
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/04/study-based-on-two-fish-sample-size-challenges-to-australias-climate-comission-go-unanswered/#more-40677
10
Richard,
This is not personal so please don’t take it that way. But that same Parliament has put your country into a hell of a mess.
I don’t say that gleefully but rather, sadly. You deserve much better. And I’m not laughing at your problems, not one bit.
10
This is not good, scientists receiving death threats!!
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/death-threats-to-scientists-20110604-1fm4i.html
10
Sky News opened it’s 10am bulletin with a live cross to Simon Sheikh at say yes rally, all the usual lies, not many there as yet.
10
I plan to watch Bolt and head out to see the Perth rally. I have to walk up that way to get up to Bunnings anyway. Need an aerator for one of our taps. You know the little things that help reduce water use and save the environment… the irony. And yes, I plan to walk to Bunnings which is 5km away. I needed the exercise anyway.
Of course the exercise will make me exhale more CO2 than sitting at home would have done 😀
10
Thanks Bulldust. I enjoyed reading your analysis as I always enjoy reading your comments.
Re the death threats. When the police are officially informed and evidence is handed over, then I’ll believe this. Until that point it is just another strategy for painting critical voices as dangerous.
There are always going to be people who take things a little too far. I remember listening to Lindzen talking about a sceptical scientist who had received threats and whose house burned down in very mysterious circumstances…..
I think we are in for a rough ride as it seems to me the pace is really picking up and the propaganda is coming thick and fast. This is the battle to influence all those undecideds and even the article saying there has been research, which suggests we sceptics are losing in the numbers stake, is all part of it. It’s trying to influence on the heard basis. Most people want to think they are part of a majority. They are attacking the sceptical position from every angle and it is about reducing our credibility – like Gillard calling us “cranks”, which would have included the likes of Carter, Lindzen, Evans, Franks, Spencer, Ball……
This is becoming about winning, for the sake of winning, to save face. Joolya is in “the fyeit of her lyef”. This isn’t about the climate/environment or even the taxes, but immediate political survival. If Labor loses the next election, which at this point looks likely, the potential of whole climate scare for social engineering and monetary gain will be over as the Coalition will implement interim policy that is more easily undone in the future and in the meantime sit back for a bit and let the climate do its thing – cool and demonstrate the alarmism around warming as false.
Billions of $’s, careers and status are all at stake. Using the sporting metaphor, normally the team that resorts to dodgy tactics knows they can’t win on merit but hope the refs have been paid off adequately (corrupted) or will just not see the dirty tactics. The refs in our case are the media (which is a little depressing). We can expect the game to get nastier!
10
Bulldust@44
Noticed Bolt couldn’t get even one of the “Say Yes” fraudsters to appear on the Bolt Report today. The Get Up rep who was slated to appear, found something else to do.
10
This is just me being silly, but I think it would be great if someone invented a mouth wash that reacted with co2, so as we exhaled all the co2 turned a bright orange colour. It might just make the point that carbom monoxide is present in nature, not just a by-product of industry.
10
Gee!
What with
the alleged beat up ofthe death threats, andthe beat up ofthe skeptics becoming a diminishing minority, I, er, guess that’s it then.We just need to roll over and
have our tummies tickledplay dead.I mean, after all, these guys in Government know what’s best for us.
We’re just ‘rockin the boat’ so to speak.
Tony.
10
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/australian-national-university-scientists-moved-to-safe-location-after-threats/story-e6frg6nf-1226069184389
Death threats are intolerable and indefensible. Period.
So is the way that the ANU is thuggishly manipulating the demented expressions of a few sick people as a propaganda weapon to smear the entire sceptical community. Period.
The death threats obviously come from mentally diminished losers. That’s their excuse. Using it as an agitprop smear on rational scepticism coming from our nations most powerful university timed to incite mob outrage in this weekend’s Say Yes rally is malicious, pre-meditated and abominable abuse of authority and power. What’s ANU’s and the ABC’s excuse?
Duh. Why did the ANU take this information to the ABC rather than the AFP? If the threats are credible, why didn’t someone at the university pick up the nearest phone and call for police help, ASAP.
Instead of calling the AFP, the university organized a public relations campaign utilizing the powers of our state-owned national broadcaster to announce at the top of every hour for the last two days that climate skeptics in a concerted effort to stop the “release of climate data” and thwart public debate are issuing death threats to climate scientists.
Instead of a police investigation of criminal conduct the ANU chose to use the allegation to manufacture a smear as a delivery vehicle for the latest Big Lie—that skeptics want to suppress climate data and thwart fair debate… It’s cynical and brutal propaganda transparently timed to whip up some good old fashion lynch-mob passion at the Say Yes rallies today.
The ANU and the ABC are employing the ultimate rhetorical tool of Orwellian thuggery: Inversion of truth. CAGW skeptics have been struggling for years for all the data to be released and for a fair dinkum public forum debate. ABC and the ANU could snap their fingers tomorrow and make it happen on prime time TV, but they don’t dare go there. We all know that a fair “logical” public debate and a transparent review of the science is the last thing that this government or the ANU or the ABC are prepared to engage in. Instead we get propaganda, actresses, kangaroo experts, smears, rap songs, drum circles, just STFU and Say Yes to Senselessness rallies… anything but a rational, properly moderated, public debate of both sides of the issue in a prime time forum.
I totally agree. But the disingenuous ANU VC Prof. Young should tell it to the eco-mob his university is purposely agitating with smears and lies about climate scepticism this weekend.
If the death threats are credible the international eco/leftist climate fear movement is to blame for long ago creating an atmosphere of intolerance, oppression and thuggery.
It wasn’t Big Coal that spent millions of dollars to hired a world-class film crew, directors, writers, special effects team and celebrity actors to make an advert where school children who dare to question climate orthodoxy are blown to bloody bits by their school teacher. It wasn’t Andrew Bolt who called for the suspension of civil liberties and imprisonment of those whom he disagrees with, it was Clive Hamilton on the ABC.
It wasn’t the chairman of BHP who called for acts of illegal civil disobedience as a proper way to expression one’s views on climate policy; it was Al Gore and James Hansen, the head of NASA. Of course, when Al and Jim got their civil disobedience—the liberation of the CRU emails, which revealed the greatest scientific fraud in modern times—they were Shocked! and Outraged! at the crime which they compared to terrorism.
The defining trait of eco/leftists, including academic climate alarmists, (other than intellectual bankruptcy and their penchant for authoritarian thuggery) is their unconscious and reflexive hypocrisy.
It’s hilarious, if pathetic, to watch climate alarmists with lifetime tenure in powerful institutions backed by our state-funded national broadcaster, half a dozen federal ministries and the Prime Minister wail that they are hapless victims of abusive twitters from a couple of morons, then try to beat it up as a global conspiracy to suppress data and debate. And all cynically timed to incite the very kind of irrational hatred in today’s Say Yes rallies they pretend to stand firmly against!
Uh-huh. More Orwellian inversion of the truth. To simple hold the rational opinion that the CAGW hypothesis is false would be career suicide for a climate-related researcher at the ANU or the CSIRO or the BoM or a dozen other national, state-funded institutions in Australia. If you are not a card-carrying member of the Church of Climate Alarmism you WILL be purged, comrade.
So excuse me—as a member of an oppressed and threatened intellectual minority—if I don’t dilute my beer with tears for our oppressors.
10
Gavin posted a link to the Canberra Times article yesterday about ‘death threats to climate scientists’ on this thread http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/05/the-carbon-tax-all-style-no-substance/#comments
and I having heard about the article a little while before responded
thanks for that gavin, just for interest I had googled ‘death threats to climate scientists’ and if you do the same you’ll see there’s even been a doc on it by Clive Hamilton and then there’s this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats
here’s more about the 5 part series by Clive Hamilton
http://www.ecoshock.org/labels/Australia.html
a para from that article:
Clive Hamilton is a Professor of Public Ethics, supported by Australian National University and the University of Melbourne. Previously, he founded and ran a progressive think tank called the Australia Institute.
I don’t recall anything coming out of what seems to be numerous allegations
so … a mystery
Just from memory from my googling the first ‘death threats to climate scientists’ allegations came shortly after Climategate
but as I say I don’t recall any charges emanating from what appears to be numerous allegations
10
o/t but Go Federer!
10
for temperature enthusiasts a new type of anomalie
Non-climatic anomalies in BoM temperature anomaly maps
June 5th, 2011 by Warwick Hughes
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1029#more-1029
10
Just checked the Sky website for news on how well the say yes rallies were attended. Headline say thousands attend, photo doesnt look like much of a crowd and I cant get the video to run. Is this just a glitch or are they covering for a poor turnout.
10
On Sky multi choice are currently running a channel just on the say yes rallies. It makes one sick of the coverage these propandaist get.
10
Meanwhile, on planet catastrafaria, the let we the annointed tax you more for no reason campaign continues:
Greg Combet warns of assets in danger from climate change due to sea level rise
No Greg, the only thing at risk is your parties alliance with the eco loons.
10
I attended the Adelaide rally. My estimate of the crowd was 2000, give or take a couple of hundred. I also reckon up to half who attended were only there out of curiosity, because there certainly was not a big “yes” response when required by the MC, someone whose name sounded like Catherine Ziegler.
My estimate is in contrast to the 5000 stated in this news report:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8257578
The most interesting part was the almost deafening silence when Ms Ziegler mentioned Australia being the “highest per capita polluter”. She wasn’t expecting that and quickly moved on!
I took note of the number of times the words “pollution” or “polluter” were used:
Opening address by Ms Ziegler: 15 times
First guest speaker David Brewer, a wine grower: once
Second guest speaker Yen Phan, a student aged 17: once
Introduction of John Connor by Ms Ziegler: 5 times
Third guest speaker John Connor, Climate Institute: 16 times
Closing summary by Ms Ziegler: 10 times
Total: 48 times
A couple of people were holding a large “No Carbon Tax” banner and a group of people holding climate tax signs stood in front of it, an action which only succeeded in drawing attention to it.
My overall impression is that the organisers are running scared and think there is a real possibility that nothing will eventuate over the planned carbon (sic) tax after all. I’d say the number of true believers would be numbered in the hundreds only, even though about 2000 were there. They must be disappointed!
10
Ian Hill:
June 5th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Not being a city holding one of these rallies, I have to rely on news coverage, however the low key response to the speakers and a reliance of a series of close ups of small sections of the crowd that were no more than ten deep would suggest that the total attendence was nothing like the combined total of over 25,000 claimed.
I attended the no carbon tax rally in sydney where the crowd was a lot more boisterous and also looked overwhemly more dense.
10
Sorry, in my previous post, Not being a city holding one of these rallies should read Not being in a city holding one of these rallies
10
Bob Malloy @ 57
A dense crowd? That’s what we’d normally expect at a greenies convention!
I know what you meant…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Just got back from the eco-rally and a walk to Bunnings (about 4km extra walk each way for something that was out of stock), cos I wanted a bit of a walk today anyway. I even refrained from partaking of a pint at the Queens or Brisbane Hotel… though the taps were beckoning.
Anywho… the rally… and it was a rally, let’s get that clear from the start. No science was discussed, only mindless chants of “YES” to a new carbon tax and “action on climate change” etc… you get the picture.
Every colour of crazy was there, including John Brookes (actually truth be told he is far more intelligent than most of the people who attended, judging by the banners, the conversations I overheard and the debate I had with one chap… more on that later). John probably didn’t realise I was standing near him, resplendent in his bike pants and under the tree and a blissful smile on his face as he bathed in the glow of his fellows of the faith.
The speakers were an MC (not sure who that was), a young naive lass from AYCC (you know, the blue shirt brigade), Piers Verstegen of CCWA and a priest of some or other demonination. There was a reggae band before and after, which was the best part IMO.
None of the speakers spoke to the reality of the science or economics, but made impassioned pleas to save the planet, the children, create green jobs, and punish the big, evil polluting corporations (I guess no one told them about Garnaut’s connections there…)
OK to the chap with the banner… actually I shall digress for a second. Remeber how outraged Labor was about the banners outside Parliament House in Canberra? Well one guy had a placard with a picture of Coliln Barnett and one word under it “COLON.” I am sure the media won’t even mention that. Anyway, back to the other chap… he had a banner which read 100% renewable by 2020. This was one of the more patently stupid things I had read for the year and I couldn’t resist.
I said to him that is was physically impossible. He said what? I said you couldn’t even build the plants to feed 100% of Australia’s energy needs with renewables, even if we wanted to in 9 years as indicated… He said we have the technology (sound like the bionic man intro?) and it can be done. I said just the permits, licences and approvals would bury you for years, let alone the construction. I didn’t even mention the fact that many renewables aren’t located near existing transmission lines… sometimes you feel sorry for them and cut them a little slack.
So you’re a right winger are you? That stumped me… No, I said, left-of-centre if anything, but I can’t abide stupid policies, and therefore cannot support the carbon dioxide tax. It went on for a bit, but he had no answers and tried hard to wriggle around… he asked for my email address early in the piece… I don’t give that out to strangers (bar a couple handfuls of people). He promised it would be so they could address my questions.
He also made the silly mistake of kowtowing to “experts” like the CSIRO, BoM, etc… earlier he had commented that I was suggesting something about vested interests. I said well how about the organisations you mentioned? He didn’t get it. I explained that their major source of funding is the Government, they produce a lot of work for the Government and their heads are appointed by the Government. It doesn’t get more “vested interest” than that. But the scientists’ work is independent he said… at this point I pretty much gave up. You can’t debate sensibly with one so patently naive.
About 2,000-3,000 attended. Most were disinterested in chanting “YES” by the end and drifted off quickly when the band started again.
Oddly apropos that a man of the cloth was one of the speakers.
One good result: The vendor stalls made a killing today.
Article in WA Today: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/thousands-rally-in-perth-for-carbon-tax-20110605-1fmzp.html
10
I’ve been waiting for that response from Brooksy or Matt B. I’m hoping either or both pick me up on it.
Cheers
Bob
10
here’s the disclaimer to the most recent Climate Change Report
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/summary-garnaut-review-2011.pdf
This publication is produced for general
information only and does not represent a
statement of the policy of the Commonwealth
of Australia or indicate a commitment to
a particular policy or course of action. The
views expressed in this paper are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect
those of the Commonwealth of Australia. The
Commonwealth of Australia and all persons
acting for the Commonwealth of Australia
preparing this publication accept no liability for
the accuracy, completeness or reliability of or
inferences from the material contained in this
publication, or for any action as a result of any
person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions,
conclusions or actions in relying on this
material. Before any action or decision is taken
on the basis of this material the reader should
obtain appropriate independent advice.
If you had gone to a doctor for a birth control pill at the time thalidomide was on the market you would have expected medical advice if the product was not safe – and because it was not there were later class actions; same applied in the case of breast implants
How come we so brainwashed (present company excepted) that we accept the contents of this latest Climate Change report when no one is prepared to accept responsibility for it?
Why are not Governments and their employees responsible for damages for policies they initiate when in the case of other professions Govt’s insist on accepted responsibility?
Question for the brighter than I am
10
George @ #34:
You mentioned the recently released Nemo fish report, being a rehash of a 2 year old report, timed to coincide with current events.
You ‘re dead right to be careful about “recently” released reports & we’ve mostly been caught out by them before.
It may in fact be a newer paper though, looking at their hearing, while the original one was purely about their smell. That is building on the earlier one – which is largely what they do in Acadaemia, when they’ve finished one report they say ‘now what could we try next with our little clownfish (to keep the funding flowing in , for few more years ) ? I know, let’s try deafening them – in the further interests of science & saving the planet of course’.
Here’s the Press Release, embargoed till 1 June
Richard Black at the BBC was one of the first to get in there & do a piece with it:-
Acid Oceans turn Finding Nemo fish deaf
The thought of cute little ‘Nemo’ fish being eaten by nasty predators is just too much to bear. Yes let’s have these taxes please, to save the cuddly Nemo fish.
10
Let’s remember this claim by the Gillard Government’s global warming guru, and hold him to it:
The carbon pricing proposals that I’ve put forward will not cost any manufacturing jobs.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/no-jobs-would-be-lost-garnaut-20110603-1fl4g.html#ixzz1OFxbAJbF
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/garnauts_guarantee/
10
UPDATE on the Deaf Nemo fish:-
From Cape Cod –
ocean-acidification-confuses-fish
“A lot of media reports about this study have been saying that ocean acidification leaves clownfish deaf. I just want to be absolutely clear that that is not what the study says. The authors stress that they do not know why the clownfish don’t respond to the threatening sounds, but they suspect it might be due to a change in neural function – how messages about the sound are transmitted to or processed by the brain – brought about by disrupted acid-base balance in the fish. In other words, nerves and brain might be the culprits rather than the ear.”
.
Apparently they’re just confused then.
.
10
Watching Ch9 news they are claiming 45,000 attended the rallies around Australia. Interesting stat that, because I distinctly remember the MC in Perth quoting the stats as they understood them to be at about 5-6,000 in Sydney and Melbourne (each), maybe 3,000 in Brissie, 2-3 in Adelaide. How the media tripled that number is beyond me.
Par for the course when the media is reporting on the PC rallies I guess. If 10,000 turn up for a sceptic rally, it would probably be reported as a few hundred.
10
Nazi collaborator George Soros behind Carbon Cate’s (Cate Blanchett) ‘tax me’ ad……..
Foreign billionaire hedge fund speculator, drug pusher and Nazi collaborator George Soros is the éminence grise behind the Cate Blanchett carbon tax ad, which is sponsored by Soros’ Australian front, GetUp. “The media circus over Cate Blanchett is irrelevant,” Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood declared today. “The real issue is George Soros’ underhanded intervention to manipulate Australian politics.” By his own admission, George Soros was a witting participant in the Holocaust, as a Nazi collaborator with the extermination machine run by Adolf Eichmann in Soros’ native Hungary. In at least two television interviews, in 1994 and 1998, Soros freely admitted to his Nazi collaboration, and declared that he felt no guilt over his actions, or over the extermination of nearly a half million of his fellow Hungarian Jews. Even worse, he exulted in his autobiography that, “It was actually, probably the happiest year of my life—that year of German occupation. For me it was a very positive experience.” Soros went on to become an agent for the City of London, using his Quantum hedge fund as a political battering ram to smash nations and national currencies, under the personal direction of British cabinet minister Lord Malloch-Brown, a board member of the Quantum Fund. Aside from forcing British imperial economic policies such as free trade and deregulation onto targeted nations, Soros has used his ill-gotten loot to madly push the legalisation of hard drugs and euthanasia. And, on behalf of British geopolitical strategy, he has helped topple national governments by financing the creation of fake “grassroots” protest movements, such as the Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” and Georgian “Rose Revolution”, aimed at destabilising Russia. And GetUp is just one more fake “grassroots” movement. Look at the history. GetUp is the Australian counterpart to Soros’ MoveOn.org in the United States. The two co-founders of GetUp, Harvard graduates Jeremy Heimans and David Madden, both worked for the Soros-funded MoveOn.org in the U.S. to also launch the global web “movement”, Avaaz.org. Madden was previously a consultant to the World Bank and Heimans previously consulted for the UN, OECD and ILO. And when GetUp suddenly popped up in 2005, this “people’s organisation” boasted among its founding board members: John Hewson, former federal opposition leader, former Macquarie Bank Executive Director, and Trilateral Commission member; Don Mercer, a mining chief, former ANZ CEO, and a past Director of the Australian Institute of Company Directors; and Evan Thornley, the super-rich Labor Party money-bags who was also National Secretary of the Australian Fabian Society, to which belong all of the ALP’s leading advocates of population reduction—Julia Gillard, Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson. The Blanchett ad is also sponsored by the Australian Conservation Foundation, World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Mr Isherwood said, “It’s not exactly surprising to see the Prince Philip-founded ACF in bed with a former Nazi collaborator, Soros. After all, Philip’s own family in Germany was full of ranking Nazis as documented in the new film Unlawful Killing, while his two partners in founding the WWF in 1961—the mother of the world’s entire environmentalist movement—were former Nazi SS member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and British Eugenics Society President Julian Huxley, and here in Australia the guy he deployed to do all the legwork in setting up the ACF, Francis Noble Ratcliffe, was a professed admirer of Mussolini. And of course Hitler’s Nazi Party grew out of the post-World War I ‘green movement’ in Germany in the first place. Most of the top Nazis were Greens. “So what is the ACTU doing in bed with Philip’s ACF and WWF and the old Nazi George Soros? Perhaps it should explain to its members why it is spending their money to support a Nazi agenda, and one which will tax them out of existence, literally!”
To find out more on the fraud of global warming:-
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html
For a rundown of the apparatus behind the Nazi green movement:-
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?id=free_new_citizen_cv7n2.html
10
Bulldust @ 66 – that’s interesting because they were announcing in Adelaide, being 30 minutes behind, that there were 15,000 in each of Melbourne and Sydney and 3,000 in Hobart. Hobart outdid Adelaide? Hmmm. They must have been expecting 100,000 nationwide because they requested everyone to deliver their “information” flyer to 10 of their neighbours and said they were targeting one million people.
10
Bulldust @ 60
No way! Environmentalism is the religion of the God (capital G) Godless. This guy needs to rethink his priorities.
Liked the way you dealt with the ignorati – polite, professional and not giving them an emotional lever to use against the truth.
Cheers,
Speedy. (Who, by strange coincidence, is also a Mike.)
10
Given that this government is hell bent on wrecking the economy with the worst possible solution to the wrong problem based on bad science, perhaps we should also focus on justifying the cost of what they intend (i.e. reducing CO2 in the atmosphere).
I found this link,
which estimates the cost per tonne of CO2 reduction. I have seen similar figures elsewhere.
This demonstrates the most expensive way is solar panels ($500/tonne), with other forms of being of renewables better, but the cheapest way by far is biosequestration by forests and soil carbon, at less than $3.00/tonne.
This happens to be the Coalition policy, so perhaps we should help by promoting this.
I have an idea for a poster. A lush forest landscape with the caption “(Eco?) Carbon Capture and Storage”
Just a thought, any comments?
10
Ian Hill:
Maybe I misheard – sounded like they said 5,000 or 6,000 in the big capitals. Perhaps 45k was reasonably accurate then. The Perth event was a tad bland, plus we didn’t have the pulling power of Carbon Cate 😉
10
Bulldust, given the two hour time difference between the eastern states and you, they may have had time to relay a more sensible estimate to your MC. I’d say the MC here was more than happy to use a very rough initial guess.
10
Bob Malloy @ 47′
What an excellent idea!
Considering the count on the word ‘pollution’ at the rally, it would be fun to have that mouthwash distributed so that they could all see themselves ‘polluting’ the atmosphere with CO2!
We are basically being asked to be taxed for the air we breathe and particularly the air we exhale.
Since when did CO2 suddenly become a dangerous pollutant?
I’m starting to think that perhaps the ‘environmental movement’ is starting to suffer from a form of mass neurosis or mass hysteria.
That would help to explain the total desertion of any rational argument or any credible science.
10
How do the Alarmists measure a ton of Carbon Dioxide? It is a gas which would be very hard to get the scales to give an reading.
10
Joe V. @63,
It looks like fish will be the death of us all. First the Delta Smelt and now the Clown Fish. A federal Judge shut down a multi $$$billion a year agriculture industry in the California San Joaquin Valley and Nemo wants to shut down the world.
Unless I missed something, nowhere in the quick search I did does it say that this behavior is actually observed in the wild. In the meantime the ocean still stubbornly buffers itself where it wants to be, about 8.2
I have great trouble believing that a fish tank in a lab translates so easily to open ocean. Next they’ll be modeling ocean and fish behavior with computers. Sometimes I’m ashamed of my profession.
10
Damian Allen @67,
I wish I could give you a hundred thumbs up for that. George Soros is the personification of evil. You have him pegged exactly right.
10
wes george @ 29:
Great rant wes! Could this political stupidity be a result of man’s C02 emissions(pollution *cough*),? Or, is it just a natural cycle?
I’m not too worried. Societies implode and rebuild only to implode again. If history has taught us anything it is that. If it’s any consolation, mankind will walk out of his next social implosion with lessons to learn. Be mindful that the corruption of science has never happened before. This is a new phenomena and, quite frankly, is quite exciting for me to be experiencing it! I’ll do the observation first, then form a theory about it later…
My rule is, if I find myself in a position of enslavement… Well, I wouldn’t want the AFP evidence of my libertarian attitude to those who think they can push me around.
10
Richard S Courtney @ 39:
Excellent summary of Ozzie politics. Most of the real work is done in a bipartisan manner. I used to watch Question Time every lunch for years and enjoyed it immensely. A term in politics is like a season in a soap opera. The first sittings are about the nuances of sitting rules where both parties push hard against them and see what ground they can gain for the rest of the term. Then character weaknesses are isolated and targets for policy argument are scoped. Finally, policy positions are formed against the weaker ministers and their opposition spokesmen. The goal is to create a beat up which gains media legs. Smack downs occur in the form of no-confidence motions, senate enquiries, minister resignations and parliamentary dissolutions.
Unfortunately, out politicians are so carried away with the game that party policy now crosses left right. It is all blurred into the centralist position, hence the rise of the nanny state. Give the people their bottle!
10
Mr Bulldust
I always stand in awe at the developments in technology. The SciFi like development of facial recognition, which like all tec, is overplayed in TV drama is apparently real.
With an software capability at this level, surely it would be possible to use either aeriel or 360′ pan shots to get a reasonably repeatable & somewhere near accurate figure for crowds.
The media’s bias is rarely more evident than it is in the reporting of popular support ( crowds ).
I saw the SBS article on the YES rallies last night & was critically looking for a panoramic crowd shot. There was one brief picture bite ( I think of Sydney) which could not have been carefully crafted to hide the reality, but every other shot broadcast was framed to limit view.
I am a cynic.
10
Interesting that the sector where Australia’s energy intensity is going up the most steeply is the electricity generation sector. I can guess at the reason — lack of infrastructure investment in large modern baseload coal plants, thus we struggle with old plants and less efficient (but more agile) gas turbines.
Better efficiency in transport (mostly private owned) has compensated for the electricity generation sector.
The climate shenanigans have increased the sovereign risk and frightened private investors away from power generation in this country… that just leaves government investment and they don’t seem too interested either.
10
Tel
Bob Carr was too green to enthusiastically support the gen & distribution systems in NSW.
Ironically NSW is so stuffed that private investment will probably be the only (& now expensive) answer. The Milionaire Factory would be a likely contender to feature large. They are Bob’s mates now.
10
It looks more like people saying no to the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax ………..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/and_in_one_of_the_most_labor_leaning_electorates_in_the_country/
Only a Deranged individual would lobby the “government” for a Great Big New Tax on EXERYTHING !
10
Joe V @63
I was aware of both the “hearing” and “smell” clownfish papers but thank you all the same for mentioning this! What was that about the dark side never letting a reinforcement opportunity go by, hmmm…
Mr Watts has gone to town on the “Save Nemo” thing here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/04/co2-deafens-nemo-or-how-many-ichthyologists-can-you-fit-in-that-car/#more-41018
Roy Hogue @75
Funny you should mention the advisability of doing apples-with-apples environmental comparisons, part of the Watts response uses a quote from (ahem) wiki
“Captive bred clownfishes may not have the same instinctual behavior to live in an anemone. They may have to be coaxed into finding the anemone by the home aquarist. Even then, there is no guarantee that the anemone will host the clownfish.”
Even intuitively, one would have to ask whether such variables have been removed. Or, more to the point, are able to be removed.
As usual – nothing to see here, etc…
10
Hi Jo,
One annoying thing. The PDF doesn’t contain any description of Mike Wilson’s background. Thus his article does not carry much weight when referring alarmists to it. Pity that. What is his background?
10
Jo – in your Garnaut quotes above I think he actually agrees with you.
You’ve bolded “Australia’s high emissions are mainly the result of the high emissions intensity of energy use”
but the very next sentence is “rather than the high energy intensity of the economy”
To me that second sentence is exactly what your graphs show… in that while we use a lot of energy the whole economy does quite a lot with it.
This is actually what the basic economic principles of an ETS are… the people who make the most money out of emitting GHGs will be most willing to pay for the rights to emit GHGs. To me those graphs are all good and indicate that under a global carbon trading system our economy is well placed, and demonstrate that claims that an ETS (global) will kill our economy are misplaced.
10
Just on “Carbon Cate”… I note the rank hypocrisy associated with having a go at Cate yet lapping up Angry Anderson at the Sceptical rallies.
10
Matt B:
I note your comment at #86 that says:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Please provide evidence that the same people revile Carbon Cate” as support “Angry Anderson”. The individuals who do both may be guilty of “hypocrisy” but those who do either are certainly not.
Your assertion is a smear on everybody who reviles the hypocrisy of “Carbon Cate”. Shame on you.
Richard
10
Richard – seriously – “what rot” as one might say in Old Blighty.
Angry’s appearances at the Sydney Rally were well documented on this blog and not a squeak from anyone. Even I didn’t mind I think it is perfectly acceptable for celebreties to get involved if they want to.
10
Just before the last election, I noted a small article in the Daily Telegraph about how the 2009-2010 emissions had dropped in
Australia, and NSW had almost got to 5% reductions. I rang Pat
Schultz (She’s a friend) who was standing as the Green rep and brought her attention to it. Do you think I can find that article now, in their archives? Gone with the Wind? This was before the March election 2011. I don’t know if anyone else can get that article? I think it was on page 3.
Also in Monday’s Armidale Express there is a local group wanting to raise 30 million privately to supply 25,000 people with wind turbines in New England. Want to purchase 60 wind turbines. Now if I remember rightly, a wind turbine costs over 1 million dollars? You reckon that is a con too?
10
Pattoh @ 79
Some years ago there was a rally in Armidale against the Iraq war.
5000 were present, the media and tony windsor stated. I rang him
and told him, No Way. More like 750. When I later spoke to the
Greens rep on election day, she said no there were only about
1200 but we didn’t say anything to contradict Tony. Well I reckon
that it was nearer 750. They lie about the numbers.
10
Matt B:
Your response at #88 to my point at #87 compounds your error.
I suggest you desist from pontificating on morality when you have such little understanding of moral equivalence as your post at #88 says you do.
Richard
10
Pardon?
10
What is interesting is how selective the warmenistas are about what they use to beat us over the head with. Nothing too damaging economically.
But if the real issue were CO2 then why would Garnaut ignore this statistic. Australia is the world’s third-biggest carbon exporter (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia): Tonnes of CO2 currently exported by major coal and oil producers:
(1) Saudi Arabia 1.365 billion;
(2) Russia 1.05 billion;
(3) Australia 681 million.
Current coal-mining expansion in Queensland and New South Wales
could add another 515 million tonnes as early as 2016, taking Australia past Russia into 2nd place! (Manne and McKnight)
If CO2 is the great moral imperative of our time then surely exporting this poisonous/polluting product would be morally reprehensible. Hmm, shutting down the coal industry would make the carbon-tax debate look like a Governor General’s tea party!
After all we had a moratorium on further uranium mining at one stage and still have a ban on exporting it to India! This was when nuclear disarmament/non-proliferation was the great moral imperative!
10