Sabra Lane interviews Bernie Fraser, Chairman of the Climate Change Authority on the ABC 7:30 report. She only had time for a few questions. Shame then, to only ask one’s everyone knows the answer to.
Instead of asking Fraser how many dollars each Australian will have to spend to lower global temperatures by one degree Celsius, Sabra Lane asks him about global psychology instead: “On the Renewable Energy Target, there’s a lot of talk about the Government watering it down or getting rid of it. What impact is that having on Australia’s reputation?
What does she think the head of any “authority” dependent on the fear of a carbon-crisis for its existence was going to say? Not much — Sabra, no one overseas cares a lot about what we do?
Fraser proffers the predictable response, just as Sabra Lane surely knew he would. Fraser even tries to sell the idea that the current “uncertainty” is bad for business. Lane buys it. It doesn’t occur to her to mention that it was Gillard who promised Australian business the certainty of a climate committee and then gave them a tax. And it’s Abbott who has said with certainty that he wants to axe-that-tax every day for four years. At no point has Australian business ever had certainty that the tax was coming and was here to stay. By now, any sensible green-business should have seen the end looming for years.
Bernie Fraser is paid to advertise a carbon crisis, and Sabra Lane seems happy to help him, even if that means avoiding the money-questions and asking his opinion of global moods instead. It’s not what we pay the ABC $1 billion dollars a year to do — feed Dorothy Dixers to other government servants — but it does make for good propaganda.
Lateline was another catastrophists’ disinformercial.
I had to change channels when the UNSW “expert” started talking about the projected winds at the end of the century causing problems.
So I can’t tell if the word “volcanoes” was ever mentioned.
241
I commented here elsewhere (re Leif Svalgaard) that where I come from (engineering) an ‘expert’ comprises two constituent parts; ‘x’, an unknown quantity and a ‘spurt’, a drip under pressure.
Apparently mere humility let alone self deprecation is not appreciated in parts of the ‘science’ community (or in any of the media-twitterverse) rather being a scientist is being akin to some minor aristocracy, un/e petit marquis/ess de catastrophe’.
60
You conflate real scientists with people who call themselves scientists. The global warming hysteria is the work of the latter group. Real scientists have nothing but contempt for the fakes.
01
It is amazing that economists of all people get to lecture us about ‘the science’. Typically Australian economists Richard Dennis, Ross Garnaut, Bernie Fraser.
It might have been better if these geniuses at prediction stuck to their own field and warned us about the GFC. It might also have been useful if they told their very good friends in the Labor party that we did not really have to throw our money away, even mailing cash cheques overseas and not least killing four young people with the useless pink batts program to forestall a crisis which was most unlikely to affect us anyway. Tens of billions of dollars on elephant repellent.
No these self proclaimed geniuses had no idea what was coming but still presume to tell us about the weather along with real science illiterates Tim Flannery and Al Gore. Then despite the billions spent on pink batts to forestall the GFC, no one has bothered to work out whether giving people things they did not want, were not prepared to pay for themselves and possibly did not need has actually produced any benefit for anyone. Surely an economist could work that one out? How much did that reduce global temperature?
I still cannot believe alarmist Al Gore received the Nobel Prize for Peace? What part of his allegation of “man made climate change” was about Peace?
471
Funny how not one of these savant economists saw the GFC coming until it was on top of us.
Failures, the lot of them!
230
Richard Dennis particularly … we all remember his stellar performance against Chris Monckton? Dennis single-handedly swayed people in the press gallery to the sceptic side. Not bad for someone who is supposed to be towing the Greenie line as the big honcho at The Australia Institute:
http://www.tai.org.au/node/3
Here’s the debate for those that forgot:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/the-real-monckton-debate/
103
The second reading debate of the carbon tax repeal is happening now. Doug Cameron (Scottish git) is talking now. Blames Gina Rinehart for bankrolling the sceptics…lying c@@@!
82
Doug Cameron looks like a relic from the old school of militant unionism. He has rarely made any sense whatsoever, and is extremely aggressive in spite of his obvious lack of knowledge. He never seems to have graduated from the “aggressive shouting means I win the debate” school of thinking…
102
A union bully boy, through and through. He emigrated to Australia in 1973, age twenty two. He was a Ten Pound Pom/Scot!
40
The aggression is to mask ignorance.
01
They only predict stuff if it is so far in the future that they will not be around. Hence all the lies and threats about how windy and how dry it will be in 2100 AD.
01
I suppose it’s the part where he single handedly saves the planet.
Oh! I forgot. He hasn’t managed to do that part yet. So maybe it’s the part where he gets rich at our expense and does it all without any violence at all. He fleeced the sheep and they don’t even know it. Surely that’s worth the Piece Prize.
120
It’s a mis-spelling ; Piece (of nonsense.)
00
Or a pun.
00
Greg Sheridan had an article in The Australian recently debunking all this renewables & carbon trading schemes.
One point stood out for me – when it’s all boiled down, an ETS is all about organisations paying for they’ve NOT produced.
How does that make for a market?
60
It makes perfect sense in a sea of wasteful, inefficient Socialism…ask EU farmers what thats like…..
50
Actually, I wouldn’t trust Bernie Fraser’s economic predictions, either. Was he not the gentleman who invested all his super in a ‘sure thing” that promptly went belly up? Destroyed his personal savings, but has not seemed to damage his reputation.
00
I guess the much more pertinent question, “What impact would that have on the lives of Australians?” is not in her playbook. And the impact of getting rid of those renewable energy targets and returning to sanity would be a huge benefit to everyone.
Nuts to Australia’s reputation with anyone who would think the less of you for doing something sensible. The right people will think you’ve gotten it right. You can’t afford to worry about the rest.
190
I hope the next installment of the solar model is coming along soon. I admit to being more than a little bit interested in seeing the rest of it. 🙂
190
It matters not if were not sensible. It is no business of others, what we do here. Attempts to make our actions even slightly bend to the opinions of outsiders is treason and should be punished with utmost severity.
01
Ask a turkey what they think of Christmas …
Pointman
190
One can easily calculate using IPCC TCR numbers that completely eliminating all US CO2 output today it would only reduce global temperatures by 0.08C by 2030, while simultaneously wrecking it’s economy.
Australia’s emissions are about 10 times smaller, so that would suggest 0.008C would be the best it could do, and also completely wreck it’s economy.
These are simple facts to phrase as questions to see what the true intention is of the politicians.
250
When I see wind power used to pump water up a hill to power a hydro station during a needed peak is the day I say wind power is good.
Bernie Fraser. Paid cheerleader! Nuf said.
210
I would LOVE to see the RET redirected to projects ONLY in the north of Australia.
HUGE new dams to catch the monsoon rains, and sure, add wind or solar re-pumped hydro if you want. Huge irrigation schemes. This is where the RET and any other climate money should be redirected.
130
Nah, we don’t want bird munchers or solar rubbish up there. Plenty of gas to power up the north.
Being an ANDEV member, I’m kept up to date on the progress of Andrew Robb who is doing great work in attracting investment to the north. Big things will be happening next year but you won’t hear of it in the MSM.
They’re too busy pecking the chook food.
100
The development of northern Oz, is a really good policy.
and Palmer should be well and truly on side with it too, especially if he can see a buck in it for himself somewhere. 🙂
110
ANDEV was formed in mid 2010 to ensure that northern development occurs as many have tried in the past and failed.
Here are the foundation members. You might recognise a lot of the names, very heavy hitters.
I believe that northern development will be this government’s most important legacy if all comes off, which I suspect will be the case.
Clive Palmer is looked down in disdain by the real mining community and the last thing we need is Palmer’s involvement. He will eventually go the way of Skase and Bond and as it stands…Palmer is a sovereign risk.
130
It should never have been scoured from the pockets of the people paying for their energy. If the people had had the money in their pockets, they can decide individually how to spend it; not be forced to give it to people who have no clue about investment and returns.
00
I would love to see Bernie Fraser and all the ABC redirected to the north of Australia. Manus Island is North of Australia. So is Syria. Both places they have an unhealthy fixation with.
01
Four Corners was worse. Apparently Canberra will be powered by 90% renewables by 2020, California is leading the world, domestic solar and storage is just around the corner, this is the new Industrial Revolution, and Australia is lagging behind- so say all the experts who happen to be CEOs of windfarms and solar energy companies. The worst ‘episode’ I’ve seen in the long running soapie that is ABC current affairs. I look forward to Tony’s comments.
270
Actually that is something I’d like to see, as long as the construction etc. is not subsidised by non-Canberra taxpayers.
As I understand it the ACT has no internal power generation; build the damn windmills, install the solar panels and then cut the joint off from the national grid and we can all see how green policies work.
330
Perhaps they’re referring to renewing the politicians as in getting 90% of them re elected?
Only the percentage is wrong. Dontcha think it should be 97%? 😉
50
OK, I know. It’s a bad joke. But I couldn’t resist.
30
It would be better if 97% of them were facing losing. Then they might start asking what their constituents want.
30
I didn’t know a politician could do that. Can they actually ask their constituents what the people want? 😉
00
I thought it was hilarious!
20
Good to watch. We could run tours through the place for Australians to see how the third world ghetto is going.
01
“A report by the Grattan Institute argues that electricity customers could save money by paying higher prices during peak times.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/higher-peak-prices-could-cut-power-bills-overall/5579396
. . .
Common sense says I can save money now by not using electricity at all, without putting prices up at peak times.
50
handjive says here: (my Bolds)
I’ll send you all to a link.
This is from the Australian Electricity Regulator, and I’ll direct you to the paragraph directly above the first table of costs on that page, and part of that paragraph says this: (again, my Bolds)
This is the Oz regulator for electricity consumption.
People think this magical phrase ….. Peak Power occurs on a few days a year.
IT’S EVERY DAY, from the second you wake up until just before you go to bed.
Link to AEMO Average price Tables Page.
Tony.
170
Tony,
See my reply to handjive, Peak charges for me are charged between 2pm and 8pm Monday to Friday, all other times are at a reduced price and overall I do save.
11
Strange as it may seem, A couple of years ago, I was moved onto a scheme that includes three prices for various times of the day, Off Peak, Shoulder and Peak pricing. Peak price is about double that of fixed pricing, while shoulder and off peak both below. I was given the opportunity of going back to fixed pricing if I wanted.
While not pleased a the time I gave it a go over the next quarter, to my surprise my overall bill did fall and at the moment I have no plans to go back to fixed pricing.
00
Canberra 90% by renewables by 2020?
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well that should be good for short sessions up on the Hill….I guess they could use candles.
Who makes this stuff up?
30
Actually, I was looking at the National Energy Forecating Report from 2012, based on consumption, NSW & the ACT will need 450 MW installed capacity by 2020, up 300% from now.
Looking at actewagls report in 2012/2013 their network handled 3000 GWh of power. Assuming all this came into the ACT for consumption.
I also noted that since 1975 to now, the proportion of power from renewables has been largely unchanged. Hmmm…..
Now I think you’d need to almost cover most of the ACT in panels to make that work….and use a torch at night.
a 20 MW solar fam will provide power for 4500 homes or roughly 12000 people.
Assuming roughly 400,000 people in the ACT, you would need 30 such farms
At 50 hectares per farm, you would need 1500 hectares of land, or roughly 15 km2. The ACT is approx 2300 km2, but 45% is just the Namadji national park alone, so youre back to 1250 km2
The ACT 2011 State of the Environment (SOE) report notes that 58% of land in the ACT is zoned for conservation purposes with approximately 11.4% for urban areas.
So you would have to allocate approx 1.5% of avaialable land fo power….but that wont help at night.
Fail.
30
Germany has some offshore wind turbines to spare. “Bard Offshore 1”, Germany’s largest offshore wind park, about 100km into the North Sea, has been disconnected indefinitely (article in German) from the grid after haveing been very belatedly conncted in September last year, technical issues in supplying into the grid led to the temporary disconnection to allow technicians find and fix the problems.
That hasn’t worked out as they hoped. They’re still scratching their heads and the whole farm, which cost over 2000million Euros is now idle in the wind. The nominal capacity of 400MW “supplied” by 80 wind generators will not be filled.
Maybe they can ship 3 or 4 of those 80 to Canberra; to erect on Lake Burley Griffin.
The original company behind the project became insolvent after subsidies were reduced by a few percent.
It’s not an isolated case. Most offshore windfarms have been plagued by technical issues with e.g. the smaller Riffgatfarm also unable to supply electricity clean enough to be fed into the grid.
That’s lucky for the Germans. Because despite the waste in non-functioning offshore wind power, it means that there will be delays in constructing the 2000km of high-voltage DC power lines from the North to the South of the country, to feed electricity to industry that still survives in the South.
Noteworthy: The statistical effect of more wind power hasn’t reduced the randomness of supply from wind power. Even with wind farms stretching from the South and well into the North Sea. Core reason behind that is that the typical diameter of a weather system is around 800km, so wind power does nought more than annoyingly flicker the lights and empty the pockets. Here’s a link if the image thing doesn’t work →
http://bernd.felsche.org/tech/EinspeisungC.pngThe lighly shaded area is the nominal “capacity” sold to mugs by the media, pro-wind activists and outright conmen. The darker blue is the actual “delivery” since 2010. Despite massive “investment”, there just isn’t any more put on the grid and the minima of energy are still ZERO. There is no baseload capacity.
20
“Businesses want certainty” is just another way of saying: “we (the govt) want to get what we want”
40
Jonova:
“At no point has Australian business ever had certainty that the tax was coming and was here to stay.
By now, any sensible green-business should have seen the end looming for years.”
Video-
Warmist David Victor: “Firms no longer believe that serious [CO2] rules are coming” 57:10
This year, the Keeling Lecture features UCSD School of International Relations and Pacific Studies Professor David Victor …
(via TomNelsonTwitter)
20
note Sabra & Bernie didn’t think to mention the price of international “carbon” credits (ICUs), which is approx $1. surely it should have been. then the question should have been, well why on earth have we had such a ridiculously high price on “carbon”?
never inform the public, ABC?
Bernie was and is all over the MSM. Sky News’ Helen Dalley had extensive interview where he did mention the price more than once, with Dalley stating that the Govt should absolutely buy up the ICUs cos it was a “no-brainer”, but NOT making the obvious connection to our 20-plus times higher price for the same commodity.
whilst Sky isn’t documenting Bernie stating the ICU price (which is one of the hardest things to find online), they got around it here, by mentioning a potential future price:
7 July: Sky News: Govt told to buy foreign emissions permits
Australia could buy enough foreign emissions reductions units to meet a 19 per cent reductions target for less than $500 million.The authority’s worst case scenario has Australia paying about $3 billion to meet a 19 per cent target, if prices rose to about $7 per unit…
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/national/2014/07/07/govt-told-to-buy-foreign-emissions-permits.html
it’s always about increasing the price, incrementally if necessary. just get a foot in the door.
50
***ABC LIKED THIS HEADLINE SO MUCH, IT HAS USED IT TWICE – COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARTICLES – IN THE SAME DAY!
***7 July: ABC: Industry supports push for international carbon permits
LEXI METHERELL: A number of countries are already using international carbon units to reach their emissions targets. They include Japan, New Zealand, Norway and France.
The Climate Change Authority has made the case for Australia to do the same in a report released today…
Kobad Bhavnagri is the head of Australia for Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
KOBAD BHAVNAGRI: So the way it works is a country such as China may be looking to build a new power station and it’ll look at the different ways it could do that, whether that be by wind or perhaps building a new coal or gas-fired plant.
And if it makes more sense to build a wind farm and it just needs a little bit of support to get that, then they can produce these emissions reduction credits that then other countries such as Australia or Europe could buy…
KOBAD BHAVNAGRI: No. So it’s known as a “clean development mechanism.” So it’s working to prevent future rises in emissions in countries that are currently developing…
LEXI METHERELL: And when we actually buy these permits, who does the money go to?
KOBAD BHAVNAGRI: It typically goes to the developer of that project. So, say someone looking to build a new power station in Brazil, it’s going to them to help them make that a wind farm rather than a gas-fired power station…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/industry-supports-push-for-international-carbon/5577290?section=business
******HOPE LEXI DOESN’T GET FIRED FOR INCLUDING THE PRICE, THO NOT POINTING OUT HOW RIDICULOUS OUR OWN HAS BEEN:
***7 July: ABC: Industry supports push for international carbon permits
LEXI METHERELL: Australia’s current minimum emissions target is five per cent but the Authority (CCA) says it should really be 19 per cent if Australia wants to keep pace with international efforts.
******It says with carbon permits priced less a dollar each at the moment, it would only cost $500 million to meet that higher target.
BERNIE FRASER: Well, they’re monitored, they’re approved, they’re tested by UN bodies and by others, they’re used by other governments…
LEXI METHERELL: It’s also widely supported by environment groups, as well as the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/industry-supports-push-for-international-carbon/5577290?section=business
30
It’s just another case of ABC journalists (and I use the term generously) with no knowledge of climate science, but perhaps a BA that enables them to ask “Do you want fries with that?” in a foreign language, controlling the flow of information and trying to dictate public opinion.
What’s new?
150
cannot find documentation, but on Sky News with Helen Dalley, Bernie Fraser admitted a number of the members of the Authority had moved on, having seen the writing on the wall, it seems, & that a number of the Board members had resigned. he didn’t name names.
however, the Govt should know the names, which i cannot find online, explain this to the new Senators, & then press ahead with getting rid of this self-important body.
if anyone knows the names, please post them here.
90
agree a pretty average interview, I can’t see that even the interviewee gained much as responding well to challenging questions creates much more impact – something the current government could have learned from the errors of the previous.
ps “knows the answer to
o”Thanks Gee Aye. Fixed. _ Jo
40
even tho the following Ninemsn link was posted on jo’s Weekend Unthreaded post last nite at 11pm, no news bulletins i heard much later on the radio (incl abc) had any mention of it at all. yet Tony Delroy made the new Senate the Issue of the Day, even quoting abc’s Emma Griffiths, writing that the Govt would have trouble repealing the carbon tax:
7 July: Ninemsn: Carbon tax likely to be scrapped in days
There was a false start, a few hurdles and a marathon debate but the government eventually got the carbon tax repeal on the agenda for the first day of the new Senate.
It means the repeal is likely to pass within days, with debate to continue on Tuesday…
The government got its way after moving to suspend standing orders twice, eventually winning the crucial support of PUP and Senator Muir…
The coalition was backed by PUP’s three senators, Senator Muir, Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm and Family First’s Bob Day.
They are the same six senators expected to give the government the six votes it needs to pass the repeal…
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/07/07/00/09/govt-told-to-buy-foreign-emissions-permits
the following link shows up in google results as:
Government suffers first loss in the new Senate
ABC Online - 14 hours ago
… with senators voting against moves to bring on the carbon tax repeal … Senator Lambie told the ABC’s 7.30 the half-hour meeting was just Mr …
BUT WHEN U LINK TO IT, it has MORPHED into the following, with the Govt’s success re the carbon tax mentioned about 13 paras into the article:
8 July: ABC: Clive Palmer to oppose scrapping schoolkids’ bonus, new Senate begins debating carbon tax repeal
By Latika Bourke, Liz Foschia, staff
***A change of heart from Palmer United Party senators allowed the Government to bring forward the debate on repealing the carbon tax.
Earlier in the day the chamber had voted to postpone any discussion until next week, so debate could be formed around the due date of a Senate inquiry report into repealing the legislation.
Government frontbencher Mitch Fifield says he would like the legislation to have a swift passage through the Senate.
“I say to the Australian Labor Party, I say to the Australian Greens get out of the way,” Senator Fifield said.
Greens leader Christine Milne says she is disappointed by the development.
“What’s happening in this parliament is shocking. This will galvanise a generation,” she said…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/senate-elects-tasmanian-liberal-stephen-parry-as-new-president/5576878
slash the abc’s funding now.
50
What was truly bizarre was the series of ads on tv about compensation that never actually mentioned the carbox tax…it was very Twilight Zone weird….
All I could think of was Faulty Towers – “Dont mention the war”!
20
“As it happens,
. . . two full years on from the inception of the carbon pricing experiment, we no longer need to rely on modelling.
We now have plenty of data to test against.” (The Conversation)
https://theconversation.com/will-the-real-greg-hunt-please-stand-up-28834
. . .
And the most avoided data is climate/weather data.
Is the climate/weather any safer?
(Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990)
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world
~ ~ ~
The Abnormal Autumn
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/abnormalautumn
Changing Antarctic winds create new sea level threat
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140707103633.htm
There is NO EVIDENCE pricing carbon(sic) stops the climate from changing.
10
Just saw the Antarctic story at the ABC (of course):
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/giant-antarctic-ice-shelves-could-melt-faster-than-expected/5579678
I note the key line right at teh start which reads (emphasis added):
So more GIGO climarte modelling… and the ABC runs with the “it’s worse than we thought” click bait…
40
SMH went one up with an “Oh My God” headline on the main web page associated with the story:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bad-news-about-rising-sea-levels-as-quickening-antarctic-winds-lead-to-faster-ice-melt-20140707-zsz3o.html
I guess all the right-thinking MSM is hyperventilating because of the imminent CO2 tax repeal.
20
ABC climate change and renewable energy propaganda is increasing.
90
You may have noticed how this appears in lockstep with the BBC and US media … mmm ?
30
Have you ever really wondered why no one (not one person) in any media outlet says to just turn those coal fired power plants off, not just here in Oz, but anywhere, everywhere.
Just turn ’em off if it’s so damned bad as they make out, and then hype that like they hype the rest of this bovine waste.
Then they’ll see just how good their precious renewables really are.
The GRID is actually keeping renewables viable. The GRID is what makes renewables seem to supply power. The GRID is only there in the first place because of coal fired power.
Go on, turn ’em off. I dare you.
They are clueless, absolutely clueless.
Tony.
311
Tony you must not know about the rapidly becoming more efficient renewable energy systems, and the new batteries to store power when the sun and the wind are not available. It must be true as I heard this on ABC local radio from a Climate Change Commission spokesman. Clueless is the word.
71
DT says here:
And the cost is, and umm, who pays?
And please, do not EVER tell me that battery technology is getting cheaper, and the scale this needs is so far off into the future, if ever.
Tony.
123
And the Gruandian feeding its gullible urban readership with peak electricity prices going negative in QLD, making even free coal uneconomic…
10
This type of program is little better than, what’s called in public broadcasting, “dead air”. Better to have done a filler with Bananas In Pyjamas.
40
ABC, please NOTE: Friends of the Earth, a Democrat, George Soros were all against an ETS!
the euphoria just prior to Copenhagen…which, thankfully, rapidly dissipated. however, the carbonazis haven’t given up:
4 Dec 2009: Bloomberg: Lisa Kassenaar: Carbon Capitalists Warming to Climate Market Using Derivatives
These two worlds came together in the offices of Blythe Masters at JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Blythe) Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank’s environmental businesses as the firm’s global head of commodities…
For Wall Street, these kinds of voluntary carbon deals are just a dress rehearsal for the day when the U.S. develops a mandatory trading program for greenhouse gas emissions. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley will be watching closely as 192 nations gather in Copenhagen next week to try to forge a new climate-change treaty that would, for the first time, include the U.S. and China…
***Estimates of the potential size of the U.S. cap-and-trade market range from $300 billion to $2 trillion…
Banks intend to become the intermediaries in this fledgling market. Although U.S. carbon legislation may not pass for a year or more, Wall Street has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lobbyists and making deals with companies that can supply them with “carbon offsets” to sell to clients.
JPMorgan, for instance, purchased ClimateCare in early 2008 for an undisclosed sum. This month, it paid $210 million for Eco-Securities Group Plc, the biggest developer of projects used to generate credits offsetting government-regulated carbon emissions…
***The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.
Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity– in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
“This requires a massive redirection of capital,” Masters says. “You can’t have a successful climate policy without the heavy, heavy involvement of financial institutions.” …
***“People are going to be cutting up carbon futures, and we’ll be in trouble,” says Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington state. “You can’t stay ahead of the next tool they’re going to create.”
Cantwell, 51, proposed in November that U.S. state governments be given the right to ban unregulated financial products. “The derivatives market has done so much damage to our economy and is nothing more than a very-high-stakes casino– except that casinos have to abide by regulations,” she wrote in a press release…
In carbon markets, many of the derivatives would be futures, options and swaps that would allow a company to lock in a price for carbon like it would for any other commodity related to its business, Masters says…
“The reason why this is important is not because it’s going to create a new forum for us to buy and sell; it’s because the scale of what’s being contemplated here is absolutely enormous,”Masters says. “It’s going to affect your kids and my kids. The worst thing would be to introduce legislation that doesn’t achieve the environmental goal; that would be a crime of epic proportions.” ….
***Michelle Chan, a senior policy analyst in San Francisco for Friends of the Earth, isn’t convinced.
“Should we really create a new $2 trillion market when we haven’t yet finished the job of revamping and testing new financial regulation?” she asks. Chan says that, given their recent history, the banks’ ability to turn climate change into a new commodities market should be curbed…
***Even George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator, says money managers would find ways to manipulate cap-and-trade markets. “The system can be gamed,” Soros, 79, remarked at aLondon School of Economics seminar in July. “That’s why financial types like me like it — because there are financial opportunities.” …
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M
10
OT, but quite humorous.
Nick Stokes shows that the 0.8C warming in the US over that last 100 or so years is due ENTIRELY to “adjustments”
Thanks, Nick..
We already KNEW that!!!! 🙂
73
0.8C
You’ve got the units wrong.
01
Maybe this will flick the switch in Nick’s head … sucked in ! as they say.
11
And let’s not forget for a moment that the Fraser et al (failed Keynsian economists) propaganda is based on a failed hypothesis from flawed computer models that human induced CO2 “emissions” will result in “climate catastrophe” (“we are all going to cook”) sometime in the never never, in 2100, when all those pushing the wealth extraction scam (never trust economists and banksters pushing the “party” line) now won’t be around to take the “heat” (not-intended but nevertheless, a bad pun).
How many “blonde” eggs does it take to cover all of the
watermelonred faces out there when David’s model gets traction and with a cooling climate, everyone is reaching for heavy coats and scarves, not a hat and sunscreen? Will Clive Palmersaurus “come to the rescue” with more coal mines? Or go the same way of other “make a fast $ at everyone else’s expense” egos that preceded him? Over-reach eventually unhinges all of them. And unfortunately everyone else pays for their inflated lifestyles (and lunches).As TonyfromOz aptly said about the renewable believers at #18 above, which equally applies to Fraser, the ABC et al and most politicians; “They are clueless, absolutely clueless”.
50
Tim Flannery admitted: “the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as 1000 years’’.
He should mention this to Bernie.
10
Of course not. The nuclear decay in the magma, primarly from thorium-232 (half-life 14.05×10⁹ years) and potassium-40 (half-life 1.248×10⁹ years) will not change substantially in even 1000 years. That’s less than a millionth of a half-life.
People who measure the average temperature of the Earth via its atmosphere are ludicrously superficial.
🙂
10
Tesla the maker of electric cars who’s going to make his designs patent free ,what a nice man.But he still needs lithium for his batteries and he’s done a deal with a Mexican mining company to provide it .So my tip for the week is Rare Earth Minerals an AIM listed company who is a major shareholder (you heard it here first).
00
Is Tesla driven to release its patents in a desperate attempt to get the World to take its Noddy Electric Cars seriously ?
30
Seems likely Eliza. The best way to make your product popular, (a defacto standard) is to free up the patent.
00
Tesla doesn’t make his money from cars … he makes his money from fake credits for batteries !!
20
Will the worldwide demand for Lithium be driven more by demand for batteries, or for therapy for the growing numbers of nutters promoting batteries to replace centralised generation & distribution of power ?
20
Bernie Fraser should be more concerned with CBUS providing confidential tax file numbers of its members to the CMFEU … “from little things, big things come.” You bet … see you at the Royal Commission, Bernie !!
00
here we go again:
8 July: SBS: AAP: Muir stands up for clean energy policy
Ricky Muir says clean energy ‘very much interests’ him as the Motoring Enthusiast Party senator launches a bid to save the renewable energy agency…
The crossbench senator has emerged as a passionate supporter of clean energy and ARENA’s work, fuelling speculation that he may thwart the federal government bid to abolish the agency.
“Renewable energy is the way of the future and it’s something that very much interests me,” Senator Muir told AAP on Tuesday…
To save the agency from the chopping block, Senator Muir will require the support of the three Palmer United Party senators…
The Australian Greens, who moved an amendment virtually identical to Senator Muir’s, were cheered by the prospect of the cross bench fighting to save ARENA.
“The Greens welcome Ricky Muir’s support for the renewable energy agency and we hope that he will bring his Palmer United Party colleagues along with him,” leader Christine Milne said in a statement…
The contracts of the remaining ARENA board members expire next week.
The Greens have urged the government to reappoint the board so ARENA can continue its work until the legislation has been fully considered.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/07/08/muir-stands-clean-energy-body
00
Ahhh . If Arena is not folded, do the Liberals get to appoint the new board members ??
That could get very interesting 🙂
00
8 July: Guardian: Lenore Taylor: Ricky Muir seeking to save the Australian Renewable Energy Agency
Senator is seeking to amend the carbon tax repeal bills to stop $435m in funding being stripped from the clean energy body
Motoring Enthusiast senator Ricky Muir has emerged as a surprise would-be saviour of the $2bn Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena), seeking to amend the carbon tax repeal bills to stop $435m in funding being stripped from the clean energy body and promising to try to stop its abolition…
Palmer United party senators have already promised to stop the government’s plan to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the existing renewable energy target.
But the government is already seeking to effectively close Arena ahead of legislation passing, refusing to reappoint board members as their terms expire. The government wants to return $1.3bn in Arena funding to the budget, and then have the industry department oversee around $900m in funding deals that have already been struck…
“Ricky wants to preserve Arena. He is in favour of renewable energy and he thinks it is doing great work,” the spokesman said…
As previously reported by Guardian Australia, PUP is also finalising amendments to legislate its dormant ETS, which it has announced will be part of the bill to repeal the climate change authority.
PUP has said its amendments will retain the CCA to advise governments on when a set of conditions are met to activate the Australian ETS…
At times PUP leader Clive Palmer has referred to the other countries having to have an ETS, but another proposal is that they would need to have an “effective” carbon price at a certain level, meaning they might be achieving significant greenhouse gas reductions through different policies…
It is understood the PUP senators and independent senator Nick Xenophon and DLP senator John Madigan are still considering how they will vote on the legislation to repeal Arena, but may back the Greens and Muir and refuse to allow its abolition.
Given that Arena may now not be abolished, the Greens leader, Senator Christine Milne, has written to the industry minister, Ian MacFarlane, complaining that he is pre-empting the parliament by refused to renew the contracts of Arena board members…
“As you will be aware, Arena is a statutory authority, and the future of the institution is not subject to the government’s sole discretion. I therefore urge you to appoint board members until the will of the parliament is clear,” she wrote.
“Without appointing board members, the government would frustrate the intention of the act and place an undue workload on the secretary of the department,” she wrote.
Regarding Muir’s amendment, Milne said “the Greens welcome Ricky Muir’s support for the renewable energy agency and we hope that he will bring his Palmer United party colleagues along with him.”…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/ricky-muir-seeking-to-save-the-australian-renewable-energy-agency
even the comments are depressing.
00
They would have been vetted questions. She may even have had some better ones, but if Bernie didn’t like them he would have crossed them off. Or even supplied “approved” questions to the ABC.
00
9 July: Sky News: Coalition fails on carbon tax repeal vote
The Abbott government has suffered an embarrassing setback to its bid to fast track repeal of the carbon tax through parliament.The Senate on Wednesday rejected a government move to force an urgent vote on its legislation.The loss turned on the vote of Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party senator Ricky Muir who split from his Palmer United Party allies by voting with Labor and the Greens…
He was joined by two other cross benchers Nick Xenophon and John Madigan to tie the vote 36-36.The government’s intention to rush through its repeal bills prompted outrage from opposition parties…
A vote on the repeal bills and non-government amendments may now be days away.
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/07/09/coalition-fails-on-carbon-tax-repeal-vote.html
9 July: Australian: Sid Maher/AAP: Ricky Muir splits from PUP to help block carbon tax debate move in Senate
Senator Muir’s vote raises questions about his pact with Clive Palmer’s party, delivering four out of the six crossbench votes the government requires to pass legislation and support motions.
But he said last night he was interested in renewable energy and wanted to see a vote on his amendment to retain the Australian Renewable Energy Agency…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/ricky-muir-splits-from-pup-to-help-block-carbon-tax-debate-move-in-senate/story-e6frg6xf-1226982737232
00
9 July: ABC Factcheck: Tony Abbott’s claim carbon schemes being discarded doesn’t check out
Fact Check asked Mr Abbott’s office for the basis for his claim about schemes being discarded. No reply was received…
According to a June 2013 report by the Parliamentary Library, there were emissions trading schemes in place across Europe, in parts of the United States and Canada, and in New Zealand, Australia, Japan and legislated in South Korea – where a full scheme is scheduled to commence in 2015.
China was the “most notable” country proposing new schemes, with a network of seven pilot schemes in the design and planning stages, the report said.
The European scheme includes 28 European Union countries and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway…
***A May 2013 World Bank report, Mapping Carbon Pricing Initiatives, suggested the future was bright for emissions…
The World Bank’s report still says carbon pricing is increasing on a national and sub-national level – it’s just that international agreements are having trouble gaining traction…
***Economist Ross Garnaut, who headed the Rudd government’s climate change review in 2008 (updated in 2011) and is a long-time advocate of emissions trading, says he doesn’t know of anywhere in the world where carbon pricing is being rolled back…
***Regina Betz from the University of New South Wales Centre of Energy and Environment Markets, who signed the letter, told Fact Check more countries were moving towards emissions trading, not away from it. …
***Another signatory, Stephen Howes from the Australian National University, said there had been some backward steps for emissions trading – the global financial crisis caused a significant drop in the price of emissions permits in Europe, and some countries, like Japan and Canada, have walked away from the Kyoto Protocol – but “overall with China introducing pilots and California going ahead you would have to say more adoption than discarding”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-09/tony-abbott-emissions-trading-around-the-world-fact-check/5559430
00
9 July: ABC Factcheck: Tony Abbott’s claim carbon schemes being discarded doesn’t check out
Fact Check asked Mr Abbott’s office for the basis for his claim about schemes being discarded. No reply was received…
According to a June 2013 report by the Parliamentary Library, there were emissions trading schemes in place across Europe, in parts of the United States and Canada, and in New Zealand, Australia, Japan and legislated in South Korea – where a full scheme is scheduled to commence in 2015.
China was the “most notable” country proposing new schemes, with a network of seven pilot schemes in the design and planning stages, the report said.
The European scheme includes 28 European Union countries and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway…
***A May 2013 World Bank report, Mapping Carbon Pricing Initiatives, suggested the future was bright for emissions…
The World Bank’s report still says carbon pricing is increasing on a national and sub-national level – it’s just that international agreements are having trouble gaining traction…
***Economist Ross Garnaut, who headed the Rudd government’s climate change review in 2008 (updated in 2011) and is a long-time advocate of emissions trading, says he doesn’t know of anywhere in the world where carbon pricing is being rolled back…
***Regina Betz from the University of New South Wales Centre of Energy and Environment Markets, who signed the letter, told Fact Check more countries were moving towards emissions trading, not away from it. …
***Another signatory, Stephen Howes from the Australian National University, said there had been some backward steps for emissions trading – the global financial crisis caused a significant drop in the price of emissions permits in Europe, and some countries, like Japan and Canada, have walked away from the Kyoto Protocol – but “overall with China introducing pilots and California going ahead you would have to say more adoption than discarding”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-09/tony-abbott-emissions-trading-around-the-world-fact-check/5559430
00
not everyone on the left likes the ETS; shut down industry favoured. that would work out well, too:
5 July: GreenLeft: Sam Wainwright: Our Common Cause: Carbon trading not solution to climate crisis
In Europe, where carbon trading schemes have existed for years now, grassroots environmental organisations are calling for them to be scrapped because they’ve proven to be worse than useless.
WHY EMISSIONS TRADING DOESN’T WORK
Europe’s ETS has resulted in large subsidies being paid to the biggest polluting companies and has not resulted in a drop in emissions.
The loud opposition of the Coalition, mining companies and climate sceptics to Gillard’s “big new tax” only confirmed the view that an ETS must be the silver bullet.
However, the suggestion that only a “market mechanism” could save us is pretty weird, considering it is the market — or capitalism — that got us into the global warming mess in the first place…
The idea that the public should pay to create the renewable energy infrastructure of the future while the big mining companies keep on making billions in profit is absurd. It’s the sale of fossil fuels that should be paying for the transformation. Fossil fuels should be subsidising their own obsolescence.
But the fossil fuel mafia will fiercely protect their business model, even if it costs the Earth. So any change would require breaking the economic and political power of the corporations that rule Australia…
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/56775
nonetheless, ABC/Fairfax etc are definitely on side with the Banksters, which i find highly amusing.
00
8 July: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: If It’s a War on Coal, Coal Is Winning
As wars go, the fight between clean and dirty energy sources is more like a centuries-old religious conflict than shock and awe.
That’s one lesson from a new study of U.S. power generation by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. In 2040, the electricity sector might not look radically different from the way it does today, with emissions a little higher, or lower, and power sources still clubbing each other over the head for market share. Coal isn’t surrendering so fast, renewables won’t clean up the planet by themselves and, if the U.S. can ever put a price on carbon, the most politically tolerable level (here, $10 per metric ton of carbon dioxide) won’t do the trick. That’s just enough change to keep everybody in the game and nobody happy…
Making it harder for the U.S. to cut carbon: the persistence of cheap coal, the possibility of higher natural gas prices and political unwillingness to address climate change. So U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from producing electricity may fall only modestly, with coal and natural gas still responsible for more than 60 percent of power generation a generation hence, the study found. U.S. studies “may underestimate the potential for coal-based generation,” the report states…
Emissions in 2040 top today’s in the EIA and cheap coal scenarios. Even cheap renewable power wouldn’t make too much of a dent, according to the projections, which still show emissions higher than today’s, because solar, wind and other technologies would be added to a power network that is largely powered by similar amounts of coal and gas. The cost of building renewables would have to drop far lower than the EIA model proposes before clean technologies would start displacing coal and gas plants dramatically…
The Oxford report calls President Obama’s recently proposed power plant rules modest, “at least from a European perspective.” Without much threat of policy significantly altering the power picture, greens can continue to wage war on coal, coal on gas, and gas on greens, for years to come.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-07/if-it-s-a-war-on-coal-coal-is-winning.html
00
Plonking another clear example of ABC bias here – from the following ABC blog:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/06/25/4033168.htm
James Picone commented:
To which I responded:
So James decided to go all Middle Ages on me (emphasis added):
Unfortunately my counter, which was far more polite than his got “moderated” by the ABC mod squad.
My complaint follows:
01
I am really kicking myself for not either:
1) keeping a copy of my second reply; or
2) threatening to do 1).
A lot of the time when I don’t do the latter, I find my comments get moderated despite being far more reasonable than the spewings of the feral warmistas. ABC bias is now so endemic that they don’t realise how far off balance they are. They probably think they are neutral LOL.
01
They are a confused lot.
Mines generaly don’t use highways. They build their own railway systems from mine to port.
The “point of taxation is to pay together for things that benefit everyone” is true enough. So I do wish theyd’d stop giving our money to the UN, or themselves, or other stupid causes that help nobody.
Fuel excise and other such things are simply exuses to take money. It was never intended to go on the road, that was just the bait.
00
The diesel excise was originally hypothecated for road use:
From the Fuel Taxation Inquiry: http://fueltaxinquiry.treasury.gov.au/content/backgnd/002.asp
So yes, that was the original intent. It still seems reasonable to me that road users are the ones that pay for road usage, likewise other transport infrastructure. Why should someone who never flies pay for airport infrastructure? Why should someone who never goes to the opera pay for the concert hall?
Some things can easily be deemed as user pays, while other things such as health, education, defence work better on a communal basis. We all benefit from those facilities – even if you don’t have kids, they are the future tax payers during your retirement, so you want them well eduicated etc. to pay for your future health system.
James picone doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that some infrastructure & services are better suited to user pay systems. Heck, I bet he supports the CO2 tax, and that whole system was predicated on user (in this case emitter) pays…
00
Oh looky looky … suddenly after I threaten the ABC, yesterday’s comment appears a day later, with yesterday’s time stamp. I call shenanigans. All other comments appear within an hour or two.
10
as with Obama, so with Hillary; Wall Street Banks are the big contributors.
2 July: US News & World Report: David Catanese: The Billion Dollar Clinton Money Machine
Wall Street has fueled the Clinton juggernaut for years, which worries both the right and the left.
Particularly notable in the Journal’s tally is the Clintons heavy reliance on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have been the power couple’s No. 1 Wall Street contributor, doling out nearly $5 million to the Clintons. As a senator, Hillary raked in $5.7 million from financial services firms, fairly typical for a New York legislator. Financial-services firms accounted for about 12 percent of the total amount raised by the Clintons. By comparison, Mitt Romney – Mr. 47 Percent – raised 13 percent of his 2012 campaign funds from financial-services firms.
Put it altogether and it’s easy to see how Hillary Clinton could become the preferred candidate of Wall Street in 2016.
And that has both the right and the left trembling, but for different reasons…
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/07/02/the-billion-dollar-clinton-money-machine
Time Mag: 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis
Bill Clinton
President Clinton’s tenure was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html
00
Australian article requires subscription so posting from Herald Sun. it appears Australian/Herald Sun are not interested in disclosing who IFM Investors are, see below:
9 July: Herald Sun: Staff Reporter: Clean energy sector warns on RET
The clean energy industry has hit back at calls for changes to the current renewable energy target, warning that $15 billion in investment could be at risk along with Australia’s profile as a low sovereign risk country, The Australian reports.
Australia’s largest infrastructure investor, “If governments flip-flop with policy to the extent that they drive the renewable energy sector out of this country and foreign investors away from this country, don’t expect to be able to attract them back in a hurry,” Andrew Thomson, managing director of Acciona Energy in Australia, said, according to The Australian., and Spanish firm Acciona have both said they could avoid Australia as a future investment destination should a push to alter the RET succeed…
“If governments flip-flop with policy to the extent that they drive the renewable energy sector out of this country and foreign investors away from this country, don’t expect to be able to attract them back in a hurry,” Andrew Thomson, managing director of Acciona Energy in Australia, said, according to The Australian…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/breaking-news/clean-energy-sector-warns-on-ret/story-fnn9c0hb-1226982527281?nk=9bd430ffb7b6b0857ad8cfe4acfec345
IFM Investors: Board
Chairman: Garry Weaven
Garry is Chair of IFM Investors and of Pacific Hydro, a leading Australian renewable energy company with extensive operations in Australia and South America. He also chairs ‘The New Daily’, a free digital online news service. He is also a Director of Members Equity Bank and was a foundation Board member of Melbourne’s Docklands Authority as well as its successor, VicUrban. Garry’s involvement in superannuation and funds management follows a successful career in the Australian union movement, which culminated in him being elected Assistant Secretary of the ACTU in 1986. Garry played a seminal role in the development of the industry superannuation fund movement and in 1994 founded Industry Fund Services, the forerunner to a number of collectively owned financial service providers, including IFM Investors…
Murray Bleach:
Murray Bleach has over 30 years experience in the accounting and finance industry. He originally worked as a Chartered Accountant for KPMG in Sydney and Dallas, Texas. His move into financial services came in 1987, when he joined Bankers Trust Australia. Murray joined Macquarie Group as part of Macquarie’s acquisition of Bankers Trust Australia…
Michael Migro:
Michael has had a broad and extensive 35 year career in funds management and financial services. His experience has been gained in both Australia and the US. Michael has had significant leadership responsibilities in various capacities as Head of Business Strategy (BT Funds Management), Joint Managing Director (Westpac Financial Services), CEO (Perpetual Funds Management and Principal Global Investors Australia), and more recently in the US as COO (Principal Global Investors) and President and Chief Operating Officer (Post Advisory Group LLC). Michael is also a Director of Industry Fund Services, the leading provider of financial products and advice services to industry superannuation funds in Australia, and is on the Investment Committee of the Steve Waugh Foundation Australia…
Linda Rubinstein:
Linda has served on IFM’s Investor Advisory Board and was the Chair of the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust (AGEST) until its merger with AustralianSuper. Linda had a long period of employment with the ACTU, where her responsibilities included industrial legislation and superannuation, and at different times was appointed to the boards of HOSTPLUS and Cbus…
***Greg Combet:
Prior to this Greg held the role of ACTU Secretary for eight years and Assistant Secretary for six years before that. He has been a Director of AustralianSuper (2002-07) and a Director of ME Bank (2006-07) and is adept in advocacy, governance and financial management…
ETC
http://www.ifminvestors.com/au/about-us/board-members
CEO Brett Himbury
Previously he was Managing Director of Tyndall Investment Management, the funds management business of Suncorp. Prior to that he held a range of leadership roles across funds management and financial planning. His roles included Executive General Manager, Financial Planning & Advice Services at the Commonwealth Bank, Head of Financial Planning & Advice at Westpac, and Associate Director National Adviser Services at Rothschild.
Global Head of Infrastructure: Kyle Mangini
Past roles include senior positions with Credit Suisse First Boston and SBC Warburg in the United States, Asia and Australia. Kyle represents IFM Investors as a director on the boards of Melbourne Airport and Pacific Hydro. Previously he was a director of Essential Power, NT Airports, Brisbane Airport and Ecogen.
Global Head of Debt Investments: Robin Miller
Robin’s career started in the mining industry in 1975, moving into finance in 1986 when he joined National Australia Bank (NAB) group as an analyst. Within NAB he had many roles in credit analysis and lending (both corporate and project finance) as well as in credit control and risk management. In 1998 he moved across to one of NAB’s funds management businesses, National Asset Management (NAM), specifically to take credit risk skills into their fixed interest team.
ETC
00
second para of the Herald Sun RET article should have read:
“Australia’s largest infrastructure investor, IFM Investors, and Spanish firm Acciona have both said they could avoid Australia as a future investment destination should a push to alter the RET succeed…”
which is why i posted the stuff about IFM Investors.
00
Oh noes… worse than we thought press says Busselton will drown by 2070 due to rising seas:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24420522/busselton-under-water-by-2100/
00
Builldust:
Did you notice the usual get out clause in the first paragraph.
“Rising sea levels [COULD] leave low-lying towns such as Busselton under water by 2100 if emissions went unchecked, according to one of Australia’s foremost climate change experts.”
00