Report aims to combat climate 'misinformation'

[Michaelangelica]

Report aims to combat climate 'misinformation'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin

By environment reporter Sarah Clarke
Posted Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:02pm AEST
The statement says global emissions must peak within a decade and decline rapidly if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. (Reuters: Ilya Naymushin)

• Audio: Scientists unite in fresh warming warning (PM)

Some of the nation's top scientists have united in a new climate statement which issues fresh warnings about the dangers of global warming.
The statement released by the Australian Academy of Science is a first for the organisation and details the key evidence identified globally by climate scientists.
It says carbon emissions need to be cut by more than half by 2050 if there is to be a good chance of keeping temperature rises to less than two degrees.
It also says global emissions must peak within a decade and decline rapidly if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.
Kurt Lambeck from the Australian National University says current misinformation is confusing the public debate and the warnings need to be identified.
"It's because we've been concerned about the nature of the climate change debate in recent times," he said.
"We see the quality of the science improving with time but the debate seems to be degenerating in some ways."
Professor Lambeck says one of the reasons behind the degeneration is that the science is very complex.
"Climate science is really at the sort of intersection of a whole lot of basic science areas," he said.
"Now a lot of people understand elements of those basic sciences but they don't understand the complexities that occur when you try to put it all together.
"People get confused over those minor, what are essentially secondary issues and in that process the whole level of the debate degenerates."
Professor Lambeck says the complexity of the issue may be one reason both sides of politics seem to have shelved the issue of climate change.
"I suspect both sides find it hard to understand what they should be doing," he said.
"Some time ago the major parties both recognised that climate change was a real threat and that, you know, action needed to be taken.
"But we've lost that consensus between the two parties."
'Severe' impact

Professor Lambeck says the statement looks at global temperatures, which he says have increased by "about a degree" over the last century.
"A degree doesn't sound like very much but it appears that its impact on regional climate can be quite severe," he said.
"Now when I say one degree, that is the global average surface temperatures.
"There are parts of the globe that have been subjected to much larger changes in more recent times.
"Whether that's part of a long term trend or whether that's part of some of the natural variability or whether these are oscillations, that's something that we don't know yet because our records are too short."
Scientific questions

The statement makes the point that no scientific conclusion can ever be absolutely certain.
But Professor Lambeck does not think that leaves the conclusions open to sceptics and critics.
"The underpinning parts - the fact that CO2 is increasing, the fact that CO2 increases results in global temperature rises, the fact the CO2 has a long residence time in the atmosphere - these are facts that are extremely unlikely will ever be overturned by new information," he said.
"Where the scientific questions arise is in the feedbacks that occur between the various components.
"We're not totally clear on that and we may not have the right way to put that into our forecast.
"But these are factors that will affect the rate at which things will change.
"They're extremely unlikely to affect the change in direction of what we are observing."
The Greens say the report shows the major parties need to do more to deal with the threat.
Greens Senator Christine Milne says the big parties are acting as if climate change is not real.
"Both parties are trying to ignore climate change and this is big turnaround from 2007 when the Labor Party told Australians that it was a great moral imperative and they would act on it," she said.
"Part of the reason for that is the sceptics campaign that has been aided and abetted by Tony Abbott and the Coalition."
Tags: environment, climate-change, government-and-politics, federal-government, australia

[gardenlen]

g'day michael,

see the picture i would suggest that is not in australia and i would suggest that where the pic' was taken that country has many more belchers on their horizon than what has been shown. of all the power station images shown of aussie stations that i have seen i have never seen anything that comes anywhere near as bad as that picture.

so if this climate change is in fact proven to be real, then those countries causing that obvious pollution should be made to clean up their acts first, then our less than poultry 2% contribution will mean nothig to the climate, not a spit in the bucket amere drop in teh ocean of this thing.

so as the one fringe party wants to do we shut down all industry or most of same, shut down coal fired power stations in prefference for expensive nuclear power, we stop all fishing on the eatern seaboard! what then the implications look clear to me, and they haven't managed to save a tree yet. all our industry employment goes off shore (still creating pollution) the only seafood we will get is i,ported stuff from polluted waterways. with all that less tax being paid and all those extra people on some sort of welfare, might come close to sending us broke. ah feel good a solid way to make policy.

len

[ecodharmamark]

G'day Len

Please allow me to respond to your points:

see the picture i would suggest that is not in australia and i would suggest that where the pic' was taken that country has many more belchers on their horizon than what has been shown. of all the power station images shown of aussie stations that i have seen i have never seen anything that comes anywhere near as bad as that picture.

I tend to agree. I am not aware of any current site in Australia where the stacks are misaligned like those displayed in the picture. Of course, 50 or 100 years ago, the above picture would have been a common site on any Australian urban landscape. The remnant, now heritage listed chimneys dotted throughout scenic and historic Bendigo (Australia) today are a testament to this.

On the subject of Australian, coal-fired power stations. Here in Victoria, we are saddled with one of the most polluting, brown-coal fed stations in the world! Just because today's standards require that most of the large particulate matter (smoke) is captured, does not mean that huge amounts of CO2 and NOx are still being emitted.



The old days...



Today... The smoke (particulate matter) has mostly gone, but not the Greenhouse Gases (GHG)...

Hazelwood power station is now owned by a UK consortium. All profits from this filthy monster go out of Australia. Hazelwood has now been given licence to to mine brown coal at the 'west field', just near the station itself for the next 25-years!

so if this climate change is in fact proven to be real, then those countries causing that obvious pollution should be made to clean up their acts first, then our less than poultry 2% contribution will mean nothig to the climate, not a spit in the bucket amere drop in teh ocean of this thing.

Yes Len, in terms of gross output, Australia is a small player. However, we can not escape the fact that per capita, we are one of the world's biggest GHG producers in the world!

It's all about leadership, Len. Why do you practice permaculture? If you do it merely to just satisfy your own needs, and at the same time reduce you own carbon footprint, then I say 'good on you'! If however, and as I suspect, you do it as a way of demonstrating to others that there is a better way of living, for both humanity and the planet, then I also say 'good on you', but I will add, 'good on you for being a leader'!

Since Australia is among the top GHG polluters in the world, surely then leadership on combating the effects of Climate Change need to start here? Australia is in a unique position to provide true global leadership on this matter. We have the renewable resources, wind, solar and geo-thermal, and we have the expertise to put it together as a viable alternative to non-renewable sources of energy.

so as the one fringe party wants to do we shut down all industry or most of same, shut down coal fired power stations in prefference for expensive nuclear power, we stop all fishing on the eatern seaboard! what then the implications look clear to me, and they haven't managed to save a tree yet. all our industry employment goes off shore (still creating pollution) the only seafood we will get is i,ported stuff from polluted waterways. with all that less tax being paid and all those extra people on some sort of welfare, might come close to sending us broke. ah feel good a solid way to make policy.

I presume here, Len, that you are referring the the Greens?

Let's have a look at the facts:

"...shut down all industry or most of same"

Not so. In fact, the Greens advocate for greater, fairer and smarter workforce participation.

"...shut down coal fired power stations in prefference [sic] for expensive nuclear power"

Not so. In fact the Greens have energy policy goals which include:

6. a nuclear-free Australia.
7. a nuclear-free world.
8. safe, long-term containment of Australia’s existing nuclear waste.
9. the elimination of nuclear weapons through a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
10. the elimination of depleted uranium weapons.
11. safe, ecologically sustainable energy options.

"...stop all fishing on the eatern [sic] seaboard"

Not so. Currently, Australia's (indeed the world's) offshore commercial fishing models are not sustainable. The Greens merely want to bring this practice back into a sustainable framework:

16. introduce an Oceans Act that coordinates sustainability of ocean uses through a statutory National Oceans Authority, reporting to the parliament, and enforcing ecosystem-based regional management plans and targets.

"...they haven't managed to save a tree yet"

Not so. The Greens have worked hard to ensure that one of our most important assets in terms of Climate Change abatement, trees, are well protected. They will continue to do so under the following edict:

24. adopt a continent-wide approach to protection and restoration of Australia’s natural environment, its rivers, wetlands and aquifers, wild lands and marine ecosystems, including the protection of old growth and high conservation value forests and other ecosystem types such as woodland, heathland, marshland, dune systems and grasslands and their wildlife.

I could go on, Len, but I am sure that you would feel more comfortable reading the policies at your own leisure:

The Greens - Policies

Climate Change and Non-renewable Resource Depletion are the greatest threats to human existence the world has ever seen. I realise this might be difficult for some people to acknowledge, Len, and I in now way do I mean to be disrespectful to your own or any other's personal belief structure. But you did ask for the 'facts':

"...so if this climate change is in fact proven to be real"

The fact is, if the world (including Australia, who as I have already outlined is well positioned to be a great leader) does not act, and act soon, then there is a great possibility that our children, their children, and their children's children will inherit a world vastly different from our own. One that is filled with much suffering, or even one that fails to exist.

All of the world's respected scientists, scholars, and people of faith understand this fact, Len. We don't have a lot of time left. Dangerous climate change effects are already upon many peoples of the world, and if we don't act, and act soon, catastrophic effects will be the norm, rather than the exception in the very near future.

Thanks for taking the time to read the above, and for following up on the links I have provided.

Peace to you, Markos.

[gardenlen]

g'day markos,

here it is again that per capita figure it allows the big polluters someplace to hide, the important factor if it is realy a factor is the gross input, like saying when the mashed potato is dished out there is the same amount in place in total but it is just as much as what was in the pot of 200 million people or 300 million people it is a wrong measure to use. using it means the big POLLUTERS will never do anything about their problem if it is truely a problem. so the more those others populate the beter their figure looks.

now i don't know how many coal fired stations we have in australia, i also don't know how many in india, the USA and europe. but i bet we don't have 300++ units like china now already has real belchers, adn they plan another 300++ tp bring it up to 0ver 600 still using our coal which of course we will still be minning for them, still no sense in it.

no it's not per capita they don't use per capita with road carange and they should not use it in this fiasco to give the big boys someplace to hide, and hide they are india has already pointed to our per capita measure. we need to get real, there's enough rubber about this whole affair already.

probably good indicator here as to how backward victoria might be hey, appears we are more advanced up here.

len

[ecodharmamark]

g'day markos,

here it is again that per capita figure it allows the big polluters someplace to hide, the important factor if it is realy a factor is the gross input, like saying when the mashed potato is dished out there is the same amount in place in total but it is just as much as what was in the pot of 200 million people or 300 million people it is a wrong measure to use. using it means the big POLLUTERS will never do anything about their problem if it is truely a problem. so the more those others populate the beter their figure looks.

now i don't know how many coal fired stations we have in australia, i also don't know how many in india, the USA and europe. but i bet we don't have 300++ units like china now already has real belchers, adn they plan another 300++ tp bring it up to 0ver 600 still using our coal which of course we will still be minning for them, still no sense in it.

no it's not per capita they don't use per capita with road carange and they should not use it in this fiasco to give the big boys someplace to hide, and hide they are india has already pointed to our per capita measure. we need to get real, there's enough rubber about this whole affair already.

probably good indicator here as to how backward victoria might be hey, appears we are more advanced up here.

len

We are the leaders, Len. You, me, and 99% of the people that frequent this forum. This is cause to celebrate, but we must not rest on our laurels.

Following is an ABC "Big Ideas" talk on urban food production. It (in my humble opinion) is a brilliant discussion on what it is that we need to do in order to survive into the future, and indeed provide a sustainable place for our children, and their children to just simply live:

There's Something Rotten in the Food Chain

Brendan Gleeson, one of the speakers in the above 'talk', has recently published the book Lifeboat Cities (2010) that features in my reading list, below. It is now available in most libraries, and I would urge anyone who has an interest in permaculture to read it, and to think hard about what Gleeson suggests as just one way of visioning for future world better than what we have at present. It's not a perfect solution, that Gleeson puts forward, but it at least gets the ball rolling.

It is a global issue, Len, and we need to plan for and implement a global solution. We (by far the majority of us that post here) are doing 'our bit' in our own back yards, but we need to go further. We need to take it to the world. We need to stand up and present a future world that is better, healthier, happier, and more planet-sustaining that the one we inhabit at present. One way of doing this is through our various permaculture projects. Permaculture is not just about 'organic gardening', it represents a platform for a new way of living sustainably, one which all the world's people can embrace - if only they knew it existed.

Once again, thanks for reading my views on the subject (however, I am sure that you will understand that I do not just write them for your benefit alone).

Cheerio, Markos.

[gardenlen]

markos said:
"We need to stand up and present a future world that is better, healthier, happier, and more planet-sustaining that the one we inhabit at present. "

and the poor will be destitute and our economy which is needed for us to live even simply will be blown out of the water with this carbon trading debacle, wild plans like this will do the people no good, and lots of those yuppy types who are the true high end resource users will be the new poor and when it happens they will be looking for heads but it will be way to late the horse would have bolted, and these carbon schemes like the falsity of the climate change it is suppoed to fix will just like a vacuum cleaner suck up money and return nothing, and oh i dunno 100's of years time they will look back and say what idiots dreamt this up?

if it is going to work as many allude to ( and mind you they have not as yet answered my previous questions of "how much $'s and pain" and "how long before we know it is fixed"), so if it is going to work them make the big boys clean up their backyards and show us how this rubbery process will deliver. truth is they and that includes the US is waiting for little old big ego australia (or should i say little ole young aus') do do it and fall on their faces while they watch and say now you know why we didn't go that way. and you know what i can't blame them for not wanting to cruel their economies.

but keep digging up the coal hey!!

len

[ecodharmamark]

Sorry Len, I thought we were on the same page, but it now appears that we are not even reading from the same book!

Len, I am not now, nor will I ever advocate for a change to our current socio-economic system of governance which will see the poor become poorer, and the rich become richer. I would have thought this point was obvious from all of my past posts, but it seems that I have failed to get the message across in this regard, at least as far as you are concerned. For this, I am sorry.

Please allow me to try and clarify my position:

I believe that climate change and non-renewable resource depletion are the two major threats to the continuation of the human species. I believe that these threats are not some distant concern, but are in reality happening today!

I believe that in order to give our species (and 95% of all other species on the planet) a slight chance of surviving into the future, that we humans must change the way that we organise society, and in doing so that way that we live. I believe that this needs to happen on a global scale, but I am aware that my ability to help this change happen is limited to my own sphere of influence - my community (of which the PRI Forum is part of).

I don't believe we have an ecological problem, I believe we have a social problem. As Murray Bookchin once said:

...present ecological problems cannot be clearly understood, much less resolved, without resolutely dealing with problems within society. To make this point more concrete: economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender conflicts, among many others, lie at the core of the most serious ecological dislocations we face today...

Source: What is Social Ecology

I urge you to watch/listen to the video link that I have previously provided in this thread. It really does tackle many (if not all) of the issues that I am sure we will all love to continue to discuss here.

These are exciting times, Len, but for many they are also worrying times. I somehow remain (in the face of huge adversity) optimistic that we humans as a global entity can 'transition' through the coming crisis, and find true peace and prosperity on the 'other side'. I look forward to making this journey with you, and with all of our friends - 'our community' - that frequent this Forum.

Cheerio, Marko.

[Flying Binghy]

Must be nice to sit around on ones bum spruiking some fairytale daydream...

... reality check ... China has taken an aggresive investment/ownership position in Australia's coal mines. China would buy out all Oz coal mines if it were alowed....

Stop coal mining yer say...






.

[gardenlen]

mmm dunno?????!!

whilst ever my posterior points south coal mining will never stop so all the other they want to do looks more rubbery than ever.

len

[ecodharmamark]

mmm dunno?????!!

whilst ever my posterior points south coal mining will never stop so all the other they want to do looks more rubbery than ever.

len

G'day again, Len

That is your opinion, and you have every right to express it. I happen to believe otherwise. I also believe that while people such as yourself believe that "...coal mining will never stop", coal mining will never stop. We create the world we live in. We are our own worst peril. We live 'by the coal', and we will die 'by the coal'. Unless we decide to change - en masse. It is our choice. I'm choosing to fight (via the pen, not the sword), other's choose to lay down and die. It is one's own choice to make. There is nothing more that I can add to this conversation other than to say, I sincerely wish for you and those around you the best you can muster out of our grim situation. Good luck on your journey.

Markus