Don’t hoax us

phill Parsons

“Now either the leaders of the Climate Institute represent one or both of the old parties, do not actually understand the impacts of continuing on the path of increasing emissions or are cruelly hoaxing the Australian public to garner money to continue to cruelly hoax the Australian public. If they expect to be taken seriously and have most of the parties adopt policies that will have impact they need to leave the old paradigm, as they expect the greenhouse gas polluters to do, and support parties that are seeking to change emission levels in a timely way.”

“The hoax of election 2007 is our sanctification of the Kyoto Protocol, a legacy of John Howard’s folly, Kevin Rudd’s distortions and the media’s bias.

The great Kyoto irrationality is driven by two events. The first is Howard’s epic blunder in refusing to change his mind and ratify, as there is no good reason for Australia not to ratify. And, second, contrary to every utterance from Rudd, the benefits for Australia from ratification are symbolic and devoid of practical meaning for climate change policy. “

So writes Paul Kelly in The Australian on the 24th of October. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22637761-12250,00.html

The first round of the Kyoto Agreement was not designed to end the growth of greenhouse gases in one simple step and it is false to villify it for not doing so. It was there to establish mechanisms for the global community to begin to move from generating greenhouse gases in amounts that could destabilize the climate and collapse society.

It is not wrong to ratify it, we signed up in 1997 having gained a considerable concession. Kelly belatedly argues the case for the Howard government doing so. Beyond just signing is the demonstration of intent and the engagement in the next round of reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, especially CO2 that ratification will bring.

However, there is a second hoax being perpetrated here, that the old parties are the ones with solutions to Australia’s problems caused by, and to be further exacerbated by human caused and Howard enhanced climate change.

The Climate Institute compares the outcomes of the policies of the old parties as at the 23rd of October. http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=105&Itemid=39

Which of the lesser of 2 evils do you want, an 18.5% increase in emissions under Labor or a 20.8% under the Liberal, the outcome of the current policies by 2020.

Well, by 2020, if we expect to address the dangers of climate catastrophe and limit the impacts on the natural systems upon which we all depend, we will have to markedly reduce emissions globally, 30% being an effective target.

Below is the Climate institues simplest comparison between the outcomes of the policies of the old parties as at the 23rd of October.

A stack for the Greens would show 385Mt, a 30% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020, as their current poilcy states. For comparison I have done my best with the graphic, the top of the stack on the right is around the Greens target.

http://greens.org.au/library/policies/C1climatechangeandenergy.pdf

Figure 1 The old parties policies fail to compare favorably with the Greens policy

Developed countries, having benefitted from the generation of CO2 to fuel growth should lead the way in reducung emissions. They will benefit from the technological developments for doing so.

With CO2 and methane growth from natural stores escalating as the oceans, forests and tundra are further affected by human generated warming the rate of change will be enhanced by processes we can only control by comprehensively reducing human generated greenhouse gas production in the near term.

The current goals for 2020 have to be at least 30% on 1990 levels below 1990 levels if we expect to retain a semblance of the natural world that we enjoy today.

Anything less than that goal threatens to feed the positive feedback mechanisms that are just starting to come into play and lead to an unstoppable postive feedback loop leading to catastrophe.

And so what do we have the nation’s leading environmental organizations and the Climate Institute doing when comparing policies and parties during this election period.

They claim to be cognizant of the dangers and are only so willing to tell us and beg for our financial support.

However they continue the fiction that there are only 2 choices on this key threat, both measured as ineffective.

For example the Climate Institute compares and rates the policies of 5 political parties that are contesting the 2007 election, seperating them into 2 major and 3 minor parties.

Now one would have thought that the parties with a 90% and an 83% rating on their climate policies would be featured as alternative governments by an Institute supposedly concerned with addressing the dangers of climate destabilization.

No, these are “minor parties” and so the Greens and the Australaian Democrats must be graded out to the minors page and the people led into believing there is a choice between dum and dummer when they both have completely unacceptable outcomes according to the very same Climate Institute, given the Me Too parties current policies on the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions.

Now either the Climate Institute represents one or both of the old parties, does not actually understand the impacts of continuing on the path of increasing emissions or are cruelly hoaxing the Australian public to garner money to continue to cruelly hoax the Australian public.

If they expect to be taken seriously and have most of the parties adopt policies that will have impact they need to leave the old paradigm, as they expect the greenhouse gas polluters to do, and support parties that are seeking to change emission levels in a timely way.

The only way to get political parties to adopt policies is to show that those policies are popular and when you have a party running for most lower house seats and strong Senate tickets that has the right policies you are failing if you do not give them equal billing with the other contestants seeking the support of your claimed constituency to build their popularity.

When you rate Labor at 43% and the Liberals at 21% for their policies then you need to rethink the grouping of the parties into those failing your test and those passing with flying colours, not into some media determined division based on a poor past performance.

If this is too much of a leap then at least compare their outcomes equally and let voters who visit the site decide.

I couldn’t support an organization as confused about the the route to a restabilized climate as the Climate Institute.

The same Climate Institute is supporting a Walk against Warming on the 11th of November. http://www.walkagainstwarming.org/.

You can organize your own at the above websyte rather than travel. Think globally, walk locally. I will be sailing against warming.

phill Parsons

I hope some readers are as offended by the bias against the so called minor parties when they are standing enough candidates to become government, especially that bias displayed by the public broadcater, and will tell them so.

I find it especially irritating that those groups supposedly defending the environment also express a similar bias by failing to rank the parties on their environmental policies as though some awful funding mega storm will affect their immediate incomes when the old parties failure to adddress the climate issue in a comprehensive, effective and timely way will affect all incomes more deeply than the food price rises we are seeing now courtesy of the failure to act.