PHILL PARSONS
The interactions between the broad elements that drive the earth’s climate are simple when taken one at a time but extraordinarily complex when viewed as a system.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701131307.htm.
In balancing the climate over millions of years plants have played an important part in regulating atmospheric carbon. Now that has been overwhelmed by human activity.
And here the meanderings of rainfall add further difficulties for the smaller members of the Pacific Islands forum.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701135535.htm
Mike Steketee takes a more measured line to the climate debate than others who write for The Australian. Here’s his take on detailed programmatic specificity, that amused the Chaser team and the Copenhagen outcome.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25898031-11949,00.html
Clean coal based on carbon capture and storage is a very tall order to be in by 2050 unless the Australian industry starts much earlier on this novel technology. Almost a tall tale.
And what do we get, at least 2dC warmer for a thousand years according to research on the time it will take to change back to the pre industrial climate.
To save the earths arse a little wobble engendering another ice age may be needed. However if the planet has no plants because the oceans do acid and the land does burnt to a crisp, what is there to prevent an ice planet forming? Tectonic plate movement, volcanic activity, methane gas bubble bursting from the ocean sediments?.
The Great Barrier Reef [GBR] has a dollar value placed on it 51.4Bn times. Tourism is big and so the tropical forests affected by the impact of climate change may have a similar ‘tourism’ value as well as one sinking carbon.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25906742-11949,00.html
What is the value of nature to Tasmanian tourism? Will its further degradation or the impacts of climate instability take 80% off that value like such impacts will for the GBR?
Negotiations start on Monday
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25906778-11949,00.html
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/coalition-to-pledge-lower-bills-in-its-emissions-plan-20090809-ee9j.html
This scheme only reduces emissions if the baseline lowers over time making the cost of additional emissions greater and thus forcing change. Either scheme on offer is too slow to affect the arrival of dangerous outcomes.
Predictably the Greens are accused of opportunism by the consummate opportunists. Senator Wong claims that the Greens oppose the too little legislation to force a double dissolution to gain more seats.
Whilst that gain is likely the complaint shows how the ALP fails to understand the science. For example, the numbers; even if the Greens voted for the CPRS legislation the Rudd Labor government still needs 2 more votes.
Xenephon, the Nationals and Fielding should be lumped in or the pressure applied to the party of big business to support the governments attempting the impossible, a compromise with the laws of physics and chemistry. This is the real opportunism.
Tuesday
The oppositions Frontier Economics scheme based on the baseline model cannot easily be blended into the proposed ETS and so the government will have to throw over its whole scheme and work furiously to introduce the one proposed by the Liberals or force a Double Dissolution. At the moment with the descriptors ‘mongrel’ and ‘unworkable’ it doesn’t take much to figure the outcome.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25911148-601,00.html
Thursday
Why has Business not fallen in behind the Turnbull plan to let them get away almost Scot free?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25921906-5018012,00.html
Tying CPRS and MRET is purely political and is likely to fall over shortly with the government bowing to industry pressure and passing the act with the support of almost all parties and independents. This would give some certainty to the renewable energy industry.
In the Senate we saw the CPRS legislation die at the second reading with the following amendment defeated first 66 to 6. The 6 were the Greens senators and Nick Xenaphon from S.A.
From Hansard;
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 12 August, on motion by
Senator Faulkner:
That these bills be now read a second time.
upon which Senator Milne moved by way of amendment:
At the end of the motion, add: provided that the Government first commits to entering the climate treaty negotiations at the end of 2009 with an unconditional commitment to reduce emissions by at least 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and a willingness to reduce emissions by 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 in the context of a global treaty.
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (9.58 am)—
The vote then moved to divide 30 to 42 to defeat the Rudd Government’s weak CPRS legislation.
This means that if the government does not want to amend the CPRS legislation presented on the 13th it can go to a double dissolution by having the same bill defeated again in more than 3 months time. If this is the case it would be a November election.
However the 66 to 6 vote indicates deals will be struck if Turnbull can get his own party to agree to amendments. The old parties do not want the Greens range of targets, indicating even if a strong agreement is struck in Copenhagen the Rudd government will avoid even its lesser 25% of 2000 emissions target.
The Australian’s Defence correspondence will take a new slant if they follow the long term thinking in the Pentagon. Building on earlier analysis the strategic planners see a very difficult security situation forming with global action to reduce the impacts of climate instability.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25905429-11949,00.html
Perhaps Senator Wong would like to accuse India and China of opportunism as they appear reluctant to commit to target to reduce carbon emissions.
Bad news for Bartlett’s Food Bowl policy if the UK announcement that it intends to Dig for Victory spreads.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/gardening/digging-for-victory-britains-food-revolution-1769697.html
This Franklin Dam like action is unlikely to come to Tasmania with its limited coal deposits and use but watch out for this in Latrobe and Hunter Valleys in the years ahead.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2524596.0.0.php
And for this mountainous isle a reminder of the fate of the inhabitants as the temperature cline creeps upslope as well as poleward.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111583873&ft=1&f=1025
Just as in Australia the mountain pygmy possum is threatened so it will be for many plants and animals. Already gone in recent times are the frog species of the cloud forests of Central America.
Still there’s more room in the Antarctic.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090807091435.htm
And for those who might like to say it’s an isolated event then Heard Is. Is also loosing ice cover at a rapid rate. Pop round to the sub Antarctic House at the RTBG and see some of the plants about to loose their ‘homes’ as maximum temperatures pass above their tolerance range.
Trying to understand the glacial pace of action on the climate crisis.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090807154404.htm
Here are some of the factors that the politicians take advantage of when delaying what their scientific advisers tell them is a cause for immediate comprehensive and effective action. And here are the ones the laws of physics and chemistry have applied.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716141138.htm
Shaun Carney, well known for his support of Labor, writes about public opinion without any data to support his argument except the general support of the political parties. He claims people are tired of talk about climate instability, they just want action.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/a-message-to-pollies-just-do-it-20090811-egwm.html?page=-1
“The Greens senators, Christine Milne and Bob Brown, will use the moment to again condemn the major parties as hopelessly out of touch – ”dinosaurs” was the term Milne used on Monday.
“It’s worth remembering that in the latest Newspoll, the Greens attracted 10 per cent support compared with a total of 82 per cent for the Labor, Liberal and National parties.
The major parties have not covered themselves in with their desultory, confusing handling of climate change, but they’re still the political institutions the public looks to for solutions.”
Reminding us that the old parties, established for years as part of the political scene have a combined support that can defeat the Greens may be politics, but it fails to define which party has a policy closer to the action necessary to avoid even more dangerous climate change than Minister Wong recognizes as inevitable.
It is not just the gaping failure of not taking the scientific advice and setting a minimum reduction of 25% by 2020 that is criminal on the part of the old parties it is the on ground consequences of failed leadership bending before greed.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729092538.htm
There is one industry sector that will prove difficult to manage the emissions from and that is agriculture. The number of small farm units and the lack of methods to reduce emissions completely from broadacre livestock farming would indicate that this sector needs to be treated as a sink only and the emissions dealt with through changes in practice.
If the government wishes to count emissions and change practices through a system of monetary penalty as an incentive then livestock farming is the ideal area for the application of a baseline approach where the baseline is set by what is currently achievable, thus encouraging farmers to move to the baseline and that line only shrinking with advances in science.
In practice this means intensive livestock production should install methane powered electricity generators or other burners to destroy that greenhouse gas and fuel their operation whilst encouraging extensive grazers better manage their feeding regimes [or, less preferably from a number of viewpoints, moving all meat production into feedlots.]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25921908-11949,00.html
If you wish to glimpse the future of The Australian here is a comment site for Frontier Economics plan to continue the Howard years of inaction. More clever as it is dressed up as action.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25921906-5018012,00.html
phill Parsons
