PHILL PARSONS
The Rudd government and the Turnbull opposition stand condemned by this Report. Both support inadequate actions to address the human inducement of a disaster for the Great Barrier Reef. Whilst a solution lies outside of national action alone, failing to lead the world in setting targets shows that the cabal between industry, government and certain unions spells a disaster for that part of the economy dependent on the Reef.
We are now entering the final quarter before the second round of the global climate treaty is debated, the UN Framework Climate Convention.
After 13 years of drought in southern Australia what many have scientists long suspected has been confirmed by a 3 year collaborative study between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO.
As I have banged on here, this group states it’s NOT a 13 years natural dry stretch, its climate instability bringing us a shift to another level.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html
A few others argue it’s not a permanent shift.
Hows the winter weather been in comparison to the record.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26009411-11949,00.html
“The winter heat was due to the lack of strong, cool frontal systems from the south.”
And where was the record breaking rain?, Why in the proposed food bowl State.
Natural climate instabilty or evidence of a shift?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090831132943.htm
I have been trying to impress upon the reader the idea that what is happening to the climate is simply a ‘change’ is wrong. First comes climate instability, and it remains so without adequate action to reduce the impact of human induced carbon emissions.
Another local example is the outcome for the Great Barrier Reef, a national icon. The newspaper report is bad enough
http://www.theage.com.au/national/great-barrier-reef-faces-catastrophe-20090902-f8fv.html
450ppmv of CO2 is the wrong target, according to the Reef Outlook Report by the GBR Marine Park Authority. Try Great barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009 – Chapters to cut to the words rather than read the spin summaries.
The current risks are tabled on page 166 of the Report with sea temperature increase and ocean acidification flagged as a very likely and the Consequence catastrophic
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/great_barrier_reef_outlook_report
The Rudd government and the Turnbull opposition stand condemned by this Report. Both support inadequate actions to address the human inducement of a disaster for the Great Barrier Reef. Whilst a solution lies outside of national action alone, failing to lead the world in setting targets shows that the cabal between industry, government and certain unions spells a disaster for that part of the economy dependent on the Reef .
It is the irregularity and unpredictability of the climate that becomes problematical. Some regions will go against the trend and others exceed its prediction.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827101207.htm
And without a win for the zero carbonites, id est a target of 350ppmv CO2, we will have continuing instability moving into danger with a higher probability than necessary of a disaster.
These are the stages that follow instability and once on that slippery slope it will be harder and harder to avoid the end result.
Ask the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who the US tried to have removed in a political approach to ensuring disaster.
“As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations,” said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm).
“But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target,” he told Agence France Presse in an interview.
Pachauri specifically cited the last big piece of news for 350: the decision of 80+ small island nations and less developed countries to endorse the 350 target.
“I think this is a good development,” said Pachauri. “Now people — including some scientists — see the seriousness of the impacts of climate change, and the fact that things are going to get substantially worse than what we had anticipated.”
Now if the head of the IPCC can take a position on the evidence it should mean something for a government that professes a wish to avoid the very short age of the Stupidocene that saw the end of the Anthropocene.
Instead Rudd, Wong, Combet, Garret and Fergusson continue with the fiction of minor changes as though it is a timeless period before those immutable laws come into play.
There will be a lot of actions leading up to the Copenhagen treaty. Here’s one for Hobart International Day of Climate Action on the 24th of October (sign up to start or attend an event at www.350.org), and the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December.
It serious but the craziness of it creates some weird reports; ‘watermelon world’.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090826073546.htm
This is the third week where the warming of the ocean around Tasmania gets a mention. This time something to gladden the hearts of the deniers, a link with the medieval warm period.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827131832.htm
We will no doubt hear how its all happened before from the deluded.
Kenneth Davidson writes criticising the Lablib CPRS and the ETS under it. He goes so far as to name the only party serious about the issue. Of course it is only his opinion.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/polluters-win-no-matter-who-is-in-power-20090830-f3vi.html?page=-1
Here is a report of apparent co-operation between India and China on the impacts of climate instability on the source of the 5 great rivers of Asia.
http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/1/46576.htm
They may be worried but it would seem to date that the reaction to human induced climate instability follows a series of stages. The first is to ignore and deny, the second is to look into it and here India and China appear to have arrived, the third is to pretend to do something whilst retaining as much business as usual as you can get away with [where Australia is today] and the final is to be surprised whilst the climate runs away to disaster so no responsibility can be laid at the feet of your incompetence.
There may be some other stages that avoid the final stage but as yet no country has seriously adopted one, although it is recommended we look into it
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26002852-11949,00.html
Geoengineering may defer the day and it may not, but if sulphur is used to deflect light [heat] from the sun back how will it be regulated when volcanic eruptions will add more. Sulphur aerosols remain aloft for years. Also, I understand the light spectrum will be distorted giving a new hue to daylight, living in a yellow submarine. It’s a pity it not rose tinted.
You may have seen the fantasy world of a geo-engineered ‘solution’ to human induced climate danger on the TV news. Read the Royal Society report here.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8729
In it you will see methods from the highly interventionist to the low impact. Land use change in is flagged and rated. Very affordable, safe and timely it unfortunately is deemed to have a low effectiveness apparently due to the insecurity of the store under the impacts of the climate and human activity.
The one important point is we can do this now, no further research in the process is required.
Beyond the carbon dioxide removal techniques, many that rate well are the solar radiation management and these tend to rate poorly.
Simply changing the lifestyles of those in the overdeveloped world are unmeasured.
However measuring methane release from the sea floor has been flagged as important as the rate of release is a known unknown affecting surface temperatures.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm
And the bumbling over the MDB continues.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26023835-11949,00.html
“Rivers die from the mouth back”. A well known phenomenon of the Colorado, the Oxus [Amu Darya] and the Syr Darya [Jaxartes]. Why should overuse of the Murray in a drying climate have a different result?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21466356.htm
And for the detail.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/86247.pdf
Comment
Gunns announced that its proposed Tamar Valley pulpmill will be 100% plantation fed, a bending to the community pressure for better environmental outcomes for natural forests, that appears to have influenced the JVP whose name remains unspoken, SODRA.
What then happens to the forests subjected to sale under the Wood Supply Agreement, destined to supply the pulpmill at startup, has FT’s business plan gone out the proverbial window?.
Gunns plans must also change to reflect the new resource costs.
The States Government Business Enterprise, so long a supporter of this proposed pulpmill looks like it has been hung out to dry as the world of finance reacts to the demands of the modern world for habitability.
Perhaps now that new product, carbon sinking and storing will be considered by the Tasmanian Government, demand for it will only continue to rise along with the price paid for the product. They just await their orders from up at Melville Street.
phill Parsons wonders where the West Atlas oil rig fire and spill has gone. A major environmental disaster in the Australian jurisdiction and the Rudd Labor government and its pale shadow, the Turnbull Liberals, along with the media, has left the field.
The failure of the government to prepare for this, or to take proper control of it through AMSA and to allocate resources, especially when Woodside volunteer them, is an outstanding demonstration of the incompetence and incapacity of the Ministers Fergusson and Garrett. All show, no blow.
What does this augur for the oil and gas boom?. Accidents and their impacts may be different between these fossil fuels but in a carbon constrained world dealing with any impact at these new projects need to be planned for to limit both emissions and waste.
If the questions was asked by Government or private enterprise, I bet the answer contains such advice.
