SUPER-TYPHOON HAIYAN strikes the Philippines, leaving 10,000 dead and utter devastation (For the breaking news of this horror use the TT NEWS dropdown menu). • Guardian: Aid starts … • UNHCR responds
Climate change ‘exaggerated’, says former Australian PM.
John Howard, anointed vessel of the one true Liberal belief, has recently described Australians who support the scientific arguments of climate change theory as zealots.
He extended the religious analogy even more directly with his reported comment, “the cause has become a substitute religion”.
Abbott, political son of Howard, considers climate science to be simply a socialist conspiracy.
From two men who purport belief in God and his incarnation as man, this is a majestic hypocrisy.
We cannot deny Howard and Abbott their right to whatever religious beliefs they choose. We cannot ridicule them or discriminate against them on religious grounds.
However, compared with the evidence in support of human induced climate change, the evidence supporting their religious beliefs appears flimsy.
I am sick of the climate change “debate”. It has taken on many of the characteristics of the age-stained fight between the followers of Mohammed and Jesus and seems destined for the same result if we allow such lazy hypocrisy to pass unchallenged into public policy …
It will deliver policy unsupported by scientific evidence, subject to change at a whim, as we have so recently witnessed.
Are all members of the Federal Liberal government so cowed, so toadying, that they will allow all Liberal-minded Australians to meekly become party to this hypocrisy?
Will we simply ignore any scientific evidence that challenges belief in man’s technical and organisational supremacy over nature, for fear of being ridiculed, or labelled as zealots and socialist conspirators?
Whether out of fear or laziness, to allow the debate to continue in its current half-pregnant state is equivalent to admitting that climate change does not represent a significant threat to our environment, society and economy.
The related argument that Australians acting alone can have no impact on global outcomes, belittles Australia’s magnificent heritage of world-changing leadership in so many fields of human endeavour.
Given the past and present Liberal leaders’ position, the only viable policy for Australia in this term of government is to announce, unequivocally, that we do not accept the evidence in support of climate change theory and will not take any action to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses.
This will enable a proper opposing view to form up around an alternative government wherein climate change is the first prism through which public policy is refracted.
Even if the impacts of climate change turn out to be more benign than destructive, well-designed public policy aimed at significantly reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does no harm.
Neither does belief in God within a secular state.
Howard went on to say, “But parliaments, composed of elected politicians, are the experts at policy-making and neither expressly or impliedly should they ever surrender that role to others.”
The point appears to be that climate change is too complex an issue for Howard’s so-called public policy experts and they have indeed surrendered their role to God’s will.
*Ben Quin is the Managing Director of an Australian engineering and agribusiness company with interests in Australia and China. He lives at Triabunna.
• Tristan Edis, Climate Spectator Editor, on Crikey: Why understanding John Howard’s climate cognition is important
In reading about John Howard’s speech delivered yesterday that downplayed the threat of dangerous global warming — entitled “One religion is enough” — one has to despair about the politics surrounding the issue.
As the title of the speech implies, Howard suggests that those advocating decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are akin to religious zealots. He suggests the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change incorporated “nakedly political agendas” in its advice. And the former prime minister states that his decision to proceed with an emissions trading scheme was driven by political imperatives to respond to a perfect storm of public concern about global warming, rather than any genuine belief of his own that it was the right thing to do.
For those concerned that unmitigated global warming poses unacceptable risks to human welfare, it might be tempting to launch a tirade of abuse against Howard. But it will get you nowhere — and will in fact be counter-productive.
Howard is a hero to a large section of Coalition MPs and their supporter base. To make meaningful progress on reducing Australia’s emissions we need policy that can support power generation investments lasting multiple decades. That means policy that will last through changes in government between Labor and Liberal.
So it’s not so much about belittling Howard, as getting into his head and those of his supporters to understand what it is that makes him and them dismissive of the risks of global warming. There were a few things I found interesting from his speech in trying to understand where he’s coming from.
Firstly, he sees addressing global warming as being opposed to economic growth, and that it would hinder the alleviation of poverty in the developing world. Secondly, he said the first book he’d read about global warming was one written by a former Margaret Thatcher government minister with no qualifications in climate science that was dismissive of the threat. It’s reported he said:
“I don’t know whether all of the warnings about global warming are true or not … I instinctively feel that some of the claims are exaggerated.”
This seems to suggest to me that his views, like those of most people, are not based on a detailed and dispassionate review of the balance of evidence. Most of us, and particularly a former prime minister, are too busy to thoroughly inform ourselves about the nature of a complex issue such as global warming. Instead, we are partly driven in essence to “instinctively” select sources of information which fit with our pre-existing beliefs. A source of information we tend to agree with on other issues is probably viewed as more credible and trustworthy than someone we’ve disagreed with in the past.
Thirdly, he made the following revealing statement:
“I have never rejected, totally, the multiple expressions of concern from many eminent scientists, but the history of mankind has told me of his infinite capacity to adapt to the changing circumstances of the environment in which he lives. Most in this room with recall the apocalyptic warnings of the Club of Rome, more than 40 years ago. They were experts; they predicted that the world would run out of resources to sustain itself. They were wrong.”
And he concludes with a point which I find profoundly important to this debate:
“Always bear in mind that technology will continue to surprise us.”
Looking through Howard’s points I am struck by the fact that, while I strongly disagree with Howard on the degree of threat posed by global warming, I am completely in accordance with him on both the importance of relieving poverty in the developing world, and the infinite capacity for human ingenuity to invent technologies that get us not just out of a bind, but overall, leaving us much better off. I, just like Howard, am not particularly worried about peak oil or running out of resources because I think humans can come up with substitutes and means of being much more efficient in our use of resources.
The thing is that I think that Howard actually underestimates the capacity for technological surprise. He has been drawn to believe that only with the use of lots more coal and lots more gas will the masses be dragged out of poverty.
It seems Howard and many of his conservative peers have come to see the debate surrounding global warming through the prism of older battles led by left-leaning hippies for us to retreat from technology. Yet many of the people who are most passionate about addressing global warming are also some of the most enthusiastic about the wonders of technology.
These people will revel in different technological features of our energy options and enthusiastically tell you about what scientific advances are in the pipeline.
Yes some of these options cost more, but these technological enthusiasts will point at mobile phones and computers and explain how they used to be expensive too. Through the wonders of economies of scale and ongoing innovation they explain how these products could even be cheaper than the low-tech, high-carbon option dominant today.
I suspect that to shift the current political impasse it is not scientists, environmentalists, or even economists or bankers we need to hear from. Instead, it is optimistic and innovative engineers that could be most persuasive.
*This article was originally published at Climate Spectator
• Guardian: Australia is on track for its warmest ever year, says study The past 12 months have been 0.22C warmer than any other equivalent period prior to 2013, says Climate Council
• Sunday (Nov 17): Hobart Day of Climate Action • Launceston Day of Climate Action
• Nick McKim: Greens urge Parliament support for Colin Russell’s release “We are not the only ones who are disturbed by Russia’s incarceration of Mr Russell and his fellow crew on piracy and hooliganism charges. Recently the Dutch government lodged a formal complaint with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea demanding the release of all those under arrest.” “Russia is aggressively attempting to intimidate peaceful protests highlighting the threat of climate change, in order to protect the vested interests of Russia’s Gazprom energy company.” “It threatens the fundamental principle of the right to protest and freedom of speech.”
• Avaaz Petition: Stop Abbott fanning the flames of climate change
