Human-induced global warming comes mainly from burning fossil fuels. Record temperatures, floods, hailstorms, droughts and tornadoes are happening more often, consistent with the predicted effects on climate. Temperatures could increase by as much as 6°C over the coming decades.
Some rather woolly assumptions here; firstly that man is the main driver of observable climate change, secondly that the weather events suggested above are an extraordinary RESULT of human activity. The suggestion of a 6°C temperature increase is pure Hyperbole
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes 2500 of the world’s top climate scientists, claims a 60% reduction in global greenhouse pollution is required to stabilise atmospheric CO2 and limit the impacts of climate change. Australia, with one of the world’s highest per capita emissions of greenhouse pollution, has a responsibility to reduce its total emissions. Existing patterns of energy production and consumption in Australia are characterised by excessive waste, and have a huge potential for savings through demand management and improved efficiency.
This of course falls into the trap of suggesting that the proposition is proven because there is a large number of voices saying that it is . Then it goes on to pulling a guilt trip on the Australian people with the with one of the world’s highest per capita emissions of greenhouse pollution. to strong totals
This policy covers Australia and Australia’s global responsibilities, especially in Asia and the Pacific, on climate change and protection of the ozone layer. It focuses on stationary energy, which includes electricity generation, heat production and fuel used directly in manufacturing, construction, and the residential and commercial sectors (see also Transport Policy, Energy Policy and Nuclear Issues Policy).
That sounds fair enough but it is rather vague
And it Ignores the previously mentioned inclusion of our energy exports in our own emissions totals
12.1.2 the burden of reducing greenhouse emissions must be distributed fairly between nations
But isn’t support of Kyoto innately unfair because big polluters like China And India are excluded?
12.1.3 Australia must accept and comply with its ethical obligations to reduce greenhouse pollution by promoting appropriate domestic and international policies
12.1.4 Australia must actively support international measures to combat climate change and meet, if not better, precautionary international greenhouse emissions targets. yet another pointless “feel good statement” 12.2.5 take a lead role nationally and internationally in promoting policies to tackle human induced climate change and reduce greenhouse gas pollution 12.3.5 implement a national program of education and consultation on climate change and energy involving schools and other community centres and delivered primarily through local government This sounds Barmy and a beaurocratic nightmare that would require three levels of government to work in sync; an impossible dream not based on the real world at all and it makes the false assumption that the science is all known and the questions have all been answered. Actually this is just weasl words for “we will indoctrinate all of the school children with our BELIEFS about AGW.” 12.3.7 work internationally, especially in Asia and the Pacific, to:
surely we should first be sure that the science is actually right on AGW? Because there is very much the smell of Y2K and a “new Ice age” in the more alarmist pronouncements on AGW
12.2 Specific Goals
The Australian Greens aim to:
12.2.1 reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
12.2.2 have Australia immediately ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
as mentioned before The Kyoto Protocol is deeply flawed and signing it is Utterly pointless
12.2.3 establish an Australia–New Zealand sponsored regional group of governments with the aim of aligning policies, exchanging information and otherwise cooperating to implement and strengthen the Kyoto Protocol
another pointless “feel good statement”
12.2.4 negotiate towards the goal of reducing the world’s greenhouse gas emissions to near zero by 2100
· facilitate the use of sustainable, renewable, affordable and locally manageable energy sources
· encourage progressive reductions in energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions in our region.
Well some of this has a little merit, appropriate energy systems for rural communities can make a big difference to people but until battery technology is vastly improved I don’t see much coming of this.
12.3 Short Term Targets The Australian Greens will:
12.3.1 ratify the Kyoto Protocol and support internationally the development of meaningful binding greenhouse gas emission targets for all countries
Like China and India are going to pay any attention to this? With out them this is meaningless.
12.3.2 introduce legislation to implement the Climate Change Convention and Kyoto Protocol, including a requirement for Commonwealth environmental assessment of all proposals and policies with projected greenhouse gas emissions greater than 250,000 tonnes CO2 per annum
12.3.3 establish mandatory national targets for the phased reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the introduction of ecologically sustainable renewable energy sources
12.3.4 develop mechanisms to encourage and require all participants in the National Electricity Market to meet explicit targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Well we all want efficiency in our electricity generation but this is just another vague motherhood statement
12.3.6 use funds from the carbon levy (see Energy Policy) to involve the community in setting ambitious targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
This means that all Australians will have to endure another pernicious tax in the name of political (religious?) ideology
· make access to renewable energy by rural communities a priority in Australian development policy and aid programs and specifically include that access in country sector strategic priorities
· establish a renewable energy export development grant scheme to help Australian companies respond to the needs of community partners in the region
· lobby for regional multilateral bodies concerned with energy, in particular South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), to include representatives of community leaders and non-government organisations as well as government energy agencies
· work with multilateral donors, such as the United Nations Development Programme, World Bank, Asian Development Bank and Global Environment Facility, to ensure appropriate renewable energy is recognised as a social good, complementary to the existing emphasis on public assistance for private investment.
Conclusion
The reality is that any fringe party like the greens can promise just about anything because they know that they will never be in a position to actually have to deliver any of their policy . So instead of seeking real solutions they play to their gallery who think that this sort of thing is pretty close to holy writ, but you would expect that from what is ,in the end a document of faith that has only the most tenuous grip on the science.
Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the “fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review” section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.
Filed under: Global Warming
Good try Iain, but you seem to read things that aren’t there and imply an absolute truth when it is only mentioned as a possibility. Your religious desire and deep belief that the Greens are extreme as preached by Reverend Bolt is showing.
I won’t fisk you back completely, but just a few;
“The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes 2500 of the world’s top climate scientists, claims a 60% reduction in global greenhouse pollution is required to stabilise atmospheric CO2 and limit the impacts of climate change. Australia, with one of the world’s highest per capita emissions of greenhouse pollution, has a responsibility to reduce its total emissions. Existing patterns of energy production and consumption in Australia are characterised by excessive waste, and have a huge potential for savings through demand management and improved efficiency”.
“This of course falls into the trap of suggesting that the proposition is proven because there is a large number of voices saying that it is . Then it goes on to pulling a guilt trip on the Australian people with the with one of the world’s highest per capita emissions of greenhouse pollution. to strong totals“
Me: Iain where does it say that it is proven, that’s your inference.
Is it true that the vast majority of climate scientists support man made global warming, shown in many studies, and reflected in the MSM now publishing many of them. 10 last weeks in the Herald Sun Victoria’s biggest daily.
Are you suggesting a sensible political party should follow the minority scientific view?
“12.1.2 the burden of reducing greenhouse emissions must be distributed fairly between nations”
“But isn’t support of Kyoto innately unfair because big polluters like China And India are excluded?”
Me:You can still support the principles of Kyoto and work towards fairer long term outcome.
“12.1.3 Australia must accept and comply with its ethical obligations to reduce greenhouse pollution by promoting appropriate domestic and international policies”
“But how do we decide how far or “ethical obligations go?”
Me:International benchmarks, are we doing our bit compared to world’s best practice, a business principle that many large companies, including oil companies, try to keep close to. Once you measure your ethical performance you can work out what you need to do to improve.
“12.3.3 establish mandatory national targets for the phased reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the introduction of ecologically sustainable renewable energy sources”
“I’m all for the efficient use of energy sources but there is no renewable energy source that can replace the base load currently supplied by coal.”
Me: Um, Iain, Tasmania is selling Victoria its massive excess of Hydro Power and many new clean base load supply systems are being considered and research funded. Unlike some on the right, I have some optimism about our ability to find non-Nuclear, non-polluting energy creation technologies in the future. Every wind farm, every hydro/tidal/solar station that is built provides us with more sustainable power for the future and our kids.
All good stuff in the Greens policy, it’s just those dam negative goggles that Bolt has you wearing.
I am happy to comment or ‘av a go some more, if you wish to nominate a policy, I’ll try and help you ‘see the light’……(ommmmmmm)
If science tells us they were wrong about the extent of climate change or its impact sometime in the future, then all the positive stuff the Greens want to do will still make for a cleaner saner planet.
Keep smiling, the Greens are coming to Victoria soon….and one day QLD!!!:)
———————————-
I was able to fix it now, didn’t see you had posted it below…thanks.
Me: Iain where does it say that it is proven, that’s your inference. Is it true that the vast majority of climate scientists support man made global warming, shown in many studies, and reflected in the MSM now publishing many of them. 10 last weeks in the Herald Sun Victoria’s biggest daily. Are you suggesting a sensible political party should follow the minority scientific view?One that is interested in the truth rather than fermenting panic and the tone of the whole statement clearly implies that the case for AGW is not in any doubt. Me: You can still support the principles of Kyoto and work towards fairer long term outcome.But Kyoto is such an empty and spurious thing, fatally flawed because it does not include any of the developing nations to promote it , as the greens do as any sort of panacea is disingenuous Me:International benchmarks, are we doing our bit compared to world’s best practice, a business principle that many large companies, including oil companies, try to keep close to. Once you measure your ethical performance you can work out what you need to do to improve.The funny thing is that the Howard Government has encouraged Australian industry to meet the targets with out signing the KP so we are doing pretty good on that score any way. Me: Um, Iain, Tasmania is selling Victoria its massive excess of Hydro Power and many new clean base load supply systems are being considered and research funded. Unlike some on the right, I have some optimism about our ability to find non-Nuclear, non-polluting energy creation technologies in the future. Every wind farm, every hydro/tidal/solar station that is built provides us with more sustainable power for the future and our kids.There is no where else in Australia (other than Tassie) that has enough rainfall and the right topography to make Hydro viable and we both know that there is not enough consistency for any of your options to provide the BASE LOAD GENERATION so it is nuclear or coal .and need I point out that the NIMBY panic that the building of a new dam up here in Queensland has created?All good stuff in the Greens policy, it’s just those dam negative goggles that Bolt has you wearing.I have held my views on these issues for some time before I discovered the writing of Andrew Bolt (peace be upon him
)) so please cut out the suggestions that my opinions are entirely derivative of his.I am happy to comment or ‘av a go some more, if you wish to nominate a policy, I’ll try and help you ‘see the light’……(ommmmmmm) A true follower of the Yogic Tradition would have said Hari Om Guess what I do to stay flexible and sane ?If science tells us they were wrong about the extent of climate change or its impact sometime in the future, then all the positive stuff the Greens want to do will still make for a cleaner saner planet.Clearly many greens supporters have their hearts in the right place but if their policies end up destroying of severely disabling the economy it won’t matter how sane Ghia is if the people are struggling in poverty. The trick is to not throw the baby out with the bath water.Keep smiling, the Greens are coming to Victoria soon….and one day QLD!!!:)Queenslanders were smart enough to abolish the upper house of parliament about eighty years ago and we have optional preferential voting so the chances of a green getting up in state parliament is very slim indeed.
Thanks Iain,
The tone you read in the policy statements is in your interpretation, and where do you find the truth (or best opinion) if not from the majority of climate scientists?
I see Kyoto as an important first step in the long battle to turn around environmental damage.
You refer to AB a lot in your posts.
Hydro is one of the base load options mentioned by your friend at ‘AWH’ in his post you quote above. It’s just one of many clean technologies that we should look at.
History shows us that your scaremongering about the Greens destroying the economy is false.
…and we all know democracy in QLD has been dodgy for a very very long time, can I suggest you, as a native, should be working to restore full representative democracy, or would you rather old Joe’s form of gerrymander again?… :0
The tone you read in the policy statements is in your interpretation, and where do you find the truth (or best opinion) if not from the majority of climate scientists? My point is of course about the science and the scientific method, as Legal Eagle pointed out to you in the other thread it does mot matter how many voices sing the song if the tune is off key it is off key .I see Kyoto as an important first step in the long battle to turn around environmental damage.Look I can appreciate the symbolism ,but empty symbolism is like offering a placebo; there will be NO therapeutic effect.You refer to AB a lot in your posts.No you mean that I have positive things to say about him
)Hydro is one of the base load options mentioned by your friend at ‘AWH’ in his post you quote above. It’s just one of many clean technologies that we should look at.Yeah but it will only work where there is sufficient rain that falls at a great enough altitude in an area where the a suitable dam and hydro plant can be built and where might that be on the mainland, specifically in the populated east coast states? I have traveled very extensively in Australia and the overwhelming thing about this continent is just how dry it is Tasmania is the exception . Hydro could never supply the base load for this country. History shows us that your scaremongering about the Greens destroying the economy is false.Well why is Germany which has a Green influenced government that has closed down its nuclear power now suffering power brown outs? With the detrimental effects on its economy as a result. …and we all know democracy in QLD has been dodgy for a very very long time, can I suggest you, as a native, should be working to restore full representative democracy, or would you rather old Joe’s form of gerrymander again?… :0I am old enough to remember JOH and in fact I marched in the streets against his government but don’t kid yourself that having another house of parliament will make any state more democratic For the record I think that at a state level Queensland is a well functioning democracy there is no longer the huge disparity between the size of rural and urban electorates as it was under JOH.
…as Legal Eagle pointed out to you in the other thread it does mot matter how many voices sing the song if the tune is off key it is off key.
Can’t you see the flaw in your logic Iain? If we don’t follow the advice of the vast body of science that tells us we are damaging the planet then who do we listen to? Your twist on the way we normally make decisions about scientific matters, if adopted, would make a strange world. If you base long term policy, that could make parts of the planet unsuitable for humans or worse, on nothing more than a few fringe scientists and a so called ‘Journalist’ who never even passed his degree, you have a recipe for disaster.
there will be NO therapeutic effect.
The beginning of the process is the therapeutic effect.
Hydro could never supply the base load for this country.
It is already supplying base load to part of this country as I pointed out. Other technologies need to be found for the rest. As Australia is dry, we also have areas both here and overseas with no coal.
Well why is Germany which has a Green influenced government that has closed down its nuclear power now suffering power brown outs? With the detrimental effects on its economy as a result.
From Michael Levitin
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/08/12/levitin-germany/
“In the last five years, thanks to this singular piece of Green legislation, Germany has doubled its production of renewable fuels like wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and biomass, which now comprise more than 10 percent of the total energy supply. Using essential free-market principles, the country has begun a radical re-mixing of its energy system which, if things go as planned or better, means Germany will be running on at least 65 percent renewables by mid-century.
Already, Germany is the leading producer of wind power, controlling 40 percent of the global market and employing 35,000 people in an industry that has seen production costs plummet. The country is second behind Japan in solar-energy production, hosting massive facilities in sun-filled Bavaria, while boosting ties to growing solar-power production markets in places like Spain and the Middle East. In terms of plain workforce numbers, alternative-energy outfits in Germany employ around 130,000, three times as many as nuclear.
I take your word on politics in your home state; Peter Beattie just keeps winnin’….
Can’t you see the flaw in your logic Iain? If we don’t follow the advice of the vast body of science that tells us we are damaging the planet then who do we listen to? Your twist on the way we normally make decisions about scientific matters, if adopted, would make a strange world. If you base long term policy, that could make parts of the planet unsuitable for humans or worse, on nothing more than a few fringe scientists and a so called ‘Journalist’ who never even passed his degree, you have a recipe for disaster.You see there are empirical sciences in which we can have a great deal of faith that the claims are verifiable and then there are the branches of science where theory and speculation are the stock in trade and frankly when you have some thing in the latter category you just have to be more skeptical about the more outrageous prediction based on it. The beginning of the process is the therapeutic effect.Craigy placebo’s only work because the patient believes that what he is taking will be efficacious now that the flaws in the Kyoto Protocol are so well known and it is due to expire soon anyway continuing to advocate it as any kind of an answer is pointless. It is already supplying base load to part of this country as I pointed out. Other technologies need to be found for the rest. As Australia is dry, we also have areas both here and overseas with no coal.And what do you propose for base load? Pixie dust? Other technologies need to be found for the rest is just like saying the “lord will provide” it is wishful thinking in the absence of any real solution. As I said before we do not have enough rain or suitable sites for hydro dams From Michael Levitinhttp://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/08/12/levitin-germany/Maybe so on your quote about Germany but that country has had to buy power from France to make up for the shortfall and all of the wind farms and solar panels in that country can not supply base load generation. I sort of wonder if you actually understand what base load generation actually is could you explain what you understand it to be please.I take your word on politics in your home state; Peter Beattie just keeps winnin’….And I am one of the voters that helps keep him there
)
Now you’re splitting hairs Iain, we can believe some science but not other science with a majority view? Please explain how you, a non-scientist, make up your mind who to believe? I think you have ‘faith’ in Mr. Bolt or do you have some method for deciding who is a good scientist and who isn’t?
If the current Kyoto agreement is coming to an end, then I look forward to the next one. The current agreement has reduced CO2 and raised awareness, all good for the planet.
Geothermal, hydro, biomass, tidal and many other technologies are capable of producing clean, renewable power 24/7, providing base load requirements. Why do you doubt human ability so much?
In the German transition to clean, sustainable power, they have had some problems, that’s clear. But read the above link and tell me if you think the costs and problems they and other countries in Europe are now facing in having to deal with the waste are worth it. They have put BILLIONS of dollars into finding a way of disposing and storing the hot and cold waste and they have failed. This is why sensible Governments with a long term view are moving away from nuclear power. The problem is getting a right wing government to think beyond the next election.
Bolts article on water today just shows how silly he really is. First he states that if the drought continues our dams will be empty in a few years. Then he raves on about building more dams to fix the problem!
I wonder if someone edits his stuff, I think his colleagues at the HUN must have given up and just let him sound foolish.