Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » At what point do you admit that negotiations are futile?

At what point do you admit that negotiations are futile?

AGW is one of my pet topics at this blog and I have often argued that even if the doom sayers are right about “the science” that they still have no answer to the insurmountable political hurdles that their prescription of CO2 reductions faces. I argue that there is just no way known that the efforts of humanity can be sufficiently focused and sustained for long enough at a global level to do what the alarmists insist that we must do to avoid the cataclysm that they so vehemently assure us is just around the corner.

Of course this is a kite that just won’t fly on planet Latte where our esteemed leader , Brother Number One has been insisting that it can be done to all and sundry. If his rhetoric is to be believed well then just getting up the ETS will save us all (do I hear a hallelujah?). We have had months of public discussion where the opposition have been constantly berated for refusing to give the government the carte blanche to impose a new tax on every aspect of our energy economy.The sad truth is that the opposition have not covered themselves with any glory on this issue either they have meekly gone with the thrust of the ETS scheme even though they have baulked at the details. All because they have lacked the cahones to actually oppose it because they know that it will do squat to alter the total amount of CO2 emissions generated in this country.
Now as the deadline for the Copenhagen conference beckons we find Brother Number One and Penny W(r)ong scrambling to lay the ground work for the expected failure of the negotiations

KEVIN Rudd has talked down prospects of international agreement at a crucial climate change summit in Copenhagen in December, amid fresh predictions the conference is doomed to failure.

The Prime Minister warned yesterday international agreement was “not nearly a done deal” and shifted his climate change pitch to domestic politics, attacking opposition disunity on the issue.

His attack came as Climate Change Minister Penny Wong also appeared pessimistic about Copenhagen but said Australia should still embrace an emissions trading system to set an example.

The comments came as an expert in international negotiations told The Weekend Australian there was no prospect of agreement in Copenhagen because differences between the positions of the US, the European Union, China and India were too great.

The only example that this country will set if an ETS gets up is of how to totally bugger up an economy in very short order, all for no actual planetary benefit. Remember that at something less than 2% of the planets  total emissions  no amount of pain here will make the slightest bit of difference globally#.

Now I am all for improvements in energy efficiency I hate the notion of wastefully using a finite resource when we can do it more cleanly and to that end I can appreciate  the benefits of improving the thermal efficiency of our homes, and making our transport do more with less. I even like the idea of using the sun to directly heat domestic hot water and lowering domestic energy consumption  but I think that Photo-voltaics are some what over rated by followers of the green religion. All of these improvements in the efficiency of our energy economy have  merit but there is still no way that all of these measures will constitute a filling of the doom sayers prescription for the planet, not if we want to maintain a decent standard of living it won’t.

Maybe the real bottom line for the alarmists is that they really want us all reduced to “living in a hole the road with nowt but a handful of cold gravel for our tea”

We should all be angry with all of our politicians , on both sides of the house  for not being at all pragmatic about what is politically possible , here on planet earth. Because both sides have missed the opportunity to side step entirely futile and empty gestures like an ETS scheme and to instead move straight to working out just how we can keep adapting to make the most of the climate of our blue world, just as our ancestors have since they first descended from the trees on the  African plains millennia ago.

Good government  is all about  the art of doing what is possible  with honesty and integrity but we are being offered hyperbole and spin on AGW from the government and the opposition are not doing much better. Hopefully when the Copenhagen talkfest fails we may see some sense but sadly I doubt it. So as I suggest in my title when are we going to see a politician admit that we can’t do it and that another approach is needed?

Ikke holde vejret Kammerater


# if we accept the  warminista argument


  1. bingbing says:

    Hear hear!

    And to think they disendorsed Dennis Jensen.

    Unfortunately Iain, your call to pragmatism will probably be swept away along with all the other arguments against AGW.

    A shame.

    It seems the only good thing to come out of this AGW debate, and the drastic measures being suggested, is good fodder for historians… so long as we make it through this phase.

    Probably the best defense for the skeptics is to ‘filibuster’ this AGW, er, stuff.

  2. Len says:

    Hey Iain, I am not for sure certain, that this wasn’t directed at me, but I’ll venture into the darkness ? 😉 and be the first.

    As you know my organisation here, is quite literally, on the front line so to speak. We are employed, to do the initial research. I am no scientist, for certain, but flying around this region of the planet, for nigh on twenty some years, under one guise or another, you don’t have to be Einstein, to see the permanent damage being caused. Funny enough though, if you consider the problem, it is not with the “advanced western cultures”, that are causing the most problems. It is with those so called “developing” countries and economies, who prize economic growth, above all else, as well as that growth’s perceived wealth, that are the problem. In English – quite frankly, they don’t give a stuff, as long as the rupees are there !

    There is currently, as far as I know, only one natural way to reduce the amount of carbon on this planet. That is photosynthesis ? In other words, trees or plants.

    The following, is a direct quote from an article found on the reduction of the world’s forest regions, and horrific, if all ramifications are considered ?

    Over the last five years, the world suffered a net loss of some 37 million hectares (91 million acres) of forest , according to data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. This number reflects the felling of 64.4 million hectares of trees and the planting or natural regeneration of 27.8 million hectares of new forest. Each year the world loses some 7.3 million hectares of forest, an area the size of Panama. Due to extensive reforestation, this net forest shrinkage has slowed slightly from the 8.9 million hectares lost annually in the 1990s. While this is encouraging, it obscures the sobering fact that gross deforestation has not declined significantly since 2000.


    Think about that for a second ? That is only the recognised world forest regions ! It doesn’t include clearing, for example, for highways, towns, new farming regions, et al. Wiki Answers, describes the total land area on the planet as

    “57,491,000 square miles: 36,794,240,000 acres.”


    Compare that, formulate a ratio between total land/land cleared, and think about it for a second ?
    That’s pretty frightening when you think about it ?

    We still continue with “dirty” industrial growth, as well as continued clearing of our planet, at an alarming rate, and Australia is just as guilty in this department as anyone else. What is the solution ? Simple really, make “greener manufacturing processes”, more financially viable than those that aren’t ! Make “green sensitive” products more financially viable than those that aren’t. The world is run by the greenback, so make it so expensive, that it becomes financial common sense to “green up” so to speak.

    This will never happen in poorer countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and those that border the Amazon. Quite simply, forestry and bi products, are their meal tickets, so, and this is unfortunate, whatever we think, or say, will only ever be classified as “lip-service” to the problem.

  3. Len says:

    I apologise, I was “out-firsted”

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks Bing Bing it is the same argument that Bojrn Lomborg makes and it is the only sensible thing I have ever heard that flies the fine line between both extremes in this debate.

  5. Iain Hall says:

    another thing would be to break the built in obsolescence / economic growth nexus so that when we make things we make them last longer which will use less energy in the long run.

  6. bingbing says:

    No one’s against trees, Len. Just that some are against hamstringing the Australian economy for no practical benefit.

    You’d be hard-pressed to fing a Righty who doesn’t think building up is better than building out.

    And it’s shocking what’s happening to the Amazon and other forest areas, but building wind farms and making cheap energy expensive isn’t going to solve that.

  7. Len says:

    I would agree bingbing and Iain.

    I am not totally against the wholesale clearing of the world’s forest regions. EXCEPT, those that should be protected for posterity. The Amazon for one, immediately comes to mind ?

    BUT, forestry is classified as a renewable industry. Patience, and future-in-mind, should dictate the extent of their endevours, not the greenback ? It has been developed in private areas for years, and it is only greed, that does not allow the patience, to allow the eventual harvesting of these plantations, rather than prized natural heritage areas, and to allow it to become a fully sustainable industry.

    I partially agree with your economic prediction re wind farms, alternative energy etc. Whole heartedly. But, there are things that we should be doing now, as a matter of course. A classic example, is the building of our houses. We still, (at least in the majority), build our houses utilising wood frames. We have a an excellent steel/aluminium industry that has provided for this market for years, and yet we are still in love with wooden framed houses ?

    Don’t know about you, but this one fact alone never ceases to astonish me ? Metal frames, for houses sure are more expensive, but if that is the best way to go, why aren’t we financially rewarding those, that take this route ?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: