Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Hitting the ground, not only running but ready for action

Hitting the ground, not only running but ready for action

It certainly looks like Tony Abbott has hit the ground running and that he is determined to see the opposition actually meeting its job description by opposing the government, with the first order of business being to defeat the truly bad ETS proposed and developed By Brother Number One and Penny W(r)ong. It may just be me but I detected more than just a scrap of “fire in the belly” in Tony Abbott’s interview performance on the 730 report last night and the look on Kerry’s Face was one of absolute delight to have Tony on the other side of the desk. Tony was immediately on message that the CPRS was a massive tax that would require a huge bureaucracy to administer it for no environmental gain. This is a message that is absolutely true and one that will get traction in the electorate even if Brother Number One puts that Glock to his head to play Russian roulette by calling a double dissolution election.

TONY Abbott has vowed to muscle up on Kevin Rudd, saying he can win next year’s federal election by turning the heat on the Labor Government.

Mr Abbott set his sights on the Prime Minister within hours of his stunning victory in yesterday’s Liberal Party leadership showdown.

But Labor hit back at the former amateur boxer with a blunt advertising campaign which signals a new intensity in federal politics.

“It will be a clean contest but where I think that Kevin Rudd deserves to have his follies and fatuities exposed, I will do that,” Mr Abbott said.

He accused Mr Rudd of spending too much time overseas and being a prime minister who “loves a crisis to give him an excuse to run to the airport”.

Labor’s rapidfire attack targeted Mr Abbott, saying he was taking “Australia backwards on climate change and back to WorkChoices”.

The fact that Labor has already started to develop and run election style ads attacking Mr Abbott and that they have already rolled out The Silver Bodgie to declare Tony Abbott unelectable and a “temporary” leader  shows just how scared they are to be facing someone who is a real, take no prisoners, political pugilist  . I think that anyone who wants to make the call that this change will mean an easy retention of the lodge by Brother Number One at the next election is kidding themselves and perhaps they should remember the basic premise of all of Sly Stallone’s Rocky films where a man that every one has written off pulls of an unlikely victory by sheer will and determination…

Cheers Comrades


  1. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, I haven’t seen you get this excited and this confident since .,… well, since you thought the ‘Borg was going to beat Bligh.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Well it was a big ask for me to support Turnbull when he was a follower of the warming faith so I did so only on the basis of him being the lesser evil, but Tony’s accession means that there is a voice of good sense in the big chair and that is something to get more excited about …..

  3. its mildly disturbing that you get excited about such an event in the first place however its comforting to know you are in a minority on this one.

  4. Craigy says:

    Yes Iain, getting excited by ‘The Mad Monk’ becoming leader does diminish what little credibility you have managed to claw back in the past 12 months.

    But I guess he ticks all the wingnut boxes for you…

    Go the Mad Monk…..make ’em laugh, make ’em laugh, make ’em laugh……

    6 months and he-is-gone, I’ll take bets if your game…

  5. Iain Hall says:

    Firstly welcome to my blog, I don’t see why you should be disturbed that I , as a conservative, should be a little excited by the prospect of a strong and energised opposition to the government of Brother Number One. Maybe you are projecting your own dismay that after two years the opposition have finally got a leader with some fire in his belly.

  6. Craigy says:

    I think it’s the fact you think Abbott will make the Libs ‘strong and energised’ Iain, it’s so laughably deluded. You are so out on a limb, not even a Majority of Liberal voters like him.

    Go The Mad Monk!

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Only the most deluded Latte sipper would be as dismissive of the possibility that Tony Abbott can make a very good run leading up to the next election as you are here, more serious commentators realise that doing so is not at all sensible.
    Just remember that a very clear majority of the party room are behind the decision to block the ETS and that is a very strong endorsement of Abbott’s position as leader and his decision to go for the big chair. so don’t kid yourself that the close leadership vote means that the party is hopelessly divided by this weeks events.

  8. Husky_Jim says:

    More as an observation than anything…..

    I am, as many know, a Roman Catholic by up bringing.
    I identify with Abbott on that basis, though not exclusively on that basis I hasten to add.

    I do have to admit, on that premis, that I am more than a little disturbed by the amount of attention his Catholicism has attracted in the past 24 hours. Especially in the media and most especially on the ABC.
    I realise that his past attitudes to issues like abortion (where as health minister he made only one significant anti abortion decision) have made the left go quite rabid, but he’s not professing any theological teachings as opposition leader, and the truth be known, he is probably much less Catholic than his opposite number is Anglican. Yet this “Mad Monk” crap is repeated and repeated by morons with no further analitical skill to offer than a slug.
    As far as I can see it is not typical of Abbott to propose law, pass law or vote on law according to the teachings of the RCC and in fact, the church’s current position on AGW is at odds with the one most recently professed by Abbott. I.e that it is (and I agree with him on this issue) “crap”. The church actually believes in AWG, or at least that’s the position of Ratzinger.

    I do conceed that his actions re ru486 were, on the face of it, a reflection of his faith, but a more thorough analysis of that issue reveals that he was acting in the interest of reduction of abortion (which after all should be the ultimate goal of all Australians with any morality at all) rather than its abolition.

    Anyhow I’m disturbed by the constant attention and referal to a very small part of the man’s character. A dimension of the man that has not in the past directly determined his political actions to any significant extent and which has had zero negative effect on the makeup or cultural flavour of this nation.

    Would you mind commenting on that observation?

  9. Craigy says:

    Just remember that a very clear majority of the party room are behind the decision to block the ETS

    Who is deluded here? The vote was 42 to 41 in favour of Abbott and my member, dear ol’ Fran, was home sick and they wouldn’t let her vote or it would have been 50/50.

    Not democratic or fair and certainly not a majority.

    Wrong, try again Iain….it’s getting funnier by the minute….

    Go The Mad Monk!

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Yes I get where you are coming from on that point Jim and Craigy’s demented comments are the perfect example but just keep in mind that those who are likely to agree with that sort of nonsense are not likely to ever vote for the coalition anyway.
    As I said earlier his actual performance as health minister clearly shows that he won’t be trying to impose his view about abortion on the party or the Australian people.
    Abbots response to Kerry O’Brian on Lateline about AGW was a very good “middle ground” that saw him sayinmg that he believes in “climate change” but that the role of humanity in it was open to question and more importantly how to respond to it is also very debatable. This rather neatly avoids the possibility that he can’t legitimately be labelled a “denier” but it also it enables him to get away from having to defend flippant statements like “climate science is crap”.

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    The vote was 42 to 41 in favour of Abbott and my member, dear ol’ Fran, was home sick and they wouldn’t let her vote or it would have been 50/50.

    Craigy, it’s better than that. If Joe Hockey hadn’t cracked the shits about coming last in the 3-way contest and hadn’t written “NO” on his final ballot paper and had, instead, supported his leader and his own principles (as he should have), Turnbull would have won.

    And HJ, religion has no place in politcal decisions. None, zero, zilch and zippo. The fact that Abbott would even allow a tiny bit of his ‘faith’ to enter into his decision making is an indictment of him.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, and bring on the election. It’s going to be a real hoot. I wonder if Abbott will abuse the female ALP members again?

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Ray there is a great robustness in our politics and telling Nicola Roxon that she is talking “bullshit” during the last election is hardly “abuse”. In fact I would argue that it shows that Abbott treats women with the same robustness that he treats his male political opposites rather than patronising them with undue deference.

  14. Craigy says:

    Iain, you have said you couldn’t support Turnbull because he believed in AGW…..

    Then you find out that Abbott now believes in climate change……what to do?…….what to do?

    You lot are really tying yourselves in knots…it is hysterical.

    As I said…..Go The Mad Monk!

  15. Craigy says:

    Come on Iain, put your money where your mouth is…. a bottle of Scotch, or a gift voucher for Mac Donalds if Abbott lasts 6 months…..

    or if his approval rating as ‘PM in waiting’ ever gets above 30% of voters…….

    Show some balls man!

  16. Iain Hall says:

    I believe in climate change as well, and I always have, the climate is dynamic and changes all of the time , the real question is to what extent can human agency be legitimately cited as a cause for any part of that change. You misread or misrepresent what he said on the topic if you think that what Tony Abbott has said about climate change is, for example, the same as Al Gore or Tim Flannery , because that is just plain lefty dishonesty.

  17. Jeremy says:

    You know Abbott’s a keen cyclist, right?

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Welcome back Jeremy 🙂
    Yes I know that Abbott likes to ride a bike so what?

  19. Husky_Jim says:

    Youseem to want to disqualify a hell of a lot of people from politics.
    In fact you might try and name a political figure of the past 200 years that did not use “belief” as the basis for his political decisions.
    Religion only being one form of belief of course.

    Nurse Ratched must be lat on her meds round today.
    I will however indulge your paranoid rant.

    Please quote me or indicate to me where I have ever stated anything about a muslim that would lead a sane person to the argument you mount above.

    Also, if one was as deranged as you are this morning and was indeed to use that argumet then one would, would one not, have to point out that you, a left winger, are therefore responsible and in agreement with the Gulags of the left, the goings on at the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and, as they were indeed carried out by a “Socialist Workers Party”, all of the rather nasty dealings of the third reich between 1933 and 1945.
    Making you a genocidist Organic Guy.

    See where your logic is flawed?

    Now when the nice nurse arrives, take the pills and have a sit and look out the window at the nice afternoon.

  20. Husky_Jim says:

    Abbott believs in climate change Organic.

    Climate Change is the term that the warming faith have turned to because there is no warming.
    However Climete has changed in perpetuity.
    Believing in climate change is kind of like believing in human frailty. Its a no brainer.
    Which is the reason you have issue with understanding it I guess.

  21. Ray Dixon says:

    Well they’ve done it now, Iain, the Senate has rejected the ETS bill. Abbott is definitely mad – the first thing he does is say:

    “I believe in climate change and that man-made co2 is somewhat contributing to it. We need an ETS and we don’t have one yet but that one by the ALP (which we helped developed and which until yesterday we approved of) is no good. So I’ll reject it and fight an election on the issue of climate change”.

    That’s stupid.

    He doesn’t think before he talks. I reckon Craigy’s 6 months is generous – he’ll self-implode within 3.

  22. Husky_Jim says:


    There is only one way Abbott won’t be in his current position on June 1 2010.
    That being that the arrogant little man in the lodge cracks the shits with not getting his ets through so he can look good for the Danes, calls a double disolution and Abbot becomes PM.

    I’ll have one bottle of JW Blue on him still being op leader on June 1 and a dozen on him being PM.

    You got a big mouth and you shot it off, so put up.

  23. Husky_Jim says:

    Ok Ray you can have 2 bottles of JW Blue on that outcome.
    March 2nd id D-day for you.

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes HJ, politicians use “beliefs” in coming to decisions but that should not include religious “beliefs”. Why not? Gee, I dunno, maybe if we believe in astrology we shouldn’t use those “beliefs” either to make important decisions.

    Anyway, Abbott has used his “belief” in climate change to come to his decision to reject the only climate change bill we have – and one that his party helped to develop and approved of just last week.

    Go figure.

  25. Husky_Jim says:

    Iain the subject topic is denial, but i take your point.

  26. Iain Hall says:

    you can’t in one breath say that the party is hopelessly divided on the climate change issue and then expect that Tony Abbott should be beholden to the agenda of the previous leadership, it just does not follow at all. there is clearly a range of views in the broad church of the party on this matter. You seem to think that the only answer to “climate change” is Rudd’s CPRS and this is very far from the truth even for the true believers like Gore and Flannery

  27. Husky_Jim says:

    Ray what if you believe in human rights? What if your belief is in republicanism?
    What if it is in family values?

    Surely others who don’t share thos beliefs are entitled to simply ask you not to indulge those beliefs just as you seek to deny a religious person a valid opinion.

    The crucial point you miss (or omit is more accurate) is that the agreement of the Libs was that they would pass the bill if the party agreed to. The party was asked yesterday and they rejected it. Abbott even went so far as to allow senators to cross the floor and vote with the government today and i don’t think any have.

    In my opinion the bill was flawed and should have been rejected.
    If you took your 5 year old to the doctor with a head ache and the doctor’s treatment was to cut off his arms, would objecting to that mean you were denying your child has a head ache?

  28. Iain Hall says:

    Actually Jim Two did cross the floor but that was not enough to get the bill up.
    Brother Number one has had his DD bluff called and I think that he will not dare pull the trigger.

  29. Husky_Jim says:

    I have 2 bottles of Jonny Walker Blue on their way to me already from Ray.

    Julia Gillard, Penny Wong and Greg Combet are holding a joint press conference to announce that the Government has backed down. There will be no immediate double dissolution election on their great green tax on everything.

    They will instead introduce into Parliament in February the emissions trading scheme bill to give the Liberals “one more chance” to change their minds.

    That means they are not calling a double dissolution election until next February at the very earliest, and probably could not for a while even then while the arguments are again fought out. Thet means that Abbott will still be there come March 1 Ray.

    Gillard said the Government did not intend to call an early poll, even though Labor now has a trigger for a double-dissolution election. Gillard did not wait for Rudd’s return to make this call.

    Yum yum Jonny Blue.

  30. Husky_Jim says:

    Thanks Iain.
    Missed the actual numbers.

    My tip.
    After Copenhagen there will be no ETS.

    Climate science is on the verge of collapse and a new, honest arthodoxy is on its way.

    Government policy throuought the world will move to where it should be. Creating policy that best accounts for natural climate change where it occurs and makes the best of the natural situation people find themselves in. Eg a Tasmanian Banana industry.

  31. Ray Dixon says:

    what if you believe in human rights? What if your belief is in republicanism? What if it is in family values?

    Those “beliefs” are fine. They are tangible beliefs, not religious decrees. You might also believe in the Collingwood Football Club, but if you made a political decision based on that belief you would be wrong, not to mention prejudiced and biased.

    Anyway, I’ll just hand this thread back to you. It looks like you want to own it. Sheeez.

  32. Husky_Jim says:

    Oh f**k off Ray.

    Your pissed off because your view has been exposed.

    You wish to deny every religious person an opinion and therfore deny them the right to make political decissions.
    Your pissed of at those people because their decisions might be “prejudiced and biased”, but your own position on religion is indeed now exposed as prejudiced and biased.
    Why not do two things Ray.
    Firstly, Accept that people have a multitude of reasons and influences on why they vote a certain way, either in the polling booth or the parliament. None is more or less valid than the other. If you like blokes in blue ties then vote for the bloke in the blue tie. It is as good a reason as any.

    Secondly. Get down the pub and purchase those bottles of Blue and get em in the mail.

  33. Ray Dixon says:

    You don’t make any sense HJ.

  34. Husky_Jim says:

    I don’t expect that you think I do Ray.

    Given that you have a double standard attitude and i don’t I can see that having a one size fits all view to any issue or attitude would be Greek to you.

  35. Husky_Jim says:

    Ok Iain.

    That’s the second time today that this idiot Craig has made the accusation that I interfere with children.

    Normally a twit like that can say what he likes, but that’s not on.

    I’m not asking you to interfere with his opinions, but you will not continue to allow him to make accusations that I have molested, or will molest children.

    I take a very very dim view of such accusations and if they were made in person I would not hesitate to change that view with short swift movements of my fists.

    I take a similar view to them being allowed to remain on line so I am requesting that you remove them and council Craig on discontinuation of that MO of argument.


  36. Pat says:

    Husky_Jim I am with you 100%, especially the bit about your fists being the necessary form of correcting Craigy’s pov.

    However I say leave his comments up and expose him for what he is. Why anyone would want to argue with such an infantile person is beyond me.

  37. Husky_Jim says:

    No Pat.
    While I agree with your point, I want them removed.

    Not everyone will read the comments made after those and the point will not be made.

    I am very disappointed in Iain for leaving them there at all, especially since he edited the word fuck from one of my posts today and moderated another about certain denials Jeremy has made.

  38. Iain Hall says:

    Jim I agree that Craigy’s comments are not acceptable and i have removed them.
    I can’t be at the computer for long now because my son wants his turn on “puter

    Cut out with anti-catholic stuff and the personal attacks or you will be put onto moderation

  39. Pat says:

    Fair enough Husky_Jim. At least I got to see them and now know what sort of person this Craigy is. Typical leftwinger for sure. Full of the abuse, hate, vitriol and spite they’re always accusing others not of their political persuasion as having.

  40. Abu Chowdah says:

    Go Abbott! Give Ray merry hell!!

  41. Ray Dixon says:

    I didn’t see any such accusations but I doubt Craigy would say something like that and mean it personally. Wasn’t he just referring to the RC Church not exactly being a paragon of virtue in itself?

    All the more reason to leave religious zealotry out of the debate HJ.

    Btw, I’m still waiting for you to make some sense of this issue. It seems now that the Libs will go to the next election with NO policy on carbon emissions whatsoever. That is what Abbott has said. He’s also floated the idea of using nuclear power to solve the problem. So has deputy dog Julie.

    So Tony is just a front man for the nuclear power pushers. It figures.

  42. Pat says:

    Ray, here is an enlightening article by Paul Sheehan of the smh. He quotes from Abbott’s “manifesto for power, his book Battlelines” as follows:

    “On page 171 Abbott quotes, with approval, the Swedish climate dissident, Bjorn Lomborg: “”Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is man-made and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science, which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures.””

    “Abbott then adds: “Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.””

    So judging by what Abbott has written 1) he believes in man made global warming just as you do (I don’t fwiw) 2) he agrees with the reputable Bjorn Lomborg that solutions like an ETS destroys your economy with no change to temperature and 3) that unless the major emitters agree to reductions then there is no point in submitting Australia to an economy destroying tax.

    That is a convincing argument for any small businessman, sub-contractor, employee to hear. It is an argument that hasn’t been promulgated by either political party so far and the media have shut down all other debate.

    The Liberals will get the above message out and the worm will turn. Rudd wants to tax the absolute bejesus out of you, your children and their children with no universal agreement, no quid pro quo return on greenhouse gas emission reductions, in short, Rudd wants to wreck our economy so that he can get a lifetime job with the UN. Wait till that message starts to sink home.

    Already the double dissolution option has gone out the window, and don’t kid yourself they’re giving the Libs till Feb. The ALP is shitting themselves having hoisted themselves on the petard of their nation wrecking ETS policy which the Liberals just threw overboard. Your party is going to be shown as serving one man’s interest only, the aspirant to Secretary General of the UN, the man who would destroy his onw nation to serve his own megalomania, one K Rudd. We got rid of our egomaniac, time to get rid of yours.

  43. JM says:

    “reputable Bjorn Lomborg”

    Reputable? As an economist maybe. As a scientist – which he isn’t – not so much. Scientific American, Science and Nature – 3 of the leading journals – each devoted issues to refuting Lomborg’s absurdities in the same month about 10 years ago.

    You’re not much chop when the 3 most respected journals on the planet are on your case.

  44. Husky_Jim says:

    Thankyou Iain. I have no issue with Craig posting his opinions, but when he seeks to make accusations of that kind which he has no evidence of or even reason for making other than to be offensive. I’m a big boy and happy to have people, as Ray is above, comment on my opinion, but once they start that kind of thing they are just filth. I will have no more to do with Craig. Including that bet.

    Ray your opinion is prejudiced on the fact that ALL religious opinion is wrong. In fact more morality and decent action comes from religious people and organisations than non religious in my experience. Of course there are paople who profess christian and other ethics and don’t live them, but Abbott has not indicated that that’s an intrinsic part of his nature. Your attitude show only that you posess a paranoid fear of people who believe things you don’t. Politics is big enough for all views formed by any faith. After all AGW is not anything more than a religious faith.
    In fact you remind me of that nut (diagnosed) Catherine Devaney. If anyone saw her performance on Q&A recently then your paranoid fear is in that same mould.

  45. Ray Dixon says:

    Rudd wants to wreck our economy so that he can get a lifetime job with the UN.

    You just lost your argument right there, Pat. What an absurd contention. And who is Abbott representing?The nuclear power consortium set up under Howard, no doubt.

    You guys are delusional if you think the ALP are “shitting themselves” over the emergence of ‘Mad Tony Abbott’ – he’s a gift to them.

  46. Husky_Jim says:

    “Reputable? As an economist maybe. As a scientist – which he isn’t – not so much. Scientific ”

    Nick Stern?

  47. Pat says:

    You object to “reputable”? The man’s been “peer reviewed” boys and they all declared he’s brand spanking “reputable”.

    You haven’t had an opposition at all have you. Well everything’s about to change. Two can play your semantic games and take the battle over such seeming trifles as who owns the meaning of words like “science” and “reputable”.

  48. Ray Dixon says:

    HJ, your posts just get more & more inane. Have you ever considered that might be because you try to say too much and end up sprouting absolute crap? Catherine Deveney is an idiot, btw.

  49. JM says:


    Scientific American, Science and Nature; although generalist and in the case of the first two popular, newsstand mags; are all peer reviewed. They publish articles by leaders in the fields they cover.

    Lomborg is an economist, and not a particularly good one apparently, who has taken an indefensible stand that pain tomorrow can be ignored because we have jam today.

    “I’m alright Jack” in other words with a leavening of technological cargo cultism that somehow our children will work out a way to clean up our mess.

    Stern on the other hand recognised exactly this trade off and insisted that our children not pay for our irresponsibility. He was attacked for about 3 days on that point until his detractors realized what they were saying and backed off.

  50. Pat says:

    JM, you are obviously missing the point probably due to you being a True Believer.

    Man Made Global Warming IS crap. Krudd knows it, Julia knows it, Stern and Gore know it. You need to know it too.

    But until you do Abbotts job is to placate you, get beyond the hysterical “denier” witch burning bit you fellas have got a good burn on right now and start to bend a few heads to the facts.

    It’ll take a while to wean you off the teat of your superstitions, your godless fear of the the sky falling in and the earth swallowing you up, but daya after day, hammering after hammering we’ll bring your head around and enlighten you with the blinding truth. THE SKY ISN’T FALLING IN, the world isn’t heating up.

    Relax, you’re just another sucker taken for a Labor Con Ride. Don’t shill out for the Labor man, keep it, breed your own, earn your due it’s yours. That’s what Liberal stands for.

    Give up your superstitions. Come on, you know you can,.

  51. JM says:


    Come back with substantive argument and I’ll engage with you.

    But otherwise forget about it.

  52. Len says:

    Whoa, steady on Pat.

    You, nor anyone else for that matter, has any proof, one way or the other, as to the current cause, of the changing world weather patterns. Unless of course, you say they aren’t changing either ?

    The atmosphere is changing day to day. With the amount of chemicals, that us dopey humans are pumping into it, on that daily basis, to say that GW is a myth, cannot be proven one way or the other. The ice masses are shrinking. Sh*t it is one my many jobs to survey the bloody thing.

    For my money, I would place more importance in the fact, that global cooling will be the eventual conclusion, rather than warming. Add that much crap into the atmosphere, and the ‘blanket effect” that the egg heads are talking about won’t matter squat, if there is a clogged atmosphere which the sun cannot penetrate ?

  53. husky_jim says:

    Why don’t you address the content then instead of spouting insults?

  54. Ray Dixon says:

    HJ, your problem is you think you know the science. You don’t know it, you are just opposed to whatever Rudd does. No point debating you.

  55. Husky_Jim says:

    Can you point to where I said I know the science Ray.

    I have never claimed to “know” the science. I have pointed to where others who do “know” the science have pointed out that it is not settled on the matter of AGW.

    You on the other hand have slagged a quarter of the worlds population (at least) and said that they are unable to make political decisions because they hold religious beliefs.
    Of course that would render any of the writings of Arch-Bishop Desmond Tutu on Apartheid as crap in your eyes.

    Your problem Ray is (among your problems actually) that you accept the orthodoxy without question and then expect everyone else to do that as well.
    And then that you have the hide to chastise others for their blind faith.

    And you have not bothered to “debate” me Ray. All you have done is to hide behind insults. As is the popular way with the port side.
    If you wish to debate Ray then instead of debating “me” why not try debating my arguments.
    Otherwise i don’t think I can be bothered with your childish crud.

  56. JM says:

    Len: “… and the ‘blanket effect” that the egg heads are talking about won’t matter squat, if there is a clogged atmosphere which the sun cannot penetrate ?”

    You know Len, that’s actually a statement I can almost agree with – if by “blanket effect” you mean the warming caused by increased CO2 and by a “clogged atmosphere” you mean the cooling effect of sulphates, volcanic explosions and the like.

    It’s a rough way of putting it but it’s accurate. Except for one thing:-

    * CO2 is resident in the atmosphere for hundreds of years
    * SO2 (sulphates) and dust from volcanoes etc,etc only stays up for a few months

    Which means that CO2 pollutants are much more serious than SO2 as their effects last a lot longer. So while we could pump sulphates into the atmosphere to cool the planet (ie. geo-engineering) it would give no more than temporary relief and then we’d have to do it all over again.

    Also we’ve really got our act together on sulphates over the last 20-30 years and reduced them a lot – specifically through the Clean Air Act of 1970 in the US and (drumroll) an ETS-like scheme to make polluters pay.

    SO2 emmissions have fallen like a stone since the ETS-like Acid Rain Program in the US.

    It started in 1995 with the objective of reducing SO2 emmissions to 50% of 1980 levels by 2010. It hit the target 3 years early, in 2007.

    So yes, Virginia, an ETS will work.

  57. Len says:

    Look guys,
    after spending a day and a half, 20k feet above the crap filled atmosphere, that is the Indonesian island of Java, and a fun filled night in Bali, developing a crook guts, from eating God knows what, there a couple of points that have been touched on, but not been continued.

    Look at the pollution controls, around the planet today. Even the supposed “advanced” cultures, are only paying lip service to the amount of crap that is thrust into the atmosphere on a daily basis, through massive smoke stacks.

    There is nothing wrong the science guys. The problem, as I have stated many times before, is the way that science is being twisted, to fulfill political goals and agendas, that is the problem. Scientists know their jobs, but fail consistently, because they don’t know how to play the political game . Also, they spend way too much time, and effort, on attaining the magic millions, to fund their research, that sometimes management staff of these people let ethics go out the window, so what happens ? They lack credibility in the eyes of the general public. That also eventually leads to lack of public trust. A problem, we are now discussing ?

    That is where they always fail miserably.

    For the most part, our scientific organisations, have to play the bureaucratic “suck-up” game, so they can keep their cushy labs going, and more generally, just to survive in their chosen fields. They have no idea, as to how to let the community know out there, what is really happening. I can tell you, but that would breach about two dozen confidentiality agreements, that I, on behalf of my company and employees, have had to sign, to keep our wonderful jobs ? That is how they keep people’s mouths shut. An old, but effective trick, used not only by governments who don’t want the real truth known, but also, increasingly now, by private enterprise to keep their secrets as well.

    Even us dopey “flight jocks”, know what has to be done. We have to wean ourselves off petroleum/oil, lead, and so forth. It can be done. Hell, Beijing did it during the olympic games, look at the result ? People could breath ! Think of the damage to the world economy, if we could successfully wean ourselves, just off oil alone ? Hell, we all know that is what is required. But, half of the world’s economies would crash overnight if we achieved it.

    Unfortunately, JM, everything on this planet, has a chemical structure, that is carbon based. We are carbon based lifeforms. The blanket effect I was talking about, was similar to what our largest cities on the planet suffer every day. The smog effect. It is great at holding in the warmth of the planet’s surface, but what happens after a period of time ? The sun cannot penetrate the “pollution blanket”, and then the surface of the planet begins to cool. A classic example would have to be, after the numerous volcanic eruptions of the last years.

    I agree with you JM, in that we have come a long way, in the last few decades, by legislating to protect the atmosphere. But, it would seem that companies, then have moved their operations to countries, that don’t have as strict a code. Indonesia, India, Pakistan and so many more. Sort of makes it all a waste of time doesn’t it ?

    An ETS may very well work here, and in other more developed western countries, but at what economic cost ? That is a valid concern, especially, when possibly millions of peoples’ jobs may be at risk, as manufacturing and other vital economic dependent industries move off shore to (and sorry to use the term), “greener pastures” ?

  58. Iain Hall says:

    I agree with much of what you say here Len, except for your suggestion that an ETS is any kind of answer to any environmental problems, I just can’t see how such a scheme can ever do any good . Better that government directly mandate behaviour that keeps the air and water clean, and spends cash on cutting down pollution (like deposit schemes for drink containers and banning excess plastic packaging) than to try to use very inefficient “free market” instruments to “encourage” a desirable outcome.

  59. Len says:

    I agree whole heartedly Iain. I think that is what we have been saying right from the beginning.
    I remember when I first heard of the introduction of ETS, and sat back in the chair, and chuckled to myself, at the incredible bureacracy that would have to be established, just to introduce the scheme, let alone make it successful. I still don’t think that success could ever be achieved, under this system. It is a lame duck at best, a disaster at worst.

    In so far as your “deposit” system, I entirely agree. I think SA still has it in place. If we are to take recycling seriously, this would seem to be the first step wouldn’t it ? We have a continuing love affair with plastic, an industry, that is in the top ten per cent of polluters on the planet ? Just why are we continuing to support such an industry ? Glass worked, apart from the idiot element, who disposed of it incorrectly. I remember as a kid, taking the soft drink bottles, and milk bottles to the shop, for their deposits. Local scouts and guides et al, collected them, and it was the major source of it’s income ? Also, remember when we walked to the shops, and purchased our biscuits out of big tins ? Us kids, hungry on the way home from school, always used to ask for the broken ones ?

    Plastic bags are another. They were/are a disaster. As a kid, when I had to go to the shop for the folks, there was the old “string bag” shoved into the jeans pocket. Remember those ?

    We have gone totally the wrong way. Self disintegrating plastic bags are completely the wrong way to go, and not logical. Like the phrase years ago, “clean coal” ? Unfortunately, to achieve some progress, we have to get off our love affairs with motor vehicles, at least on a daily basis. This would take billions I know, but what will be the cost if we don’t ? It may turn out to be an oxymoron though. Upgrades in public transport, to a non polluting fuel, yep great, but what do we need then, to produce the electricity, more burning of coal ? Dammed if we do, dammed if we don’t.

  60. Iain Hall says:

    Well as an Internet Junkie I keep advocating “telecommuting “which would drastically reduce the need to travel by car to work and provide that one thing that so many regional towns need to prosper, namely a way that people could move to towns like Ray’s haunt of Bright and still make a living.
    I do actaully remember the string bags and I use the modern equivalent; those “green ” bags unless I forget to bring them to the shops that is.
    When I was a kid they had a deposit on drink bottles (which were reused rather than recycled) and my brothers and I were always on the look out for any bottles because that was our money for sweets..
    There is so much that can be done to improve things for the planet and encouraging reuse rather than recycling is one of the big ones in my book.

  61. Len says:

    Great idea telecommuting Iain, but for one problem.

    Our phone lines are near third world standards, and would come a tumbling down, if put under that amount of stress.
    Also, it doesn’t take into account, the hands on trades that we rely on every day.

    Hell, I have a neighbour on the island, who still can’t get a decent ADSL link going. Even mine here is through a satellite costing me a bloody fortune. That’s the only way I can reliably get the bandwidth I need. Our phone system here in Australia is a ‘patched together’ bloody joke. Until that is fixed, then telecommuting is nothing but a pipe dream. A good one though, perhaps for the future, if the phone companies stopped for a second, and thought more about service, than profit ? It can work now in a limited way, but it is extremely limited. I do it here, otherwise I would have to move my entire operation to the mainland, and no thanks to that !

    There are a million of solutions out there, that we have discarded over the last forty years or so, that now, would seem to be just common sense ? We have become such a “disposal society”, that we forget the damage we are doing to our surrounding environment to gain that convenience.

    I am sorry, but I really cannot see the attraction in living in a massive city, with five million other little minions, when I can live in the alternative, here ? Don’t see the attraction myself.

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: