Categories
Open Thread

Kissing our arses goodbye?

The Australian Federal Government has just released a white paper detailing a proposed carbon emissions reduction target of between 5% and 15% by 2020 relative to 2000 levels. The 5% target is described as unconditional whereas the 15% target is described as subject to global agreement where all major economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and all developed countries take on comparable reductions to that of Australia.

The white paper goes on to argue Australia’s unique position in the global war on climate, citing a per capita impact of between 34–41% below 1990 levels, in effect demonstrating that Australia’s proposed commitment is ahead of the Europeans (per capita reduction is projected at 24-34%) and ahead of our cousins (projected 25% per capita sacrifice).

The report argues that Australia’s particular national circumstances (a strong population growth projection, heavy reliance on fossil fuels, etc.) make for greater structural adjustment when compared with many other developed nations.

However, what I don’t see in the report is a sufficient connection to the bigger issue:

Kirribilli Removals – 15 December 2008:

If permafrost melts across the vast areas of Russia and Canada, then we can kiss our arses goodbye

385 replies on “Kissing our arses goodbye?”

From previous thread. Yes, David. I knew the position you are taking. The devils advocate. The coastline we have is impossible to patrol. We have neither the resources or the money.

We will not need to patrol it. A few smart missile sites plus real-time satellite surveillance and the problem is solved – at the cost of innocent lives, but hey …

And that is but one possible permutation of solution. If fear sets in, the money will become available.

Obama’s Monday

Tomorrow, President-elect Obama will hold a national security meeting in Chicago. Attendees will include: Vice President-elect Biden, Secretary of State designee Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Attorney General designee Eric Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security designee Janet Napolitano, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Ambassador to the United Nations designee Susan Rice, National Security Advisor designee Jim Jones, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, White House Chief of Staff designee Rahm Emanuel, White House Counsel designee Greg Craig.

lots more..

http://www.politicalwire.com

The permafrost is an issue. Recent science suggests that it is not as big an issue as once thought. Even so, the evidence still suggests that five degrees of warming could trigger a methane burst that would increase climate forcing by the equivalent of doubling C02 – in other words, a further 3.7 degrees. This in turn could trigger more methane bursts. Although each successive burst would increase forcing by a smaller amount, they could well see the level of methane maintained well beyond its usuall lifespan of around a decade.

Thus, five degrees of warming could actualy equate to 8.7 degrees.

That would be disastrous. But I still maintain that humanity could cope – especially as it is very unlikely that we will increase global temperature by five degrees by 2050.

That would require carbon to rise to around 2.5 times its present level (assuming no other factors) by that time.

Possible, but not likely. And if it did, we would be at a technological level 40 years in advance of what we are today.

An 8.7 degree rise today would create massive problems. A rise by that level over the next 40 years is much less difficult to cope with.

*all figures used here are simply taken from Wikipedia, with some minor extrapolations

Texas senate seat battle.

Houston Mayor Bill White (D) will run for the Texas Senate seat that will be vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), according to a source with knowledge of White’s plans and local media reports.

The three-term mayor, who won reelection in 2007 with 86 percent of the vote, gives Democrats a top recruit in the Lone Star State, something the party lacked this year when Sen. John Cornyn (R) won reelection by a wide margin.

The more of these type of candidates the better chance of cleaning up big time in the senate in 2010

more…
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dscc-wins-battle-for-white-2008-12-14.html

I think you’ll find`David that a 3 degree rise pretty much spells the end, according to current wisdom. Of course I would much prefer that this was wrong .

DG

Is 5 degrees even possible? You need to go back 50 million years to see temps that high and the world was very different place then. With the Himalayan plateau and the Mediterranean where they are at the moment I strongly doubt CO2 alone can force it that high.

Well if you thought the Govt’s white paper was pathetic…..Try the opposition response.
(Courtesy of Bernard Keane on the Crikey liveblog.)

Text of the Opposition’s response to the White Paper:

DEVIL IN THE DETAIL ON EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME
The Coalition will make a considered evaluation of the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme released today. This is one of the biggest structural changes in a generation to our economy. We will not be rushed into endorsing, opposing or suggesting amendments to this proposal. The Coalition and business found with the Government’s Green Paper on emissions trading that the devil was in the detail. As the flood of criticism demonstrated, the Green Paper model was found to be deeply flawed. As well, huge uncertainty is created by the Government’s inexplicable refusal to model the implications for Australian jobs and businesses of Australia establishing an ETS where the world fails to reach a global agreement. The Government has also failed to take into account the implications of the global financial crisis in the context of this ETS. As a consequence, very little is known or understood about the transition costs to an emissions trading scheme over the next 10 to 15 years. That is why we have commissioned an independent economic analysis of the White Paper. The analysis will be conducted by the Centre for International Economics, led by its Chairman and Executive Director Mr David Pearce, an accomplished economist who has already undertaken a large amount of work on climate change issues, including emissions trading.

Mr Pearce’s report, due in February, will significantly inform our response. The terms of reference are attached. It is important always to bear in mind that an emissions trading scheme is not a goal in itself. It is no more than one of several policy measures used to reduce emissions. The design of an ETS therefore has to be assessed clinically in terms of its cost-effectiveness both with regard to reducing emissions and above all in terms of its impacts on economic growth and jobs. If Government gets this wrong, it will simply mean exporting jobs and emissions offshore while doing nothing to save the Murray-Darling Basin or the Great Barrier Reef. The Coalition, in evaluating the White Paper and other practical proposals, starts from the following position on a number of key factors. 1) Climate change is best tackled from a position of economic strength. 2) The impact of the global financial crisis on the real economy and jobs must be taken into account when assessing the ability of Australian industry to introduce an emissions trading scheme in 2010. 3) Australia must work in concert with the rest of the world (there is no Australian solution to climate change, there is only a global solution). 4) Any emissions trading scheme must not result in the export of emissions and jobs. 5) Excessive haste carries great risk (to the resilience of our economy).

Well, 550 ppm keeps the warming from here to under 2 degrees. And 665 ppm gives us 3 degrees.

I firmly doubt that this spells ‘the end’. It might spell ‘much badness’. But even ‘much badness’ is relative. I do not think that we can avoid ‘much badness’. But I define that as being massive biodiversity loss and terrible suffering in the third world – oh, and an increased cost of living for those of us in the west.

No Southerners yet in Obama Cabinet.

Barack Obama is 15 picks into his Cabinet — he announced New Yorker Shaun Donovan as his Housing and Urban Development head on Saturday—but has yet to name one who hails from the South.
“Not a one,” grumbles a one senior Democratic aide who hails from the South. “Not even half of one, unless you count Hillary Clinton, and she doesn’t count because she’s not even an Arkansan anymore. She’s a Yankee.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16563.html

David- it was the smart-bomb thing that gave the game up I’m afraid :wink:.
I suspect you are just as aware and concerned as the rest of us. And helpless.

DogB,

950 ppm would do it. But to reach that would be very tricky. For example, there is the issue that energy does not necessarily get transferred into temperature directly. The melting of glaciers, for example, actually sucks energy out of the atmosphere.

Is Rudd’s white paper akin to a doctor telling a patient that the experts have read your biopsy and you have aggressive cancer, however, it is not feasible for us to cut it all out … but we’ll cut a little bit out and send you home and see how you go?

David Gould @ 1639 from the previous thread.

Methane also has such a short time in the air compared to carbon that it would be only a problem for 20 years or so. And again, technology would save the wealthy west.

😆
David, I realize, (and appreciate) that you’re performing a valuable duty as devil’s advocate.
But I’m afraid your chemistry is even worse than my maths. (and that’s saying something!)

While methane doesn’t last anywhere near as long as CO2 in the atmosphere, unfortunately, when it breaks down it forms……..Yes you guessed it….CO2

BTW I read somewhere that Methane has a half life of 7 yrs and has aprox 25x the potency of CO2 as a GGH.
But then, I read it on the Internet and it was probably written by a dog. 🙂

David- if you could just sling a few more insults in there it would start to feel like our old home 😆

G’day DogB, good to see you again.
————————————–

We can replace bees with microbots if necessary.”

Is anyone getting the feeling that they’re being wound up by a skillful and very funny dialectician?

David, congratulations on your HD & D.

DG: “discrete mathematics – should have been an HD, but two questions on the exam were not printed correctly and so they were not counted for anyone’s grade.”

David, what sort of a jailbird academic institution are you attending? They allowed you to sit for a major examination where the exam questions were not properly vetted? Are these people exiled Republicans slumming it down-under orwot?

Furthurmore, you cream the two “bodgie questions” on your exam paper then COP IT SWEET when the HD that was so justifiably yours was snatched from you by a bureaucratic balls-up of which you are completely blameless and from which you have suffered punitive academic damage.

David, we were given to understand that you were an up and comer with pluck. Like Prince Hal, pal. (excellent quote btw)
🙂
————————-
Cool post, Cat………… on a hot topic.

DG

“950 ppm would do it.” Really? Is there enough coal left to get there?

Not being a prat, I really am ignorant here.

Thanks for the brilliant post Cat.
I would have taken 3 weeks, 5 times the verbiage and produced 1/4 the insight that you came up with in 3+1/2 paras and a quote.
Whew!! :mrgreen:

Now a handy link on things climate, for those who like to make their brains hurt.
http://www.realclimate.org/
Always worth a weekly check in to see what the climate scientists are doing.

My mood keeps swinging from “utterly gutted, to “so angry I could spit shoes”.
What an awful day!

New Matilda’s Anna Rose reports from inside the emissions trading scheme lock-up in Canberra
At a high school swimming carnival I once dived really badly off the blocks and, in mid-air, realised that I’d screwed it up; that I’d blown the one chance I had to get a head-start in the pool. I have that same feeling right now. The Rudd Government has just blown Australia’s chance — the small window of opportunity we had — to avert catastrophic climate change.

I’m writing this from the White Paper “lock-up”, where the Government gives non-government organisations and business lobbyists an advance copy of the White Paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Blair Comley from the Department of Climate Change just gave his speech summarising the scheme’s key design elements.

This White Paper is, in the words of one of Australia’s top commentators on climate change, “totally f*cked”.

http://newmatilda.com/2008/12/15/rudd-has-betrayed-generation

paddy at 24
Are you ducking and weaving?

No way Cat.
I’ve put on my scuba gear and am swimming away underwater as fast as I can. 🙂

Apparently the Chicago Cubs have offered to fly Shoe Chucker to their next summer camp.
“His action needs a little work but Shoe Chucker could sure show the team a thing or two about cojones”, a Cubs spokesperson said.

New post from get up.

Dear paddy,

I’m writing from Canberra with an urgent message. I’ve just finished reading an advance copy of the Government’s White Paper on climate change. They aim to reduce carbon pollution by only 5% by 2020, with an option to go to only 15% if the rest of the world drags us there.

A 5-15% target means Australia is aiming for a global deal so weak scientists predict it will destroy the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the Murray Darling Basin. The window is still open, however, for Australia to become a world leader on climate solutions – if we demand it.

Many Australians voted for change at the last election on the promise of strong action to solve climate change. Kevin Rudd has today failed the mandate he was given to act; but we as a community can still show him that action to combat climate change is non-negotiable.

Since the Government isn’t listening to your concerns about climate change, let’s translate it into the language they will listen to: votes. So we’re asking the entire GetUp community:

Regardless of who you traditionally support, does today’s announcement make you less likely to vote for the ALP at the next election?

Yes

No

The PM has said he’ll be doing some holiday reading; so we’ll collate the results and make sure they’re on the desks of every member of the Government before Christmas. Who knows how weak the targets would have been without your efforts so far, but we know 2009 will take a renewed effort – beginning with the results of this poll.

Here in Parliament House, there’s a feeling the importance of this decision will be lost in the distraction of the holiday season. That’s why we think the best Christmas present we can give the Government is a reminder of the importance of strong climate change action.

Thanks for all that you do,
Simon Sheikh
GetUp National Director

URL for their current survey page
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9EVUD3PZ2Z1EQ8hcypE0Sw_3d_3d

GOP starts campaign for Senate election.

The Illinois Republican Party today stepped up its efforts to capitalize on the arrest last week of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges by announcing a statewide telivision advertising blitz advocating a special election for President-elect Barack Obama’s senate seat.

“Part of the grassroots plan,” according to the release, will be “a heavy statewide television advertising campaign” intended to stop Democrats from appointing one of their own to the seat.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16560.html

Yeah, let’s replace the corrupt Rod Blagojevich, with the most corrupt party we have ever seen. The makes good sense.

I wonder how Peter Garrett will support this heap of crap. We said Rudd was Howard -Lite. That was an understatement it appears. He is right up there with the little fucker.

Any idea that human civilisation could survive with massive disruptions to agriculture fails to comprehend the sheer scale of what we do. Shift the current temperate agricultural zones a few degrees and the bulk of our food resources disappears, and very quickly. Replacing these with alternatives, while technically possible, does not account for the lack of infrastructure that currently non-farmed areas would entail.

Human existence is predicated on the biosphere functioning in complex inter-related ways, and any sudden and massive disruptions to that, whether it’s availability of water or changes to extreme temperatures, will have concomitantly massive effects on our food supplies. No quick technical fix will suddenly replace thousands of millions of tonnes of grains. Human populations could easily plummet from their current numbers and that would have major impacts on us all.

It’s all more finely balanced than most people realise, which is why the bulk of the scientific community are ringing the alarm bells as loudly as they can…we ignore them at our peril.

While writing about the per capita numbers that make the Australian sacrifice look so good, in the back of my mind I’m thinking to myself that some additional digging is needed.

Step number one … checking out the per capita carbon levels (and I know Australia is up there on the high end) I came across this little picture (which is a touch misleading but drives home the point all the same).

http://www.myclimatechange.net/default.aspx?cat=2&sub=4&subjectId=52

By Post Author

KR, I agree. Anyone believing climate change will simply involve a rearrangement of existing agricultural zones so that all we need do is develop a bit of new technology or start digging up the dirt in a different place and then returning back to normal are seriously kidding themselves.

What is more likely is that we are looking at a wholesale disturbance of existing climate conditions with many possible knock on effects, like the end of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream, which may mean that sufficiently stable conditions for agriculture may well shrink while our global population increases.

What Rudd has demonstrated today is that he is too weak and too small-minded to resist pressure from the coal industry and other pro-carbon interests. He has turned his back on thousands of voters who helped him win the election and firmly slotted the federal government into the Right-wing end of the political spectrum (add internet censorship to that too).

With Labor to the Right and Liberal/Nationals to the far Right, this country is begging for a viable centre-Left progressive party. The Greens need to seize the moment, but I’m not sure if they can overcome the weirdo hippy stereotypes or the impression they are only concerned about the environment, which may mean the void remains unfilled for quite some time. Right now, thousands of progressively-minded Australians have no political party they feel represents them.

I wonder today whether a good proportion of my enthusiasm for a Labor Government was fueled by memories of leaders that actually has a vision for the country – something that lasted past the next 6 months.

Kruddy is so disappointing. I’m not sure it’s enough to say at least he’s not Howard.

Where’s the leadership on green energy initiatives? The ones that will create industry and jobs for this country. Are we really going to say it’s going to cost us, so therefore we can’t do anything? What about the solid independent analysis that says the longer we put climate change initiatives off the more it will cost us? Where’s the intelligence? Where’s the f*cking leadership?

I’m not passing judgment on the political ramifications of Rudd’s scheme as yet, since the complex reality is that a 25% target is probably not likely to get passed. That there’s room to up the level to 15% could be the redeeming feature, although that will not satisfy the Greens or the more strident critics in the short term.

It may be that its better to get ‘some’ scheme in place by 2010, with flexibility to raise the level later, than to stall the whole process by getting industry totally offside now.

Until I’ve had time to read through the details and listen to ALL opinions, I’m not going to condemn this scheme out of hand…not just yet, anyway. Sure, it’s not what I’d ideally like to see, but frankly, I cannot imagine us paying the price for a sudden big reduction in emissions. Is is possible that a ‘gently gently’ approach, one that can actually get through the political minefield, is better than aiming for one that will get bogged down immediately and likely fail to get passed?

We must start doing something, and yes ideally we could ALL cut down our emissions by 40% by 2020, but is that going to happen? Globally? I seriously doubt that. And finally, let’s remember that although our per capita emissions are high, we have a tiny population and anything we do is NOT going to determine the global outcome.

This is such a complex issue, and I think it’s wise not get into knee jerk reactions because we can’t have what’s ideal. Getting the entire population to agree to paying MUCH more for ‘clean’ power is not done with the flick of a switch, and we cannot revoke the laws of economics by wishing it either.

I think that when the business lobby says it is basically happy with the targets we should be concerned. Clearly that means that they don’t have to do a thing that will compromise their profits. Perhaps doing a little bit is arguably better than doing nothing, but when it essentially equals nothing it is sheer tokenism and we have been sold down the river.. or the mudflats.

btw- the Greens position is based on the science and the predicted long term effects of inaction. It is not developed for the sake of causing the Labor party grief, but because the targets are necessary for any kind of possible positive outcome. Whatever you may think of us as a political party we are the only group speaking without influence from business, mining, unions or religious influences. If the science is wrong then so are the greens policies, but if the science is correct then they’re worth considering.

The fundies have been trying to take over Deep Space Nine.
They took kids out of school because they were not teaching the way of the prophets. Ky Wynne was behind it all. She tried to have one of her opponents murdered. Damn fundies. Where will they pop up next?

If business was NOT amenable to Rudd’s plan then immediately you could see Turnbull not supporting it, and then a protracted argy-bargy to water it down and the time entailed to this. By effectively wedging Turnbull, Rudd dispenses the deniers forever, and gets Australia used to the idea that we are reducing emissions.

Meanwhile, if a global consensus emerges, we can increase our rate of reductions, but if not, our doing so at the top rate being called for would make absolutely NO difference in the global outcome. It’s this part of the equation that needs to be thought about seriously because when I hear people say silly things like, “well, that’s the end of the Great Barrier Reef” they are displaying their complete ignorance of the relative impact that any Australian emissions reduction could possibly have on the entire planet’s climate.

Otherwise it’s just a ‘feel good’ exercise, and that’s just nonsense. Howard wedged on this issue because numerate people realised he was right, but Rudd has had to thread the needle with it, to at least get us to start doing something.

I know which of these is better. Will those howling the loudest be making any such comparisons?

Unlikely.

48
Kirri, I must respectfully disagree with a number of your points.
(1) Starting low and working up to a more realistic level of carbon emission cuts is always going to be harder politically, than the other way around. Especially given the cave in to the rent seekers in the heavy polluting industries.
(2) Today, Kevin Rudd made a mockery of his (and his govt’s) election promises to lead Australians towards a cleaner industrial base.
It was the ultimate “slap in the face” to all those voters, who’d hoped against hope, that he (Kevin) wouldn’t turn out to be what they’d always feared.
A power hungry bureaucrat who followed the “Blairite” model of politics and who’s courage would fail at the first real hurdle he faced.
I can’t even begin to express my sadness at that loss of hope.

It appears that the “Sorry Day” speech, will be the high point of Rudd’s leadership.
I desperately hope I’m wrong, but today, he sold out on a promise that was *far* more important than oft boasted about “tax cuts”, or Education, or Broadband or whatever.
This was the really big one.

(3) I agree with you that the issues are incredibly complex. But the plan’s failure to confront the need to actively and vigorously pursue the development of renewable energy resources, is a deep and fundamental flaw.
You say (quite correctly) that getting the entire population to pay much more for clean power is not done with the flick of a switch.
But the current system, of demanding people pay much more for “clean power”, is simply perverse.

Today was the day for Rudd to go for an “Obama hope moment”.
Instead, he played the “Economics” card. (And what a dismal card it was)
The captains of the dirty industries are drinking champagne tonight.
While the peons are eating ashes and watching the hopes of their and their children’s future grow just that bit fainter.

Sorry for such a florid, bitter and somewhat pompous sounding post.
But I really do feel the bureaucrats have shafted us all today.

The Libs are clearly laying the ground so they can get away with opposing ETS from some bogus “in-principle” platform. For mine, the Rudd proposal is a big deal. From memory, Australians are currently the world’s highest emitters on a GDP per capita basis. In practice, what this means is the structure of our production and consumption is very highly dependant on carbon use and therefore carbon emissions. To change – as we must – is going to require a complete reconstruction of our economy as well as the rest of the global economy.

So this is really about the economics and politics of change: how do we get from we are to where have to be? Australians have proven to be highly sceptical of sudden, deep institutional change, and the Liberals know this.They know they can probably benefit by opposing change, no matter how cycnical and opportunistic they will appear.

For Rudd, the point is to at least make a start. This is the hardest issue in politics. It is about getting people to accept some up-front sacrifice so that somebody else sometime in the future might get a pay-off. It is a huge ask. It is one the Libs will seek to exploit for the sake of an inglorious chance at power.

I will be happy if even this modest-seeming beginning makes it through the Senate and helps position Australia for the next round of multilateral negotiations. You can be certain that the eco-reactionaries in China, the US, Russia and India will not be offering even a token 5% reduction. They will want someone else to wear the costs and getting anything at all meaningful from them will be distressingly difficult.

This is a global story. We have to hope that Rudd can squeeze his plan into law and help get the global players to move. I have to say, I am more than usually pessimistic about this, but live in hope.

Paddy, I’m not saying that I too won’t finally conclude that this is nothing but a capitulation on Rudd’s behalf, but I’ll need much longer to think through the issues.

But just note Bob Brown’s reaction:

“Senator Brown said Mr Rudd was under the thumb of big business, and had sold out the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, the Murray-Darling Basin, the Australian Alps and the entire eastern seaboard.”

That’s pure hyperbolic rubbish, since if Australia stopped emitting all greenhouse gases tomorrow, it would make no discernible difference to the outcome.

Second thing is that the Greens stated that their position was 40% reduction by 2020, and it was NOT negotiable. In other words, their position is the ultimate bit of wishful thinking because we could not do this without virtually closing down all heavy industry and taking all cars off the road and shutting down our coal fired electricity generation. In other words, this is simply not realistic in ten years, plain and simple.

So, Rudd’s choices: negotiate with one party that wants the plainly impossible, OR, set the bar low enough to wedge the conservatives and lock them into the process irrevocably while leaving the door open to go harder IF the world gets behind the issue too.

Sorry, but it would have been madness to even attempt to get the Greens on side as their position is intransigent and ‘sanctified’ by science, but is totally unrealistic.

I find it amusing that the most ‘fundamentalist’ position, the most intransigent position, and the most impossible to implement position is used as some benchmark for what is politically possible. Rudd had to make choices to make something happen, but the clear choice was NOT to work with the Greens as they’d literally priced themselves out of the market of ideas.

Politics is the art of compromise, and the most artful compromise in this case was to start small, or fail.

Bill Clinton notes in his biography that there are two things people should not see: the making of sausages and the making of laws! LOL

I agree with BlindO on this one, no matter how loud the howls of protest from the purists, the reality is that this is a monumental step in changing the very notion of our economy that emissions do have a cost. This is a profound change, even if the first level of implementation appears modest. Rudd had to consider a lot of things before deciding how hard to go at it, but he really did not have any easy choices.

53 Kirribilli Removals Nicely put. I hadn’t thought about it yet although initially I wasn’t happy with it.

For a moment, think of how difficult it is going to be to have the emitting super-powers commit to even a constant-carbon system, let alone a carbon-negative one.

Think for a moment of Japan. Despite 40 years of international pressure and annual rounds of protest and argument, it has not been possible to persuade Japan to give up something which would actually benefit them economically: giving up whaling.

The Europeans have been proud early starters on carbon-reduction plans, but the reality has been that the EU carbon trading system has been fiddled to allow large emitters to qualify for subsidies while not actually reducing their carbon output. As well, the EU system basically pays emitters to off-shore their pollution while qualifying for carbon credits that are convertible to cash. This is hardly a great example of how to change the world.

Think also of the decades-long effort to reform agricultural trade. This is something that would benefit the poorest agrarian populations as well as urbanised consumers in wealthy countries. Even this self-evidently sensible and worthwhile reform has been completely stifled by the EU (especially France and Germany), the US, Japan and even China.

My guess is that human society will not take the necessary measures to prevent environmental destruction. This requires forebearance, cooperation and cost-sharing. This is without precedent in the global system – a system which is based upon selfish competition and benefit appropriation.

But I give Rudd credit for trying.

The really galling thing is, though, if the US had put its $ to work on climate change instead of warring in Iraq, climate change would be much much less of a problem.

Now the $ is going to have to be spent on that quixotic quest: fixing the US auto industry…..I wish I’d ever had $73 bill to lose. I coulda done a lot with that much loot…

“The president, traveling on Air Force One from Iraq to Afghanistan last night, said he “signaled” his administration is considering using money from the $700 billion fund. Bush said he’s “not quite ready” to announce any rescue plan.

GM Chief Financial Officer Ray Young met yesterday with administration staff seeking agreement on the size of the short- term loans, a person familiar with the talks said. A decision may not be made today, the person said.

Without an agreement, the world’s largest automaker and smaller Chrysler may be only weeks away from insolvency, both companies said in congressional hearings Dec. 4-5. GM is reeling from almost $73 billion in losses since 2004 and a 22 percent slump in U.S. sales this year. The automaker said last month it lost $4.2 billion in the third quarter.”

57
Actually Kirri, Bob Brown is merely stating the facts as far as the environmental changes are concerned.
I think the reef’s future is well and truly fucked and the Murray Darling is a dying system.
I don’t see them as Rudd’s fault and I doubt Bob Brown does either.
That part’s pure political theatre and not particularly edifying or helpful from either side.
Mind you, politics is a messy business and your Clinton quote is on the mark.
Then again, Labour’s hardly held out any sort of olive branch to the greens in the last few years and I suspect they’re going to get spanked by the voters for that omission.

The election of Steve Fielding is just one of the more bizarre results of their “nervousness”.
Heck, I suspect even Lindsay Tanner might be feeling a tad nervous about his electorate tonight. 🙂

However, I’m much more pissed off that Rudd’s let a golden opportunity to pump some real resources into renewables slip by.

The sort of support that this crisis will require must come from the bottom up *and* the top down.

I hear what your saying about baby steps and hastening slowly so we don’t frighten the horses.
But my overiding feeling from today’s announcement is one of betrayal. 🙁

Australia not only has to set an example for the rest of the world, but we have to actually get off our arses and start doing the R&D to come up with some workable solutions.
So far, we’ve been pissing every bright idea off overseas to China and the US as quick as they’ve evolved
“Clean coal” and free carbon credits to the polluters without *real* commitments to renewables just won’t wash with a sizable portion of the electorate.
I think Rudd and the Labour party have made a bad miscalculation about how big that portion is.

Anyway, it’s always good to hear the thoughtful voices on this blog.
Thanks to you and Cat and all the good pirates who sail aboard the SS Politic.
Time to hit the hay and dream of androids and electric sheep.

It all seems fine to me – in the end we will probably get around 10% cuts when it’s all done and dusted

Not great, but it will be ok

I’m with you David, but it’s my birthday and I’m pretty smashed so nothing I say should be taken seriously 😀

Yes, that is the ‘bummer’- the lack of support for renewables.
Was so impressed with the sophistication/quiet of the wind-turbines scattered among industrial areas , freeways,etc. while in the Netherlands, and found them beautiful. Spoke to some savvy corporate types who explained that they are now calibrated so finely that there are no problems and consider them a must.
And my other beef is the lack of progress re efficient & affordable public transport systems.

Homo Sap. all breathe the same air, jet in the same stratosphere, voyage on the same oceans and chow down from the same food chain. We’re all aboard the same carriage on the solar system express.
But naturally, wedging antipodean tories is a far more important than exercising leadership on a Pale Blue Dot whose owners are hellbent on the worship of Mammon.

On Mars there is water, yet when storms are still, the springs are silent. Economy’s pretty quiet too. Couldn’t possibly happen to us because Homo Sap was born to demonstrate superiority over Mother Nature.

Just like Oedopus.

64
Well happy birthday spammy and I hope your intake of CO2 is largely the “nice” kind. The sort that comes in a bottle or can and is surrounded by the juice of the grape or the grain. 🙂

65
Megan. I too, am amazed at the hostility that wind farms tend to generate amongst the various communities where they’ve been placed or proposed.
Disclaimer: I see one from 3 km away, every time I look out my kitchen window. I regard it as a very beautiful installation sculpture and would feel the landscape and the planet to be poorer without it.
Alas, I’m in the extreme minority in my local community. 🙁
Rant follows:
Unfortunately, the current method of setting them up, involves local communities getting sweet fuck all out of the deal. [Other than some amorphous “feel good” bullshit from the power company that erects them.]
A situation where one farmer gets *all* the financial benefit from rent, while the rest get nothing is guaranteed to create massive opposition. The bitter irony of so called “greenies”, bitching and squealing about bird strike, noise pollution, light flicker and loss of visual amenity is truly sad.
However, those issues are *real* for many people and need to be properly dealt with.
*Money*, in the form of cheaper tariffs for those directly impacted would do wonders for the reputation of the wind power.

Similarly, the current kerfuffle over the desal plant at Wonthaggi is very much a problem with “no benefit for those most impacted”.
ie: Them what live next to it, get fuck all in the way of compensation.
It’s also a sad irony, (if what I’ve heard is true) that if sea level rises 2 meters by the end of this century. The Victorian desal plant, as currently planned, will be under water.
Anyway, enough of my ranting. I’m off to the big smoke for a day or two of total decadence.
Keep up the good fight ticsters and I’ll catch up when I return.

Ah yes, before I shoot through.
Alan Kohler has a cracker of an article in today’s Spectator.

Unfortunately the world has been caught in a double bubble deflation – we have to deflate the carbon bubble at the same time as a deflating credit bubble is forced upon us.

The good news, if it can be called that, is that the collapse of the credit bubble will do a lot of the work of reducing carbon emissions. As a sign of that, China yesterday reported a 9.6 per cent fall in electricity production over the past year as its economy slips towards recession; carbon emissions there are collapsing without the government doing a thing.

The world economy has expanded at a greater pace than it would have done naturally for about two decades because of the overuse of cheap carbon and cheap credit, leading to toxic bubbles in both.

Cheap oil and coal have underpinned massive expansions of global industry, including in China, and cheap debt has financed it, especially through the use of credit derivatives.

Both of these excesses must now be reversed together because, unhappily, carbon turns out to be toxic to the earth and threatens our children with a much less pleasant existence than we’ve been having, while the maintenance of a credit bubble requires confidence, which has now evaporated.
And no country has benefited more from the double bubbles of carbon and credit than Australia. Australia’s households are the world’s most indebted and Australian industry is the most reliant on cheap energy from coal-based power generation.

The effect of these twin deflations is largely a generational issue – it’s all about the extent to which the current generation borrows from the future to soften the impact now.

The Rudd government is no different to any other group of politicians in the world – the people who matter to them are alive and voting today, so there is a great incentive to borrow from those not yet born, who will vote for some future bunch of politicians.

Hello everyone, sorry for my neglect of this fine board!
Chris, Katrina, Kirribilli, everyone else: Hi!
If anyone is still interested in U.S politics: Daily Kos is suggesting that Al Franken is now ahead in the Minnesotta senate race, although this one will end up in the courts!

I’ll argue Rudd has struck a sensible comprimise: piss off both the extreme left and the extreme right, go for a minimal target, compensate lower and middle income earners, especially those in marginal seats!
The Greens may huff and puff, but where else do they have to go?
The Liberals? I think not.

Enemy Combatant: G’day buddy!
Another point: let’s wait for January 20, see what Obama does when he moves in to the Oval Office, I’d assume he ratifies Kyoto then adopts an ambitious emissions reduction target, that might persuade Rudd to go even further too.
Governor Arnie in California has embraced the cause of climate change: why are conservatives in this country so reluctant to follow his lead?

The Illinois Senate seat scandal hasn’t touched Barack Obama’s high ratings for honesty or for handling the transition – but many Americans are waiting to hear more.

A tepid 51 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say

Obama’s done enough to explain any discussions his representatives may have had with Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who’s accused of seeking bribes in his selection of Obama’s successor. The rest either say Obama’s not done enough (34 percent) or are unsure (14 percent more).

Obama has not been implicated in the case and has promised to disclose his transition office’s contacts with the governor. Clearly it could help: His 51 percent approval in this area is far below his broad 76 percent approval for handling of the transition overall.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/12/obama-the-trans.html

Voter intent clear on most ballots.

Jesus, Bob Dylan and Mickey Mouse will play a big part in determining Minnesota’s next senator. So will voters who scrawled in the same name for every local race. As will people who marked their choices not just with a darkened oval but an X, too — maybe for emphasis or maybe for a do-over.

Thousands of challenged ballots are critical in the drawn-out Senate battle between Norm Coleman, the Republican incumbent, and Al Franken, the entertainer turned Democratic candidate. A state board begins meeting Tuesday to decide their fates.

Of the 2.9 million ballots already recounted, Coleman leads Franken by fewer than 200 votes.

The Associated Press analyzed and catalogued more than 5,000 challenged ballots, including many that were later withdrawn by the campaigns and all of the roughly 3,500 that remained up in the air as of Saturday. (The campaigns announced Sunday they would pare their challenges by Tuesday but didn’t immediately identify which ones they would drop.)

Franken could pick up at least 200 additional votes which is huge considering Coleman is leading by 192 votes, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

http://www.politicalwire.com

The main reason that I am optimistic about the human species ability to adapt to this is the long lead times for real effects.

Temperature is rising by, on average, .2 degrees C per decade. This will likely increase somewhat as global emissions increase over the next little while.

This level of temperature increase can be adapted to by those with money and technology. That means that the wealthy west will be able to adapt, while the third world will be stuffed. And many animals will be unable to adapt, obviously.

If the temperature increased suddenly – say due to a methane burst on the level of what I outlined above – then that would be very hard to deal with, as it would be a 3.8 degree increase in a decade.

We are talking about changes occurring over many years. Think about what the world was like 40 years ago. Think about computing power alone. Then extrapolate the difference between then and now over the next 40 years. The technological capacity that we will have in 40 years is literally unimaginable.

As to methane becoming CO2, the thing is that the amount of methane in the atmosphere would be small – multiply current levels by 12 and you get around 25,000 parts per billions, or 25 parts per million. Global CO2 is already 380 parts per million. At 5 degrees warming, it would 950 parts per million. Convert all the methane to carbon dioxide – CH4 to CO2 – and you would subtract the 3.8 degrees of warming and only add less than 0.2 of a degree.

As to whether we could reach 5 degrees of warming, 5.8 degrees over the next 90 years is the IPCC’s worst case scenario. However, the IPCC worst case scenario predictions over the last little while have tended to be about 10 per cent on the low side, so we could increase that to around 6.5 degrees. However, that is not over a 40-year period; that is over a 90-year period. With our technological capabilities unimaginable 40 years hence, we are basically talking about almost god-like power in 90 years (a minor deity, perhaps, but still pretty darn powerful).

Again, many animals and the third world will be stuffed. But we in the wealthy west will be fine.

White to Run for Hutchison’s Senate Seat

The DSCC has cajoled Houston mayor Bill White (D) to run for the Texas Senate seat Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is expected to vacate when she runs for governor of Texas in 2010. White has proved a powerful vote getter in the past, getting 86% of the vote for mayor in 2007. With such a popular figure running for an open seat, the Democrats have a shot at picking up this seat. As an aside, the list of 2010 Senate races is given on the Data galore page listed on the menu. The Texas race is not there yet because Hutchison has not formally announced her intention of resigning yet. The next regular election for the seat is in 2012, so if White runs, it will be for a 2-year term.

Votemaster
more…
http://www.electoral-vote.com

I’m with Kirri, BO and Progressive. There’s nothing much to cheer about, granted, but politics is about carrying a broad consensus. It is tempting, and arguably desirable, to go in a lot harder for what will be fairly serious and costly change. And it is probably true that the majority of the public are well ahead of politicians and business on their concerns about climate change.

But we are still picking through the debris of just such an approach from the Rovian right. We need widespread commitment to Climate Change, which involves a lot more than thinking that our adaption is a good thing and it’s about time somebody did something drastic.

Our economy and trade is still rather dependent on minerals and energy, and transforming it is not easy (albeit not impossible given our huge natural advantage position on alternatives). We need to carry and persuade the public and the vested interests on the need for change.

It is easy to get the impression that the Hollow Men are in charge, and that may be so. But maybe the way of succeeding with this is to go a bit at a time, even though we know time is pressing. Once some change is accepted, more change might be possible.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m of the old Dunstan school. One of his greatest contributions was to learn that you needed to persuade and carry the broad public with you on the needs/benefits of reform. He still had to face down immense vested and media interests, but he had the courage to do so with the public behind him.

It’s a big stretch of the imagination to suggest this government is of that ilk, but who knows? Ken Henry has already suggested a drastic reform and simplification of taxation. If something comes of that, and with people like Tanner around we can hope, other things may be possible.

The current global economic conditions are encouraging a rebirth of neo-Keynesianism. The desperation to keep employment and economic conditions afloat can encourage more investment in alternatives either directly or through tax incentives.

I think it’s a ‘wait and see’ situation at present. Sooner or later harder decisions will be called for, but the ground work is in place.

Mongiardo eyes rematch with Sen. Bunning.

Four years after coming a whisker away from scoring the upset of the cycle, Kentucky Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo (D) is contemplating a rematch against Sen. Jim Bunning (R).
In an interview with The Hill on Monday, Mongiardo said time and money are factors.
“I’m considering the race. I think at this stage, being less than two years away, anyone running against an incumbent will have to start the fundraising process.”
Mongiardo ran surprisingly close to Bunning in 2004, leading on Election night in a Republican-friendly year in a Republican-heavy state with still-popular President Bush atop the ticket. In the end, Bunning pulled out a narrow 23,000-vote victory for a second term, but the tightness of the contest put a target squarely on the Republican’s back.

Quality candidates seem to be coming out of the wood work. Is that because they have a huge confidence in the ability of Obama to get the job done? This will make it much easier for Obama to win well over the 60 senate seat majority.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mongiardo-eyes-rematch-with-sen.-bunning-2008-12-15.html

Energy and Climate Front and Center For Obama Administration.

With the creation of a new White House energy and climate office and the appointment of a Nobel Prize winner to run the Energy Department, President-elect Barack Obama signalled Monday that energy and climate policy will be elevated to top priorities in his administration.

Obama announced that Steven Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, will be his nominee for as energy secretary and New Jersey environmental chief Lisa Jackson will be his as EPA administrator.

Carol M. Browner, who led the Environmental Protection Agency for eight years during the Clinton administrator and was previously a Senate aide to former Vice President Al Gore, will assume a newly created White House role coordinating climate and energy policy.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002997897

Just FYI for those claiming Kevin has killed the Great Barrier Reef.

You should never underestimate the tenacity of life and the ability of species to survive significant climate change. Just because we as a species have developed during a particularly stable interglaciation doesn’t mean that all life on this planet is as fragile and inflexible as we have become.

There is strong evidence to suggest there has been a significant reef structure in the GBR area for 600,000 years. To put that into perspective for you the reef has survived an ice age and the previous interglaciation which was as much as 4c warmer than today.

Make no mistake, by fighting global warming we are fighting for our way of life. We could smash our current society beyond recognition and the reef will continues to survive. It might shrink, almost certainly there’ll be changes in relative species numbers, but the reef will live on.

Personally I think KR has done the right thing. With our ever increasing population any decrease in carbon emissions is going to take a massive shift in the way we think. After 2010 we may never again see a traditional coal fired power station built in this country. Wind and solar will become more and more common and as we become experienced in using these power sources we will get better at it but in the end the solution doesn’t lie in these technologies. The ultimate solution is Fusion power. The day we crack the Fusion puzzle is the day when AGW becomes a problem that we used to have.

We will not really have much choice but to live with it. The fact is, the world is not going to go for targets any greater than 15 per cent. Indeed, even if there is an agreement at that level, it will not be truly global as there will be no restrictions on the third world and China and India will likely be allowed to increase their emissions somewhat. On a per capita basis, which is the fairest measure, there is no way that China and India are going to agree to cut emissions. The best that they will agree to is to increase them more slowly. (And whether they keep to that agreement is another story …)

Globally, I cannot see us starting to actually reduce emissions until 2050. At around 2050, global carbon emissions will start to drop dramatically, effectively ceasing by around 2070. (This dramatic drop will be due to the take-up of new technologies).

The curves that I have drawn of global emissions are based on Australia reducing its per capita emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 and the rest of the world having the same per capita emissions as Australia does then.

At that level of emissions, India will be pumping out about 3 times the emissions that it does now. China will be pumping out about 25 per cent more emissions than it does now.

Globally, the world will still be pumping out the same amount of CO2 then as it does now. The distribution will be very different, however – much more evenly spread.

Democrats Readying Legislation in Case Treasury Asks for More TARP Funds.

House leaders are readying legislation to strengthen foreclosure prevention language in the $700 billion financial bailout law if the Bush administration asks for the second half of the money.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday she has directed House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank , D-Mass., to write a bill that would enforce language in the bailout law intended to keep people in their homes.

If the administration petitions Congress for the remaining $350 billion of the bailout money, Pelosi wants to “have legislation that insists that the provisions of the law be honored before we release any more funds.” Under the bailout law — dubbed the Troubled Asset Relief Program — Congress has the ability to block the second bailout allotment if the Treasury Department asks for it.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002997954

DogB,

Yes, fusion is indeed the answer. (Although solar will make a massive contribution – solar panel technology will become amazingly cheap, light and efficient over the next few decades.

This just in… Barack Obama is the next President.

In case you were wondering, Barack Obama won the election.

Before you yell out “duh” – it wasn’t official yet. Today, 538 electors across the country met to officially cast their ballots. This is merely a step in the Electoral College process. The Constitution mandates that state electors gather and officially vote.

more..
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/12/15/this-just-in-barack-obama-is-the-next-president/

It’s official: Barack Obama elected 44th president.

As 13 electors cast ballots Monday for the nation’s first black president in the Confederacy’s old Capitol, Henry Marsh emotionally recalled the smartest man he ever knew — a waiter, who couldn’t get a better job because of his race.

“He waited tables for 30 years, six days a week, 12 hours a day, from 12 noon to 12 midnight, and he supported his family,” Marsh, 75, a civil rights lawyer and state senator, said of his father as he fought back tears. “He suffered a lot. He went through a lot.”

In all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the 538 electors performed a constitutional process to legally elect Democrat Barack Obama the 44th president.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i5uzTpibgiqcSURUWPVvUQRzYSIQD953E86G0

more from the same article as above…

The contrast at Virginia’s Capitol, where the Confederate Congress met, was particularly striking.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine noted in his speech that the 200-year-old Capitol was where lawmakers just 50 years ago orchestrated the state’s formal defiance of federal school desegregation orders. But he also noted that it is where L. Douglas Wilder took his oath as the nation’s first elected black governor in 1990.

“This temple of Democracy shines very brightly today,” Kaine told a standing-room-only crowd attending what had always been a sparsely attended afterthought.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i5uzTpibgiqcSURUWPVvUQRzYSIQD953E86G0

Obama takes another page from Lincoln – he’ll take train to DC inauguration.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will make their triumphant entrance into Washington by rail to launch the ceremonial run-up to Inauguration Day.

The trip along the silver rails from Philadelphia to the nation’s capital will evoke President Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural ride.

Obama began his historic presidential run in the Great Emancipator’s hometown of Springfield, Ill., in February 2007. In February 1861, Lincoln rode a train from Philadelphia to his inauguration in Washington, stopping to make quick speeches along the way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/15/2008-12-15_obama_takes_another_page_from_lincoln__h.html

DG

Agreed. The problem with Fusion is it’s not here right now. We need a stopgap measure and solar and wind will fit the bill nicely. They work and they work well. However we still need to burn fossil fuels when it’s dark and still so their utility is unfortunately limited.

That said; I suspect that even when Fusion is commonplace, peak power in places like Australia will still be supplemented with solar plants. There’s a great deal to be said for a power plant that needs no fuel and produces no waste and is practically infinitely scalable.

Montenegro files EU membership application.

Montenegro on Monday (15 December) presented its official application for EU membership to current EU President Nicolas Sarkozy, hoping to win EU candidate country status some time next year.

EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn welcomed the move, saying: “Today Montenegro has reached a historical milestone marking the country’s important engagement to common European values and fundamentals.”

http://euobserver.com/9/27301

Comments are closed.