Massive Disconnect between Neo-classical economics and Global Reality

RWER:

Climate scientists are divided over whether “the tipping point”, the point at which positive feedbacks make climate change accelerate and irreversible, thereby endangering the survival of the human species, has been reached....

Meanwhile the World Bank forecasts that by the end of the century global economic output will have risen almost tenfold.

Evidently NCE counts output as a plus but the consequent destruction of the environment in which we live does not count as a loss. It's like chopping down trees on Easter Island. As they approach the last stands, timber production, profit and success have never been higher. But no thought is given to what happens when all the trees are gone.

We need to change NOW the measures of production and economic growth by a full incorporation of environmental damage.

RWER:

Climate scientists are divided over whether “the tipping point”, the point at which positive feedbacks make climate change accelerate and irreversible, thereby endangering the survival of the human species, has been reached....

Meanwhile the World Bank forecasts that by the end of the century global economic output will have risen almost tenfold.

Evidently NCE counts output as a plus but the consequent destruction of the environment in which we live does not count as a loss. It's like chopping down trees on Easter Island. As they approach the last stands, timber production, profit and success have never been higher. But no thought is given to what happens when all the trees are gone.

We need to change NOW the measures of production and economic growth by a full incorporation of environmental damage.

Massive Disconnect between Neo-classical economics and Global Reality

Change the System, Not the Climate

A People's Declaration from Klimaforum 09 -


The Copenhagen conference on Climate change was a flop and a joke. It was, literally, a bunch of Neros fiddling while the world burned.

But it may have the benefit of finally discrediting the approaches tried to date, such as carbon trading etc.

Another benefit of the Conference was the alternative summits, people's summits, such as the Klimaforum. The Klimaforum document is highly admirable and a sound basis for going forward. Change must come from below, and the exploitative Western capitalist system that created the crisis must be radically altered.

A People's Declaration from Klimaforum 09 -


The Copenhagen conference on Climate change was a flop and a joke. It was, literally, a bunch of Neros fiddling while the world burned.

But it may have the benefit of finally discrediting the approaches tried to date, such as carbon trading etc.

Another benefit of the Conference was the alternative summits, people's summits, such as the Klimaforum. The Klimaforum document is highly admirable and a sound basis for going forward. Change must come from below, and the exploitative Western capitalist system that created the crisis must be radically altered.

Change the System, Not the Climate

Rising Sea Level Projections

Real Climate:

The scientific sea level discussion has moved a long way since the last IPCC report was published in 2007.... The Copenhagen Synthesis Report recently concluded that “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″....

In our view, when presenting numbers to the public scientists need to be equally cautious about erring on the low as they are on the high side. For society, after all, under-estimating global warming is likely the greater danger.

This information is typical of the ongoing development of climate change science. That is, not only is it happenening, but it is happening at a faster rate than at first predicted.

The denialists, therefore, are not only wrong about the science, but also wrong about the speed of change. As Ross Garnaut has said, at bottom the issue is a moral one, and the denialists have no morals.

Real Climate:

The scientific sea level discussion has moved a long way since the last IPCC report was published in 2007.... The Copenhagen Synthesis Report recently concluded that “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″....

In our view, when presenting numbers to the public scientists need to be equally cautious about erring on the low as they are on the high side. For society, after all, under-estimating global warming is likely the greater danger.

This information is typical of the ongoing development of climate change science. That is, not only is it happenening, but it is happening at a faster rate than at first predicted.

The denialists, therefore, are not only wrong about the science, but also wrong about the speed of change. As Ross Garnaut has said, at bottom the issue is a moral one, and the denialists have no morals.

Rising Sea Level Projections

Paul Kelly on Renewable Energy Targets

RET is the only part of the Government's package worth supporting. Not according to Paul Kelly, spruiking the business line.

We need to build a whole new energy infrastructure, fast, and phase out completely the killer polluting fossil fuel industry.

RET is the one policy proposed or passed by the Government so far which moves towards this end.

In theory, a well designed ETS could be a successful policy but the proposed CPRS is a failure which would achieve little or nothing - this is why it was rejected by the Greens. Looking at the failure of ETS in Europe, one might suspect this was planned from the outset.

If we were seriously interested in 'best policy' we would do as most economists recommend and introduce a carbon tax - with no exemptions for major polluters. It could be at a low rate at first, and raised later.

Geosequestration does not exist nor is likely to exist in time. The only genuine 'geosequestration' is if the coal is left in the ground in the first place. The introduction of a carbon tax would effectively kill talk of geosequestration - King Koal would be on notice that it had to research and deploy the technology or (more likely) shutdown.

Nuclear energy is not just 'at present' financially unviable - it has never been and never will be without massive government subsidy. Solar and windpower are already cheaper with the gap to only increase over time.

Nuclear energy is costly, toxic, weaponable, non renewable and not the answer.

The true problem is not mentioned in this article, but is mentioned at a discussion held by Professor Ross Garnaut in Melbourne, where he added another memorable phrase to what he has already produced:

The trouble with the case for action [on climate change] is this - there is a vast lobbying industry in all developed nations determined to block action, and it’s one-sixth of lobbyists in Washington, according to one estimate.

Garnaut likened this to the vast lobbying efforts to prevent effective rcause great problems to the global financial system while enriching the big US investment housesegulation of the financial derivatives, which were widely expected to and their managers, before ultimately almost causing the meltdown of that same system.

Garnaut's point was that such people could secure a comfortable future for their grandchildren even in a sadly worsened environment.

The bankers of Wall Street were quite willing to enrich themselves while risking catastrophe.

It seems the beneficiaries of current unsustainable environmental practices are taking a similar stance.

RET is the only part of the Government's package worth supporting. Not according to Paul Kelly, spruiking the business line.

We need to build a whole new energy infrastructure, fast, and phase out completely the killer polluting fossil fuel industry.

RET is the one policy proposed or passed by the Government so far which moves towards this end.

In theory, a well designed ETS could be a successful policy but the proposed CPRS is a failure which would achieve little or nothing - this is why it was rejected by the Greens. Looking at the failure of ETS in Europe, one might suspect this was planned from the outset.

If we were seriously interested in 'best policy' we would do as most economists recommend and introduce a carbon tax - with no exemptions for major polluters. It could be at a low rate at first, and raised later.

Geosequestration does not exist nor is likely to exist in time. The only genuine 'geosequestration' is if the coal is left in the ground in the first place. The introduction of a carbon tax would effectively kill talk of geosequestration - King Koal would be on notice that it had to research and deploy the technology or (more likely) shutdown.

Nuclear energy is not just 'at present' financially unviable - it has never been and never will be without massive government subsidy. Solar and windpower are already cheaper with the gap to only increase over time.

Nuclear energy is costly, toxic, weaponable, non renewable and not the answer.

The true problem is not mentioned in this article, but is mentioned at a discussion held by Professor Ross Garnaut in Melbourne, where he added another memorable phrase to what he has already produced:

The trouble with the case for action [on climate change] is this - there is a vast lobbying industry in all developed nations determined to block action, and it’s one-sixth of lobbyists in Washington, according to one estimate.

Garnaut likened this to the vast lobbying efforts to prevent effective rcause great problems to the global financial system while enriching the big US investment housesegulation of the financial derivatives, which were widely expected to and their managers, before ultimately almost causing the meltdown of that same system.

Garnaut's point was that such people could secure a comfortable future for their grandchildren even in a sadly worsened environment.

The bankers of Wall Street were quite willing to enrich themselves while risking catastrophe.

It seems the beneficiaries of current unsustainable environmental practices are taking a similar stance.

Paul Kelly on Renewable Energy Targets

Global Warming Denier Sen Steve Fielding Cherry-Picks Scientists

link

CLIMATE scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US have distanced themselves from the views of a colleague who helped shape Family First senator Steve Fielding's sceptical stance on global warming.

During his trip Senator Fielding heard several speakers question whether human-related emissions were leading to dangerous climate change. It is believed that a talk by MIT atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen convinced him that the case supporting climate change was being exaggerated.

In June, the Government's former climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, said he had spoken to Professor Lindzen in compiling his review but had discounted his opinion that the global-warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated.

''I would have been delighted if there were 10 or 20 or, better still, 100 Richard Lindzens around the world but unfortunately he's a one-off,'' Professor Garnaut said. ''It would be imprudent beyond the normal limits of irrationality to grab one dissenting view among the serious climate scientists and say, 'I am going to believe that' and not to believe the views of all of Australia's credentialled climate scientists.''

Imprudent beyond the normal limits of rationality is a nice way of describing the denialists.

There is a scientific consensus that AGW is real. Denialists like Sen Fielding seem about on a par with people who deny evolution - an anti-scientific position. And of course denialism accords with the interests of the industry that is killing the planet - the fossil fuel industry. Sen Fielding along with Sen Joyce and others among the conservative parties may have dithered a little in the early stages of the debate but they've since got a firm tap on the shoulder from the vested interests - we don't like this and you know what we want you to do.

link

CLIMATE scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US have distanced themselves from the views of a colleague who helped shape Family First senator Steve Fielding's sceptical stance on global warming.

During his trip Senator Fielding heard several speakers question whether human-related emissions were leading to dangerous climate change. It is believed that a talk by MIT atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen convinced him that the case supporting climate change was being exaggerated.

In June, the Government's former climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, said he had spoken to Professor Lindzen in compiling his review but had discounted his opinion that the global-warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated.

''I would have been delighted if there were 10 or 20 or, better still, 100 Richard Lindzens around the world but unfortunately he's a one-off,'' Professor Garnaut said. ''It would be imprudent beyond the normal limits of irrationality to grab one dissenting view among the serious climate scientists and say, 'I am going to believe that' and not to believe the views of all of Australia's credentialled climate scientists.''

Imprudent beyond the normal limits of rationality is a nice way of describing the denialists.

There is a scientific consensus that AGW is real. Denialists like Sen Fielding seem about on a par with people who deny evolution - an anti-scientific position. And of course denialism accords with the interests of the industry that is killing the planet - the fossil fuel industry. Sen Fielding along with Sen Joyce and others among the conservative parties may have dithered a little in the early stages of the debate but they've since got a firm tap on the shoulder from the vested interests - we don't like this and you know what we want you to do.

Global Warming Denier Sen Steve Fielding Cherry-Picks Scientists

Climate Change Catastrophe

Useful discussion on RealClimate about a recent paper which confirms what we already understand about how serious this problem is and how poor the policy response is.

One commenter points out that exceeding the two degree limit (inevitable with the failed policy approach to date):

We don’t “adapt” to 4 °C of warming,” except in the sense that residents of New Orleans “adapted” to Katrina. It ain’t adaptation. As John Holdren would say, it’s “misery.”

It is also an exceedingly open question as to whether one can in fact “stabilize” at much above 2°C — or whether you destroy the tundra and the peatlands and saturate the sinks and basically quickly go up to 5°C or more. I think the science is moving in the direction of stabilize below 450 ppm or cross thresholds that take you shoot you up to 1000 ppm.

This means that the failure to act now to keep temperatures at no more than 2 degrees would likely be a catastrophic failure.

Another commenter also provides a link to a paper by Hansen where he advocates 100% Citizen's dividend from a carbon tax. Its a good idea, but perhaps it would be good as well to make a 50% split: 50% citizen's dividend, 50% dedicated to buildout of renewable energy infrastructure (windfarms etc).

Useful discussion on RealClimate about a recent paper which confirms what we already understand about how serious this problem is and how poor the policy response is.

One commenter points out that exceeding the two degree limit (inevitable with the failed policy approach to date):

We don’t “adapt” to 4 °C of warming,” except in the sense that residents of New Orleans “adapted” to Katrina. It ain’t adaptation. As John Holdren would say, it’s “misery.”

It is also an exceedingly open question as to whether one can in fact “stabilize” at much above 2°C — or whether you destroy the tundra and the peatlands and saturate the sinks and basically quickly go up to 5°C or more. I think the science is moving in the direction of stabilize below 450 ppm or cross thresholds that take you shoot you up to 1000 ppm.

This means that the failure to act now to keep temperatures at no more than 2 degrees would likely be a catastrophic failure.

Another commenter also provides a link to a paper by Hansen where he advocates 100% Citizen's dividend from a carbon tax. Its a good idea, but perhaps it would be good as well to make a 50% split: 50% citizen's dividend, 50% dedicated to buildout of renewable energy infrastructure (windfarms etc).

Climate Change Catastrophe

New PM a dud on climate change

The former Howard government's position on climate change was incredibly backward: it refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and effectively denied that there was even a problem for ten long years. At least Rudd has ratified and talks of the need to tackle the issue. In reality, however, he is not that far removed from Howard or even the Bush administration.

Rudd will not even set a target, much less take the necessary steps to achieve the target.

WITH less than 24 hours to deadline, the crucial UN climate talks in Bali were deadlocked last night between the US and Europe - with Australia being drawn into the centre of the conflict.

The European Union demanded to know where Australia stood in the attempt by America to remove crucial wording in the draft Bali road map which calls for developed countries to make deep cuts to their greenhouse gas emissions.

Shortly before leaving Bali, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, signalled Australia would back moves by the US to remove the controversial wording from the draft. The Americans have refused to accept the phraseology, which refers to scientific advice that the developed world would need to cut its emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid the most severe effects of climate change.

The EU's Environment Minister, Stavros Dimas, said last night that the wording was "indispensable" to the Bali road map.

"The Prime Minister lost an opportunity in his speech to commit to this range of 25 to 40 per cent," he told reporters, adding, "They still have time."

But in a thinly veiled criticism of Mr Rudd, he said that if Australia refused to back the European stand on the draft road map, the Prime Minister's signing of the Kyoto Protocol "will not have the substance we hoped for".

A spokeswoman for the main environmental groups at the conference, Jennifer Morgan, told reporters: "There is a wrecking crew here in Bali led by the Bush Administration and its minions. Those minions continue to be the governments of Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others, with unfortunately Australia shadowing that group of minions."

During the long election campaign just concluded with Rudd Labor's sweeping victory, Rudd tried to make a virtue of his conservatism, and how he was much like a younger Howard. It is no such virtue at all, and on issues such as climage change and International Law, I am sure we will see this again and again, unfortunately.

Al Gore stated plainly at Bali that "my own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress."

The United States is a rogue state that must be contained and must not be appeased. Rudd's (partial) alignment of Australia with the US position is a disservice to both the people of Australia and the world community.

The former Howard government's position on climate change was incredibly backward: it refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and effectively denied that there was even a problem for ten long years. At least Rudd has ratified and talks of the need to tackle the issue. In reality, however, he is not that far removed from Howard or even the Bush administration.

Rudd will not even set a target, much less take the necessary steps to achieve the target.

WITH less than 24 hours to deadline, the crucial UN climate talks in Bali were deadlocked last night between the US and Europe - with Australia being drawn into the centre of the conflict.

The European Union demanded to know where Australia stood in the attempt by America to remove crucial wording in the draft Bali road map which calls for developed countries to make deep cuts to their greenhouse gas emissions.

Shortly before leaving Bali, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, signalled Australia would back moves by the US to remove the controversial wording from the draft. The Americans have refused to accept the phraseology, which refers to scientific advice that the developed world would need to cut its emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid the most severe effects of climate change.

The EU's Environment Minister, Stavros Dimas, said last night that the wording was "indispensable" to the Bali road map.

"The Prime Minister lost an opportunity in his speech to commit to this range of 25 to 40 per cent," he told reporters, adding, "They still have time."

But in a thinly veiled criticism of Mr Rudd, he said that if Australia refused to back the European stand on the draft road map, the Prime Minister's signing of the Kyoto Protocol "will not have the substance we hoped for".

A spokeswoman for the main environmental groups at the conference, Jennifer Morgan, told reporters: "There is a wrecking crew here in Bali led by the Bush Administration and its minions. Those minions continue to be the governments of Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others, with unfortunately Australia shadowing that group of minions."

During the long election campaign just concluded with Rudd Labor's sweeping victory, Rudd tried to make a virtue of his conservatism, and how he was much like a younger Howard. It is no such virtue at all, and on issues such as climage change and International Law, I am sure we will see this again and again, unfortunately.

Al Gore stated plainly at Bali that "my own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress."

The United States is a rogue state that must be contained and must not be appeased. Rudd's (partial) alignment of Australia with the US position is a disservice to both the people of Australia and the world community.

New PM a dud on climate change

Climate Change & Appeasement

A new WWF report illustrates the growing sense of crisis and urgency surrounding global warming, and contrasts with the fundamentally inadequate and insincere approach of the Howard Government.

There is now irrefutable scientific evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing an ongoing rise in global temperature and that this warming is having impacts on human society and the natural environment today. Of great concern is the fact that many impacts are emerging at the high end of past scientific projections. In other words, international scientific reports appear to have been underestimating the speed and seriousness with which impacts would be felt. As a result, scientists are increasingly concerned that we may be approaching a set of tipping points, thresholds where large-scale qualitative changes will occur and new processes will be triggered that further amplify global warming. The result of reaching these tipping points could be that climate change becomes unstoppable and irreversible.

A climate tipping point may occur with global warming of 2-3oC but if warming reaches 3-4oC then the thresholds for irreversible change will almost certainly be crossed.

A favourite idea of the warmongers and far right is that the war against Hitler is never over, every enemy is a 'new Hitler', and anyone who speaks against a new war is an 'appeaser'. Overlooking the fact that, as John Pilger has said, the US is the Third Reich of our time (a great power bent on military aggression that must not be appeased and must be stopped), Hitler is long dead and the great crisis of our time is not the threat of Nazi militarism but the threat of global warming.

Its not enough that Hitler got jailed for mounting a coup, that he published a long book revealing his whole repugnant philosophy, that he made any number of screaming anti-semite and anti-democratic speeches, that once in power he simply murdered opponents and established a dictatorship, that he marched into the Rheinland.....

What does it take for people to wake up?

With there being no real dispute in the scientific community for many years, the Howard government has simply sat on its hands for a full decade and watched this crisis relentlessly develop. Of course there are links between the Government and the polluting industries, and the whole idea of putting the common good or the environment ahead of profits and markets is ideologically foreign.

The steps taken now are essentially 'public relations' in response to bad polling results. The Howard Government can generate no conviction in what it does. If it in anyway grasped the seriousness of the problem, chimeras like nuclear energy or clean coal would be abandoned; a carbon tax immediately introduced; firm targets set; renewable energy mandated; and many other action, including of course, abandoning the mulish stubbornness of its refusal to sign Kyoto.

A new WWF report illustrates the growing sense of crisis and urgency surrounding global warming, and contrasts with the fundamentally inadequate and insincere approach of the Howard Government.

There is now irrefutable scientific evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing an ongoing rise in global temperature and that this warming is having impacts on human society and the natural environment today. Of great concern is the fact that many impacts are emerging at the high end of past scientific projections. In other words, international scientific reports appear to have been underestimating the speed and seriousness with which impacts would be felt. As a result, scientists are increasingly concerned that we may be approaching a set of tipping points, thresholds where large-scale qualitative changes will occur and new processes will be triggered that further amplify global warming. The result of reaching these tipping points could be that climate change becomes unstoppable and irreversible.

A climate tipping point may occur with global warming of 2-3oC but if warming reaches 3-4oC then the thresholds for irreversible change will almost certainly be crossed.

A favourite idea of the warmongers and far right is that the war against Hitler is never over, every enemy is a 'new Hitler', and anyone who speaks against a new war is an 'appeaser'. Overlooking the fact that, as John Pilger has said, the US is the Third Reich of our time (a great power bent on military aggression that must not be appeased and must be stopped), Hitler is long dead and the great crisis of our time is not the threat of Nazi militarism but the threat of global warming.

Its not enough that Hitler got jailed for mounting a coup, that he published a long book revealing his whole repugnant philosophy, that he made any number of screaming anti-semite and anti-democratic speeches, that once in power he simply murdered opponents and established a dictatorship, that he marched into the Rheinland.....

What does it take for people to wake up?

With there being no real dispute in the scientific community for many years, the Howard government has simply sat on its hands for a full decade and watched this crisis relentlessly develop. Of course there are links between the Government and the polluting industries, and the whole idea of putting the common good or the environment ahead of profits and markets is ideologically foreign.

The steps taken now are essentially 'public relations' in response to bad polling results. The Howard Government can generate no conviction in what it does. If it in anyway grasped the seriousness of the problem, chimeras like nuclear energy or clean coal would be abandoned; a carbon tax immediately introduced; firm targets set; renewable energy mandated; and many other action, including of course, abandoning the mulish stubbornness of its refusal to sign Kyoto.

Climate Change & Appeasement

Ex-heads of state tell current heads of state how to solve climate crisis

Gristmill:

[In] the Club de Madrid, membership [is] limited to former heads of state. (Actually, even heads of state can get blackballed.) Those former heads of state are trying to get their successors to do what they couldn't and tackle the climate crisis. In collaboration with the United Nations Foundation, the Club today released their recommendations for what the world should do on the next round of climate crisis. The ex-heads acknowledge the severity of the crisis and call for current leaders to facilitate rapid reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, or face massive disaster

The recommendations are along the lines of the Stern report: at least 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 (30% by 2020); it will only cost 1% of GDP; and will be cheaper now than later.

This emphasizes two points for me: the almost complete failure of government and democracy, ie that it cannot do what needs to be done. On the contrary, heads of government are committed to short term vested interests (ie, the fossil fuel industry) and can neither speak nor act in the crisis. Only after they have left office can the obvious be stated....

Secondly and following from this, leadership does not and perhaps cannot come from government. It must come from elsewhere and force government to (belatedly) act.

They also call for an international carbon tax system, but are light on details of how this would work. They argue that carbon taxes are "easier to implement than cap-and-trade schemes and are economically efficient. A system of harmonized, universal carbon taxes should be agreed by the international community." Uh, if we can't even get cap-and-trade, how are we going to get a carbon tax? And how do we deal with the problem that carbon taxes don't provide certainty about exactly how much reductions will be achieved -- maybe people will just to decide to bite the bullet, pay more taxes, and keep on polluting.

Firstly, it is once again admitted (what most economists, including conservative economists agree) that the carbon tax is the superior mechanism to 'cap and trade.' It will not happen however, and 'cap and trade' will be implemented for the reasons as stated above. Secondly, if the tax is too low to act as a real disincentive to reduce emissions, then the answer is obvious: increase the rate of the tax. This is an advantage of the carbon tax, not a defect: that it can be implemented incrementally, and ratcheted up as required. The carbon tax will also raise revenue that is desperately needed for a number of projects, such as research and development of renewable energy or building of light and heavy rail networks.

take note of how tropical biofuels are destroying the forests and driving global warming, with palm oil plantations in Indonesia alone responsible for more than 8 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions; on the teleconference for journalists covering the report, I got to ask former Chilean President Richard Lagos and former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth how to reconcile that observation with the report's backing for biofuels. Lagos responded by saying that the type of biofuel used had to be looked at closely, and Wirth pointed the way towards cellulosic ethanol. It seems the biofuel-as-planetary-savior argument may finally be beginning to die, even at the highest levels where it was once most fashionable.

Gristmill:

[In] the Club de Madrid, membership [is] limited to former heads of state. (Actually, even heads of state can get blackballed.) Those former heads of state are trying to get their successors to do what they couldn't and tackle the climate crisis. In collaboration with the United Nations Foundation, the Club today released their recommendations for what the world should do on the next round of climate crisis. The ex-heads acknowledge the severity of the crisis and call for current leaders to facilitate rapid reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, or face massive disaster

The recommendations are along the lines of the Stern report: at least 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 (30% by 2020); it will only cost 1% of GDP; and will be cheaper now than later.

This emphasizes two points for me: the almost complete failure of government and democracy, ie that it cannot do what needs to be done. On the contrary, heads of government are committed to short term vested interests (ie, the fossil fuel industry) and can neither speak nor act in the crisis. Only after they have left office can the obvious be stated....

Secondly and following from this, leadership does not and perhaps cannot come from government. It must come from elsewhere and force government to (belatedly) act.

They also call for an international carbon tax system, but are light on details of how this would work. They argue that carbon taxes are "easier to implement than cap-and-trade schemes and are economically efficient. A system of harmonized, universal carbon taxes should be agreed by the international community." Uh, if we can't even get cap-and-trade, how are we going to get a carbon tax? And how do we deal with the problem that carbon taxes don't provide certainty about exactly how much reductions will be achieved -- maybe people will just to decide to bite the bullet, pay more taxes, and keep on polluting.

Firstly, it is once again admitted (what most economists, including conservative economists agree) that the carbon tax is the superior mechanism to 'cap and trade.' It will not happen however, and 'cap and trade' will be implemented for the reasons as stated above. Secondly, if the tax is too low to act as a real disincentive to reduce emissions, then the answer is obvious: increase the rate of the tax. This is an advantage of the carbon tax, not a defect: that it can be implemented incrementally, and ratcheted up as required. The carbon tax will also raise revenue that is desperately needed for a number of projects, such as research and development of renewable energy or building of light and heavy rail networks.

take note of how tropical biofuels are destroying the forests and driving global warming, with palm oil plantations in Indonesia alone responsible for more than 8 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions; on the teleconference for journalists covering the report, I got to ask former Chilean President Richard Lagos and former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth how to reconcile that observation with the report's backing for biofuels. Lagos responded by saying that the type of biofuel used had to be looked at closely, and Wirth pointed the way towards cellulosic ethanol. It seems the biofuel-as-planetary-savior argument may finally be beginning to die, even at the highest levels where it was once most fashionable.

Ex-heads of state tell current heads of state how to solve climate crisis

Liberal and Labor, make a call: how much heat can you stand?

The Age:

More than anything else, there is one number that really counts. It is the first step on the ladder of climate-change policy — and it is the one to which neither Labor nor the Coalition is willing to give an answer.

Given the science and likely impacts, how hot are we willing to let the planet get? Two degrees, three degrees, four degrees hotter?

And what risk will we accept of exceeding this target?

Temperatures have, already, risen 0.74 degrees above pre-industrial levels and, even if human activity added no more to current greenhouse gas levels, the planet will continue to warm about 1.4 degrees due to lags in the climate system.

The CSIRO last year predicted that, if we exceed a two-degree rise, 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef will be bleached annually and an 80 per cent loss of Kakadu's freshwater wetlands is likely. At just under three degrees, there's a 99 per cent risk of Greenland irreversibly melting, with an eventual global sea level rise of five to seven metres.

In the two to three-degree range, we can conservatively pencil in about 20 per cent of the planet's species becoming extinct and a one in five chance of the oceanic currents that regulate the planet's temperature simply shutting down.

A three-degree rise is simply way outside human experience. The last time it was that hot, in the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, beech trees grew in the Transantarctic mountains and seas were 25 metres higher.

If we can limit warming to less than two degrees, knowing about 1.4 degrees is already locked in, the consequences will still be severe, but the risk of triggering runaway climate-change events (where we lose the capacity to control the consequences) lessens significantly.

Such figures as quoted suggest both the seriousness and the immediacy of the problem. Stern stated that we had a narrow window of 10-15 years to address the problem. But both major parties are still playing politics with the issue and are fundamentally unserious about tackling it, especially the Liberals.

A CSIRO submission to the Prime Minister's emissions taskforce that says a 60 to 90 per cent cut to industrialised countries' emissions is needed to stabilise climate change.

But Australia, as one of the worst emitters among the industrialised countries, requires a cut at the higher end of this range.

The CSIRO research and other research makes it clear that the "temperature stabilisation" associated with a 60 per cent cut is considered by many as too risky, giving us a massive 80 to 85 per cent chance of overshooting a two-degree target. Labor's policy for Australia of a 60 per cent cut by 2050 is therefore more about hope than science.

Caught between the science and the politics, Labor's Peter Garrett talks vaguely in the two to three-degree range, never being specific, never committing Labor to putting even one foot on the first rung of the climate change policy ladder — an unambiguous target.

And Labor does not have a short-term target — in many ways much more important than targets five decades away.

The Greens policy is to achieve emissions cuts of 30 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. This would give us an 80 per cent chance of keeping the temperature rise below two degrees. To maximise the chance of staying below two degrees, we must make big cuts early. For John Howard, a climate-change sceptic, this is more about smoothing over a political problem than real action. But Labor, too, falls short of the mark — they do not even set a temperature target.

Professor Tim Flannery, the Australian of the Year environmentalist, said recently his greatest wish was that political parties would state their "temperature limits" as to how hot the planet should get. The Greens recently moved a motion in the Senate to have a two-degree limit endorsed as Australia's target. The ALP joined with the Coalition to defeat the motion.

The Age:

More than anything else, there is one number that really counts. It is the first step on the ladder of climate-change policy — and it is the one to which neither Labor nor the Coalition is willing to give an answer.

Given the science and likely impacts, how hot are we willing to let the planet get? Two degrees, three degrees, four degrees hotter?

And what risk will we accept of exceeding this target?

Temperatures have, already, risen 0.74 degrees above pre-industrial levels and, even if human activity added no more to current greenhouse gas levels, the planet will continue to warm about 1.4 degrees due to lags in the climate system.

The CSIRO last year predicted that, if we exceed a two-degree rise, 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef will be bleached annually and an 80 per cent loss of Kakadu's freshwater wetlands is likely. At just under three degrees, there's a 99 per cent risk of Greenland irreversibly melting, with an eventual global sea level rise of five to seven metres.

In the two to three-degree range, we can conservatively pencil in about 20 per cent of the planet's species becoming extinct and a one in five chance of the oceanic currents that regulate the planet's temperature simply shutting down.

A three-degree rise is simply way outside human experience. The last time it was that hot, in the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, beech trees grew in the Transantarctic mountains and seas were 25 metres higher.

If we can limit warming to less than two degrees, knowing about 1.4 degrees is already locked in, the consequences will still be severe, but the risk of triggering runaway climate-change events (where we lose the capacity to control the consequences) lessens significantly.

Such figures as quoted suggest both the seriousness and the immediacy of the problem. Stern stated that we had a narrow window of 10-15 years to address the problem. But both major parties are still playing politics with the issue and are fundamentally unserious about tackling it, especially the Liberals.

A CSIRO submission to the Prime Minister's emissions taskforce that says a 60 to 90 per cent cut to industrialised countries' emissions is needed to stabilise climate change.

But Australia, as one of the worst emitters among the industrialised countries, requires a cut at the higher end of this range.

The CSIRO research and other research makes it clear that the "temperature stabilisation" associated with a 60 per cent cut is considered by many as too risky, giving us a massive 80 to 85 per cent chance of overshooting a two-degree target. Labor's policy for Australia of a 60 per cent cut by 2050 is therefore more about hope than science.

Caught between the science and the politics, Labor's Peter Garrett talks vaguely in the two to three-degree range, never being specific, never committing Labor to putting even one foot on the first rung of the climate change policy ladder — an unambiguous target.

And Labor does not have a short-term target — in many ways much more important than targets five decades away.

The Greens policy is to achieve emissions cuts of 30 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. This would give us an 80 per cent chance of keeping the temperature rise below two degrees. To maximise the chance of staying below two degrees, we must make big cuts early. For John Howard, a climate-change sceptic, this is more about smoothing over a political problem than real action. But Labor, too, falls short of the mark — they do not even set a temperature target.

Professor Tim Flannery, the Australian of the Year environmentalist, said recently his greatest wish was that political parties would state their "temperature limits" as to how hot the planet should get. The Greens recently moved a motion in the Senate to have a two-degree limit endorsed as Australia's target. The ALP joined with the Coalition to defeat the motion.

Liberal and Labor, make a call: how much heat can you stand?

Howard: Are you listening?

No more excuses for climate lethargy: "THERE is a simple message for the Federal Government from the final report of the United Nations' expert panel on climate change: get with the program. We have the technology and the means to arrest climate change. We can save the planet and the economy. We will not bankrupt the world or the nation."

"From the head of News Corp to the head of Greenpeace, there is a realisation the world is about to embark on an energy revolution, and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is pointing the way forward.

"Yes, it comes at a price, but it is not as steep as the Howard Government has repeatedly forecast. Australia's heavy dependence on coal, its resource-based economy and its wasteful energy use will mean the cost it bears may be twice the world average, according to CSIRO estimates. But it is unlikely to hack into our economic growth, as the Government's modelling has claimed."

No more excuses for climate lethargy: "THERE is a simple message for the Federal Government from the final report of the United Nations' expert panel on climate change: get with the program. We have the technology and the means to arrest climate change. We can save the planet and the economy. We will not bankrupt the world or the nation."

"From the head of News Corp to the head of Greenpeace, there is a realisation the world is about to embark on an energy revolution, and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is pointing the way forward.

"Yes, it comes at a price, but it is not as steep as the Howard Government has repeatedly forecast. Australia's heavy dependence on coal, its resource-based economy and its wasteful energy use will mean the cost it bears may be twice the world average, according to CSIRO estimates. But it is unlikely to hack into our economic growth, as the Government's modelling has claimed."

Howard: Are you listening?

The Concept of Rent Seeking

Concepts & Issues: Rent Seeking: "To avoid misunderstandings, “rent” in this context has nothing to do with “rent” in the sense of rent for land or property. In the modern context of “rent seeking”, rent strictly speaking means financial income which is not matched by corresponding labour."

The author provides in this article a useful explanation of the concept of rent seeking except that tax-free land or property yielding a pure profit, surplus value, disposable surplus, or economic rent is the quintessential form of rent seeking and rent taking and the obvious original source of the concept.

In Marxist theory this is known as the 'primitive accumulation of capital'; in geonomics it is described as land monopoly or enclosurism.

'Rent', or profit above all costs, or income without work, is certainly the holy grail of capitalism and indeed of all privileged systems throughout history. It is of course, merely the institutionalised appropriation of the product of others' labor, ie slavery. This income, when transferable, becomes capitalised into what I call 'kapital' (assets, property) which i define as 'the kapitalised (or exchange-value) of a politically guaranteed unearned income (rent)'.

The push by corporations, industry, ideologists and major political parties for carbon trading and simultaneous resistance to the carbon tax is a major contemporary example of rent seeking. In effect, the corporations to which the 'carbon credits' ('license to pollute') are issued will achieve the virtual enclosure of the atmosphere. What was previously common will become the corporations' 'private property', and you will have to pay for access. This is a truly vast new global enclosure movement which will create a vast new pool of oppressive and exploitative kapital.

The carbon tax idea as an alternative is directly analagous to the idea of a land tax in dealing with land monopoly or land enclosure. It is at once both more equitable in explicitly recognising the equal right of all people to the natural common; and more efficient in realising the best and safest use of the common resource. For all these reasons, the introduction of the carbon tax is unfortunately unlikely as we can clearly see as we follow the debate. 'Kapital' controls the consciousness of the public, and must do so if it is to continue to exist.

Concepts & Issues: Rent Seeking: "To avoid misunderstandings, “rent” in this context has nothing to do with “rent” in the sense of rent for land or property. In the modern context of “rent seeking”, rent strictly speaking means financial income which is not matched by corresponding labour."

The author provides in this article a useful explanation of the concept of rent seeking except that tax-free land or property yielding a pure profit, surplus value, disposable surplus, or economic rent is the quintessential form of rent seeking and rent taking and the obvious original source of the concept.

In Marxist theory this is known as the 'primitive accumulation of capital'; in geonomics it is described as land monopoly or enclosurism.

'Rent', or profit above all costs, or income without work, is certainly the holy grail of capitalism and indeed of all privileged systems throughout history. It is of course, merely the institutionalised appropriation of the product of others' labor, ie slavery. This income, when transferable, becomes capitalised into what I call 'kapital' (assets, property) which i define as 'the kapitalised (or exchange-value) of a politically guaranteed unearned income (rent)'.

The push by corporations, industry, ideologists and major political parties for carbon trading and simultaneous resistance to the carbon tax is a major contemporary example of rent seeking. In effect, the corporations to which the 'carbon credits' ('license to pollute') are issued will achieve the virtual enclosure of the atmosphere. What was previously common will become the corporations' 'private property', and you will have to pay for access. This is a truly vast new global enclosure movement which will create a vast new pool of oppressive and exploitative kapital.

The carbon tax idea as an alternative is directly analagous to the idea of a land tax in dealing with land monopoly or land enclosure. It is at once both more equitable in explicitly recognising the equal right of all people to the natural common; and more efficient in realising the best and safest use of the common resource. For all these reasons, the introduction of the carbon tax is unfortunately unlikely as we can clearly see as we follow the debate. 'Kapital' controls the consciousness of the public, and must do so if it is to continue to exist.

The Concept of Rent Seeking

IPCC Report: Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap

Reason Magazine - Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap: "Even the most stringent goal of following a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction trajectory that aims to stabilize greenhouse concentrations at around 535 parts per million (ppm) would reduce annual GDP growth rates by less than 0.12 percent per year by 2030. In that scenario, global GDP in 2030 would be 3 percent lower than it would otherwise have been without emissions reductions. The current world GDP is around $47 trillion, and in 23 years, at 3 percent per year growth rate, it would double to about $94 trillion without any emissions reductions. A 3 percent GDP reduction in 2030 implies that world GDP would drop to $91.3 trillion. In other words, putting humanity on a path to stabilizing GHG concentrations to below the equivalent of 535 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cost humanity an average of $117 billion per year in lost economic growth for the next 23 years."

"The summary projects that keeping GHG concentrations below the equivalent of 535 ppm of carbon dioxide would eventually raise global average temperatures by about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above current temperatures, keeping in mind that average global temperature today is estimated to be 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above what it was in 1850. In order to stabilize GHG at 535 ppm, emissions will have to peak before 2020 and must fall by 2050 to 30 to 60 percent below what they were in 2000."

"Yale economist William Nordhaus suggests that the optimal carbon tax trajectory balancing costs and benefits would start with a tax of about $17 per ton of carbon rising to $84 per ton in 2050 and $270 in 2100. But what if climate change is not predictably gradual? As the SPM3 notes, "if the damage cost curve increases steeply, or contains non-linearities (e.g. vulnerability thresholds or even small probabilities of catastrophic events), earlier and more stringent mitigation is economically justified." Doesn't the remote chance of climatic catastrophe suggest that humanity might want to purchase some extra insurance against that possibility?"

"In any case, the range of proposed policy interventions in the SPM3 report including renewable energy mandates, producer subsidies, mandatory fuel economy standards, subsidies to public transportation, appliance and building standards, energy efficiency tax credits, and so forth leave a lot of scope for counterproductive government meddling and rent-seeking. The simplest policy aimed at reducing GHG emissions would be an internationally harmonized carbon tax. Increasing the price of carbon-based energy would encourage transport, industry, and residential fuel efficiency. There would be no need to set appliance or building code standards or offer subsidies to companies and consumers to switch to low-carbon sources of energy. Furthermore, subsidies or tax credits for companies to develop new low-carbon technologies would not be necessary-higher carbon energy prices by themselves will encourage energy supply innovation."

The case for the carbon tax seems convincing to me. The problem is lack of political will, or the fact that in our degenerate corporate/liberal democracy, the major political parties are controlled not by the public or the common good but by the short term profit interests of the fossil fuel industry.

Reason Magazine - Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap: "Even the most stringent goal of following a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction trajectory that aims to stabilize greenhouse concentrations at around 535 parts per million (ppm) would reduce annual GDP growth rates by less than 0.12 percent per year by 2030. In that scenario, global GDP in 2030 would be 3 percent lower than it would otherwise have been without emissions reductions. The current world GDP is around $47 trillion, and in 23 years, at 3 percent per year growth rate, it would double to about $94 trillion without any emissions reductions. A 3 percent GDP reduction in 2030 implies that world GDP would drop to $91.3 trillion. In other words, putting humanity on a path to stabilizing GHG concentrations to below the equivalent of 535 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cost humanity an average of $117 billion per year in lost economic growth for the next 23 years."

"The summary projects that keeping GHG concentrations below the equivalent of 535 ppm of carbon dioxide would eventually raise global average temperatures by about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above current temperatures, keeping in mind that average global temperature today is estimated to be 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above what it was in 1850. In order to stabilize GHG at 535 ppm, emissions will have to peak before 2020 and must fall by 2050 to 30 to 60 percent below what they were in 2000."

"Yale economist William Nordhaus suggests that the optimal carbon tax trajectory balancing costs and benefits would start with a tax of about $17 per ton of carbon rising to $84 per ton in 2050 and $270 in 2100. But what if climate change is not predictably gradual? As the SPM3 notes, "if the damage cost curve increases steeply, or contains non-linearities (e.g. vulnerability thresholds or even small probabilities of catastrophic events), earlier and more stringent mitigation is economically justified." Doesn't the remote chance of climatic catastrophe suggest that humanity might want to purchase some extra insurance against that possibility?"

"In any case, the range of proposed policy interventions in the SPM3 report including renewable energy mandates, producer subsidies, mandatory fuel economy standards, subsidies to public transportation, appliance and building standards, energy efficiency tax credits, and so forth leave a lot of scope for counterproductive government meddling and rent-seeking. The simplest policy aimed at reducing GHG emissions would be an internationally harmonized carbon tax. Increasing the price of carbon-based energy would encourage transport, industry, and residential fuel efficiency. There would be no need to set appliance or building code standards or offer subsidies to companies and consumers to switch to low-carbon sources of energy. Furthermore, subsidies or tax credits for companies to develop new low-carbon technologies would not be necessary-higher carbon energy prices by themselves will encourage energy supply innovation."

The case for the carbon tax seems convincing to me. The problem is lack of political will, or the fact that in our degenerate corporate/liberal democracy, the major political parties are controlled not by the public or the common good but by the short term profit interests of the fossil fuel industry.

IPCC Report: Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap

10 Institutions That Ruin The World - #5: Lord knows how I came across this, but here we have an authentic rightie who thinks that the Social Justice movement, the Peace movement and the Environmental movement are among the top 10 institutions that ruin the world but the Pentagon (which has MILLIONS of victims to its credit) and the fossil fuel industry (which is literally killing the planet) don't even rate a mention.

Perhaps this line sums up better than anything the utter wrongheadedness of the writer: "Try finding a mainstream media organisation that hasn't bought into the Global Warming debate on the side of 'the science is settled'."

The science IS settled, and has been for some years now; and it is the corporate media which has been retailing the 'jury not in' line for many years in the face of the scientific consensus.

In the case of governments like the Bush/Cheney administration or corporations like Halliburton (hey, its that man Cheney again!), greed and lust for power conventionally provide and explain the motive for their criminal and inhuman acts. But in the case of the these righties and warbloggers, who presumably get none of the spoils in either riches, power or glory, what excuse or explanation is there for moral depravity? Do they ENJOY war and mass killing as a spectator sport, and LOOK FORWARD to the destruction of the planet?

Update: Language of post modified.

10 Institutions That Ruin The World - #5: Lord knows how I came across this, but here we have an authentic rightie who thinks that the Social Justice movement, the Peace movement and the Environmental movement are among the top 10 institutions that ruin the world but the Pentagon (which has MILLIONS of victims to its credit) and the fossil fuel industry (which is literally killing the planet) don't even rate a mention.

Perhaps this line sums up better than anything the utter wrongheadedness of the writer: "Try finding a mainstream media organisation that hasn't bought into the Global Warming debate on the side of 'the science is settled'."

The science IS settled, and has been for some years now; and it is the corporate media which has been retailing the 'jury not in' line for many years in the face of the scientific consensus.

In the case of governments like the Bush/Cheney administration or corporations like Halliburton (hey, its that man Cheney again!), greed and lust for power conventionally provide and explain the motive for their criminal and inhuman acts. But in the case of the these righties and warbloggers, who presumably get none of the spoils in either riches, power or glory, what excuse or explanation is there for moral depravity? Do they ENJOY war and mass killing as a spectator sport, and LOOK FORWARD to the destruction of the planet?

Update: Language of post modified.

'Clean Coal' and 'Safe Nuclear' both non-existent and no use even if they did exist

The countdown to climate change: "Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, in his report to the British Government last year, which warned that the world has only 10 to 15 years to avoid catastrophic climate change. As Greens senator Christine Milne points out, the fact of the matter is that neither the nuclear nor geosequestration options will deliver any cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in the next 15 years.

"According to Stern, it is likely that within 15 years, with "business as usual", global warming will reach a "tipping point" where global warming will be positively reinforced by a series of related events such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap, so that global warming will spiral out of control irrespective of what measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases."

"Geosequestration is further away and arguably more unsafe than the nuclear option. Its problems include: there is no evidence to show it can be done on a commercial scale; nobody knows what it will cost; and it can't be retrofitted, so all existing coal-fired power stations would be redundant."

"While the chances of accidents are low, and nuclear power plants have a better safety record than coalmines, there is the possibility of a catastrophic accident. Which means plants are uninsurable.

"Last week the Greens published a research paper on nuclear risk, which showed that Australian insurers have nuclear exclusion clauses. Nuclear power reactors are so risky that companies won't build them without government indemnities. In other countries, where indemnities are granted, the government accepts financial responsibility by removing the requirement to prove negligence in common law cases involving nuclear damages. In Australia the Government has failed to do this (Lucas Heights), in effect pushing the risk onto home owners.

"The paper reached the tart conclusion that "the coal industry has prospered by not paying for its pollution; now it seems the nuclear industry will not pay for its risk"."

"Taking real steps to deal with climate warming before 2020 doesn't require multibillion-dollar investments in nuclear power or geosequestration. It requires relatively conservative tax and subsidy changes to modify household and business behaviour to flatten the demand for electricity... savings could be expedited by a carbon tax or "cap and trade" to boost the price of electricity, backed up, if necessary, by regulation."

This is a real crisis and the policy response of both Government and Opposition is pathetically inadequate. They are playing 'politics as usual' in the face of disaster. They are serving their corporate masters in the coal, uranium and mining industries, and not the public. Neither party is prepared to confront the coal industry and tell the public the truth: coal is killing the planet and has to be phased out in a specific timeframe. Neither party is willing to immediately introduce a carbon tax to start sending price signals; neither is prepared to commit to the steps necessary to achieve major reductions in energy consumption, and rapid uptake in renewable energy production.

The countdown to climate change: "Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, in his report to the British Government last year, which warned that the world has only 10 to 15 years to avoid catastrophic climate change. As Greens senator Christine Milne points out, the fact of the matter is that neither the nuclear nor geosequestration options will deliver any cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in the next 15 years.

"According to Stern, it is likely that within 15 years, with "business as usual", global warming will reach a "tipping point" where global warming will be positively reinforced by a series of related events such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap, so that global warming will spiral out of control irrespective of what measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases."

"Geosequestration is further away and arguably more unsafe than the nuclear option. Its problems include: there is no evidence to show it can be done on a commercial scale; nobody knows what it will cost; and it can't be retrofitted, so all existing coal-fired power stations would be redundant."

"While the chances of accidents are low, and nuclear power plants have a better safety record than coalmines, there is the possibility of a catastrophic accident. Which means plants are uninsurable.

"Last week the Greens published a research paper on nuclear risk, which showed that Australian insurers have nuclear exclusion clauses. Nuclear power reactors are so risky that companies won't build them without government indemnities. In other countries, where indemnities are granted, the government accepts financial responsibility by removing the requirement to prove negligence in common law cases involving nuclear damages. In Australia the Government has failed to do this (Lucas Heights), in effect pushing the risk onto home owners.

"The paper reached the tart conclusion that "the coal industry has prospered by not paying for its pollution; now it seems the nuclear industry will not pay for its risk"."

"Taking real steps to deal with climate warming before 2020 doesn't require multibillion-dollar investments in nuclear power or geosequestration. It requires relatively conservative tax and subsidy changes to modify household and business behaviour to flatten the demand for electricity... savings could be expedited by a carbon tax or "cap and trade" to boost the price of electricity, backed up, if necessary, by regulation."

This is a real crisis and the policy response of both Government and Opposition is pathetically inadequate. They are playing 'politics as usual' in the face of disaster. They are serving their corporate masters in the coal, uranium and mining industries, and not the public. Neither party is prepared to confront the coal industry and tell the public the truth: coal is killing the planet and has to be phased out in a specific timeframe. Neither party is willing to immediately introduce a carbon tax to start sending price signals; neither is prepared to commit to the steps necessary to achieve major reductions in energy consumption, and rapid uptake in renewable energy production.

'Clean Coal' and 'Safe Nuclear' both non-existent and no use even if they did exist

Labor’s climate change plan meaningless without a coal moratorium

"Premier Morris Iemma has wedged himself with his statement that climate change is a key issue in this campaign, while at the same time overseeing the biggest expansion of the coal industry ever witnessed in NSW," Ms Rhiannon said.

"The 22 new coal projects proposed for NSW would have a combined capacity of 56.9 million tonnes of coal a year. This would result in the emission of 136.56 million tones of carbon dioxide every year.

"The Stern Review put a social cost on every tonne of carbon of $85. Applying this formula, the new proposals alone would have a social cost of over $11.5 billion.

"The Greens would prefer to work with Labor to tackle climate change. But if Premier Iemma and Planning Minister Sartor are not going to stop the Anvil Hill coal mine and the other new coal projects we will make coal an election issue.

"Coal is the elephant in the room. The NSW government is busy ignoring the major contribution that coal combustion makes to climate change.

"Talking about climate change without mentioning coal is like talking about obesity without mentioning junk food.

"The Greens Climate Futures Bill will place a moratorium on new coal projects. It will direct the NSW government to provide a transition package of retraining and jobs for coal communities, and to fast track the development of a renewable energy industry in NSW."

The Iemma Government's response indicates what could unfortunately be the reality of Government response to global warming: namely to admit the problem but fail to address it effectively because it is contrary to corporate interests to which the Government is beholden.

The debate has reached the point at which the scientific consensus on global warming, can no longer be denied, but not yet the point where Governments are obliged to take truly effective action. Yet time is running out, we have about a decade in which to take action lest the problem runaway from us.

The Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997, and therefore it has taken a decade for Governments such as John Howard's to even recognise the reality of the crisis. Will it take the only remaining decade before such Governments realise that action must be taken as well?

Governments and leaders have to speak honestly to industry and the public in relation to this crisis. The coal industry is killing the planet, and emissions have to be cut by 80% by the year 2050. The sooner some frank talking and serious policy initiatives are embraced the easier it will be to face the real problem.

"Premier Morris Iemma has wedged himself with his statement that climate change is a key issue in this campaign, while at the same time overseeing the biggest expansion of the coal industry ever witnessed in NSW," Ms Rhiannon said.

"The 22 new coal projects proposed for NSW would have a combined capacity of 56.9 million tonnes of coal a year. This would result in the emission of 136.56 million tones of carbon dioxide every year.

"The Stern Review put a social cost on every tonne of carbon of $85. Applying this formula, the new proposals alone would have a social cost of over $11.5 billion.

"The Greens would prefer to work with Labor to tackle climate change. But if Premier Iemma and Planning Minister Sartor are not going to stop the Anvil Hill coal mine and the other new coal projects we will make coal an election issue.

"Coal is the elephant in the room. The NSW government is busy ignoring the major contribution that coal combustion makes to climate change.

"Talking about climate change without mentioning coal is like talking about obesity without mentioning junk food.

"The Greens Climate Futures Bill will place a moratorium on new coal projects. It will direct the NSW government to provide a transition package of retraining and jobs for coal communities, and to fast track the development of a renewable energy industry in NSW."

The Iemma Government's response indicates what could unfortunately be the reality of Government response to global warming: namely to admit the problem but fail to address it effectively because it is contrary to corporate interests to which the Government is beholden.

The debate has reached the point at which the scientific consensus on global warming, can no longer be denied, but not yet the point where Governments are obliged to take truly effective action. Yet time is running out, we have about a decade in which to take action lest the problem runaway from us.

The Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997, and therefore it has taken a decade for Governments such as John Howard's to even recognise the reality of the crisis. Will it take the only remaining decade before such Governments realise that action must be taken as well?

Governments and leaders have to speak honestly to industry and the public in relation to this crisis. The coal industry is killing the planet, and emissions have to be cut by 80% by the year 2050. The sooner some frank talking and serious policy initiatives are embraced the easier it will be to face the real problem.

Labor’s climate change plan meaningless without a coal moratorium

Royal Society Tells Exxon: Stop Funding Climate Change Denial: Misled by Governments and corporations, there are still many people who are unaware that there is a scientific consensus on the subject of global warming, ie, there is no serious doubt in the scientific community that global warming is occurring, and that it is caused by human activity. In years to come people will surely look back in anger and amazement at the disinformation spread by governments, political figures, corporations and media institutions and personnel about this crucial matter. For what? What was the motive? Simply, short term corporate profit, political and personal advantage and an unwillingness to think of the future.

In fact the corruption of democracy and its institutions is far more serious than many people realise, although with the Big Lies about Iraq, 'terror' etc it is increasingly obvious.

Royal Society Tells Exxon: Stop Funding Climate Change Denial: Misled by Governments and corporations, there are still many people who are unaware that there is a scientific consensus on the subject of global warming, ie, there is no serious doubt in the scientific community that global warming is occurring, and that it is caused by human activity. In years to come people will surely look back in anger and amazement at the disinformation spread by governments, political figures, corporations and media institutions and personnel about this crucial matter. For what? What was the motive? Simply, short term corporate profit, political and personal advantage and an unwillingness to think of the future.

In fact the corruption of democracy and its institutions is far more serious than many people realise, although with the Big Lies about Iraq, 'terror' etc it is increasingly obvious.

Windpower alone, in theory, could cut emissions dramatically: "Approximately three-fourths of U.S. electricity is generated by burning coal, oil, or natural gas. Accordingly, switching that same portion of U.S. electricity generation to nonpolluting sources such as wind turbines, while simultaneously ensuring that our ever-expanding arrays of lights, computers, and appliances are increasingly energy efficient, would eliminate 38 percent of the country's CO2 emissions and bring us halfway to the goal of cutting emissions by 75 percent.

"To achieve that power switch entirely through wind power, I calculate, would require 400,000 windmills rated at 2.5 megawatts each. To be sure, this is a hypothetical figure, since it ignores such real-world issues as limits on power transmission and the intermittency of wind, but it's a useful benchmark just the same."

"An industry rule of thumb is that to maintain adequate exposure to the wind, each big turbine needs space around it of about 60 acres. Since 640 acres make a square mile, those 400,000 turbines would need 37,500 square miles, or roughly all the land in Indiana or Maine.

"On the other hand, the land actually occupied by the turbines—their "footprint"—would be far, far smaller. For example, each 3.6-megawatt Cape Wind turbine proposed for Nantucket Sound will rest on a platform roughly 22 feet in diameter, implying a surface area of 380 square feet—the size of a typical one-bedroom apartment in New York City. Scaling that up by 400,000 suggests that just six square miles of land—less than the area of a single big Wyoming strip mine—could house the bases for all of the windmills needed to banish coal, oil, and gas from the U.S. electricity sector."

If we could just banish the influence of the fossil fuel lobby and short term corporate profit from political processes the solutions are in sight....

Big Gav has another good long post on energy and politics. Be sure to check it out and visit Gav's site regularly.

UPDATE: Tom Gray in comments endorses the argument in the above post and provides links to some interesting sites.

Windpower alone, in theory, could cut emissions dramatically: "Approximately three-fourths of U.S. electricity is generated by burning coal, oil, or natural gas. Accordingly, switching that same portion of U.S. electricity generation to nonpolluting sources such as wind turbines, while simultaneously ensuring that our ever-expanding arrays of lights, computers, and appliances are increasingly energy efficient, would eliminate 38 percent of the country's CO2 emissions and bring us halfway to the goal of cutting emissions by 75 percent.

"To achieve that power switch entirely through wind power, I calculate, would require 400,000 windmills rated at 2.5 megawatts each. To be sure, this is a hypothetical figure, since it ignores such real-world issues as limits on power transmission and the intermittency of wind, but it's a useful benchmark just the same."

"An industry rule of thumb is that to maintain adequate exposure to the wind, each big turbine needs space around it of about 60 acres. Since 640 acres make a square mile, those 400,000 turbines would need 37,500 square miles, or roughly all the land in Indiana or Maine.

"On the other hand, the land actually occupied by the turbines—their "footprint"—would be far, far smaller. For example, each 3.6-megawatt Cape Wind turbine proposed for Nantucket Sound will rest on a platform roughly 22 feet in diameter, implying a surface area of 380 square feet—the size of a typical one-bedroom apartment in New York City. Scaling that up by 400,000 suggests that just six square miles of land—less than the area of a single big Wyoming strip mine—could house the bases for all of the windmills needed to banish coal, oil, and gas from the U.S. electricity sector."

If we could just banish the influence of the fossil fuel lobby and short term corporate profit from political processes the solutions are in sight....

Big Gav has another good long post on energy and politics. Be sure to check it out and visit Gav's site regularly.

UPDATE: Tom Gray in comments endorses the argument in the above post and provides links to some interesting sites.