Climate Change/Global Warming
Since the release of the latest IPCC Report (September,2013) thousands of words have been applied to this subject in the mass media. The following commentary by Professor David Flint strikes me as a moderate yet compelling case against the policies of the Greens and the previous Australian Government. Personally, I would go further and argue that there is a socialist motive which runs strongly through the UN, best exemplified in the Agenda 21 drive. However, many would say that this is a counter intuitive position and you will not convince people if they see it that way. Furthermore it is well demonstrated that "the left" are great believers in "climate alarmism" and believe we should all feel guilty about what I see as the progress of western civilisation. It seems to me that Flint demonstrates that you don't need to go that far to make the case.
Quote
Believe, but don't shoot us in the foot
You can believe in the theory that man made carbon dioxide emissions are the principal cause of global warming, if indeed the planet is warming. You may have concluded that the various factors which must have affected the climate for millions of years have been superseded by those man made carbon dioxide emissions.
But if you do believe this, you don't have to believe that Australia has to shoot itself in the foot almost alone in the world.
The dramatic failure of the Copenhagen climate conference should have told everybody that the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians and Americans are not going to stop their growth.Remember Kevin Rudd was so exasperated by this that, according to the press, he referred to the Chinese diplomats there as
''rat**ckers''. Remember Malcolm Turnbull had wanted to authorise Kevin Rudd to agree to a global emissions trading scheme at Copenhagen and he enjoyed the very strong support of the press Gallery in taking this line. You'll remember too that this led to a revolt in the Liberal Party and a change in the leadership.
The point surely is that even if you believe in the official theory about CO2 emissions, there is no need for Australia to impose a carbon dioxide tax, enter into some shady so-called market emission trading scheme, or subsidise so-called renewable energy which will result in very high electricity prices.This means that although we should have the cheapest electricity in the world we have ended up with the among the dearest and as a result manufacturing is too expensive with jobs being transferred to China, and electricity too expensive for the poor.
And you can also believe in the theory about CO2 emissions without going along with alarmist talk. While agreeing that global warming is principally man made the Danish authority Bjørn Lomborg concedes that all the current climate models have overestimated the actual temperature rise by 71 to 159 per cent. The likely rise in the next century he says will be from 1C to 3.7C, and certainly not the 5C-plus scenario argued by some alarmists.He points out that the recent IPCC report does not agree with the alarmist claim that sea levels will rise 1m to 2m by the end of the century. It certainly not does not agree with Nobel Prize winner and mega carbon footprint bearer Al Gore's talk of a possible sea rise of 7 metres. The latest IPCC estimate is for a rise in the range of 40cm to 63cm by the end of the century.
Bjorn Lormborg argues that to a certain point global warming is beneficial. He believes that it will be only towards 2100 that global warming turn to a net loss. He disagrees with those who say the answer is to impose strong policies to restrict CO2 emissions. Except we've already tried this strategy for 20 years, in some cases failing miserably and in others spending huge amounts of money to achieve little, he thinks the remedies adopted by the EU and by the Gillard Rudd governments are pouring money down the drain.
He says that in the Copenhagen Consensus for Climate, economists have found that the smartest long-term solution is substantially to increase funding for green energy research and development rather than subsidising ''today's hugely inefficient green technologies'' but focus on innovation to reduce the cost of future versions of wind and solar energy and the many other amazing possibilities.By making future green technology cheaper than fossil fuels, he says that everyone would switch, ''not just be subsidised, well-meaning Westerners''.
''The global cost of this R&D approach would be less than half the cost of the EU's present climate policies alone. The Australian share would be about $3bn. This strategy would enable us to avoid $11 of climate damage for every dollar spent, a benefit about 500 times higher than present policies.
''With its moderate tenor, the new IPCC report ought to make our debate more constructive. Instead of being scared silly and overreacting, we need to realise that global warming is just one of the 21st century's challenges, and one that we can address today with low-cost, realistic innovation.''
Those who believe in the theory that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are the principal cause of global warming do not have to panic or believe worst case scenarios which the IPCC is abandoning.
End quote.
3:13 PM 4/10/2013
