Tuesday, April 08, 2008

I'd love to have a beer with Brendan...

...'cos Brendan's me local member; leader of the opposition; he replied to my email; .... and he is working up a lovely line on climate change:

Climate change is one of the most significant moral, political and economic challenges that will face our generation.

Ok, that's Kev07, and Blair05, and Gore06. But the next line is Brendan's. You read it here first.

As Australians, it is time for us to start living on environmental interests, rather than just capital interests.

That's a lovely, sweeping sentiment. My guess is, it is an understanding that the economy, and all that sail upon her, is but a subset of the environment.

Bit of a head-turner, given the stance of the previous Federal Liberal leader and the early rumble for leadership after Howard lost Bennelong. I had the impression Turnbull self-servingly leaked the revelation that he had earlier told the party room they had to promise to sign Kyoto to win. And this played out in the Liberal party machine as engendering disunity. So Brendo, more moderate on Kyoto, got the numbers.

That's history; Kyoto is ratified, and that bipartisan act came into effect last month. The rest of the letter from Brendan's office in response to me expressing my concerns about the need for political action, gives a clear acknowledgement of the problem, and the need to...

...focus on practical effort and initiatives that will ensure responsible environmental behaviour and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So I guess their policies are nascent. The letter goes on to confirm this, say Brendan is listening to ordinary Australians, consulting widely and will consider many opinions in developing their policies, including... what for it... Global Warming Watch.

Good. I'll be suggesting how he needs to hold Labor to account.

Technorati Tags


Anonymous said...

Don't know bout you, but I'm up here in Minnesota and I've got GLOBAL WARMING all over my driveway. Somebody's going to have to move it to the side tomorrow But that's OK, I'll do what ever it take to save mother Earth - I'll breath every-other time to reduce carbon emissions! Thank you Algore for showing us how to live.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joseph Leo said...


Thanks nice article.

Please visit this :


Glitch said...

hmmm, methinks I hear the "other shoe dropping" somewhere down the road.

I'm definitely NOT going to comment on Australian politics - other than generally being against capital "S" Socialism. And of course the apparent "eager embrace" by Australia (and most of the world) of the current GW theology, err, I mean "theories" :).

I've been giving the whole Anthropomorphic Global Warming / Anthropomorphic Climate Change (take your pick) bandwagon a lot of thought lately...
I was listening to NPR (U.S. National Public Radio) yesterday and one of the 'commercials' - '(...brought to you by...)' used the catch phrase: ... to halt climate change.. Even President Bush is using that kind of language.


("as if..."). So if I uderstand the underlying thought process -
1. Human activity is "changing the climate".
3. Since we're negatively impacting the planet, we MUST change our behavior in order to SAVE IT.
4. Nothing's off the table in this pursuit. After all, we're saving the planet, right?

I love it. So someone apparently has decreed the 'correct' average temperature of our lovely planet...and going forward humanity has decided we're going to fight to keep the earth's average temperature in the decreed temperature range. Lovely.

What am I missing? This is ultimately what we're all assuming when we climb aboard the AGW Bandwagon, right?

... So here's the question that's been nagging me:

Let's assume that you're right...we all go green, suffer through all the unintended consequences that will inevitably appear (see current ethanol / food shortage issue), and we actually see the CO2 pp drop. (hurray! we've saved the planet!!!!).

...but 50 (100, 200, etc) years from now we enter the next glacial phase. What do we do now? I'm assuming that the Green Police Cheeleading Team will immediately call for the increased pumping of green house gases into the atmosphere, right? (yeah, right). I mean after all, we've decreed or "correct" global temperature. WE HAVE TO SAVE THE PLANET, right???? We would build oil refineries, oil burning electric generators, bring back the gasoline burning car... because this would warm us back up.

I'm just following the Al Gore based MONUMENTAL ARROGANCE and logic. Hey! Just remembered, the same folks promising apocolypse if we don't stop global warming USED TO warn about the coming apocolypse from GLOBAL COOLING.... Gee I think I'll go see what their recommendations were.

...anyone taking bets that they DID NOT want to pump out more green house gases? :).

PS: I bet the Greenland settlers of the last millenium wished you guys were around to save the planet - before their glaciers wiped out their farming civilization! :)

Glitch said...

ahhh... interesting article:


..."Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough(!?!?) that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose. "

Wait. I'm confused. I thought "the debate was over"... we have a consensus...

Wadard said...

G'day Glitch. Nice to hear from you again, as always.

The debate that is over is the scientific one about whether we impact on global warming. The debate on how this all unfolds is still going on. The threat is clear.

Regards to you and yours.

Glitch said...

Really? The danger is clear, the debate is over regarding our impact on the environment? Wow - how absolutely - silly! :)... very interesting. Which danger(s) would that be? The danger that (gasp) the climate WILL CHANGE? Sorry - but if you killed every human being on the planet TODAY, the climate would still CHANGE.

I think you missed my point Wadard - perhaps purposely? The climate changes. Humans are not capable of determining a preferred climate (avg global temp) and 'enforcing' it. However, we do have the power to make our fellow humans miserable, to cause all kinds of unintended misery...for instance: by stupidly pushing Ethanol as a 'solution' we could cause a global food shortage and be the cause of thousands of deaths through starvation :). (Naw, that could NEVER happen!)

I'm sorry my friend, but mother earth's climate has been hotter that it is today - it's been colder than is is today. AND NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, it will get hotter and colder in the future.

If you want to talk about 'real' issues humans should worry about - REAL pollution, wanton de-forestation, etc - I'm all for that. However, "Chicken Little arguments" that the sky is falling and we must give gov'ts absolute power over every aspect of our live's do not impress me. Using your flawed logic there is only 1 solution to Human Global Warming: MASSIVELY REDUCE THE HUMAN POPULATION. (hmmm... forced sterilization? draconian criminal penalties for having children? A good world war?).

Still waiting for a valid response from my last post. When 'global cooling' kicks in as the next ice age is hitting - WOULD YOU BE AGITATING FOR INCREASING GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS? Or would you - like your fellow 'environmental scientists' in the 70's - be pushing for...let's guess: A HUGE INCREASE IN GOV'T POWER OVER EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES in order to stock pile food, etc...

(why does every EMERGENCY PROBLEM have MASSIVE INTRUSIVE GOV'T as the solution?)

... (you know I still love you though, right? you're my favorite 'loopy environmentalist'! :) )

Wadard said...

[quote]Which danger(s) would that be? The danger that (gasp) the climate WILL CHANGE?[/quote]

Yes, as laid out in the IPCC AR4 scenarios.

[quote] Sorry - but if you killed every human being on the planet TODAY, the climate would still CHANGE.[/quote]

...by the amount of co2 we have already programmed into the system.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that the climate is always in flux. I agree (and thank you, you are my fav fervent neo-con; I know I'm privileged to meet the nice one :LOL:).

Wadard said...

...by the amount of co2 we have already programmed into the system — on top of natural variability.

I take your point; the climate changes naturally. But this doesn't falsify AGW, and you deniers are always thinly stretched at this point in the argument. Over the last 100 years we have postulated, predicted and then in the 1930's measured mankind's impact on the global average temp.

And, by the way, as a species and as stewards of this planet we should stick to a desirable range for the glob ave. temp — the one we, and our eco-systems, have evolved in during our short stay on the planet, particularly over the last 12,000 years.

Glitch said...


(sigh) - I thought I was confused at first reading your responses. Then I realized that you probably don't even see the irony in your statements...

- we do not have the power to "stick to a desirable range for the glob ave. temp". At least not with the methods you and your AGW Theoligists point to (other than the unspoken goal of massively reducing the human population).

To have the amount of control you claim WE MUST HAVE OR WE ALL DIE!!!!! - You would need:

1. control EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY (at least everything requiring energy)

2. do things that aren't "approved" by you and your fellow theologians :). (large scale terraforming, huge increase in nuclear power (gasp!),

What are you smoking???? (and why aren't you sharing? ) ... so now our goal is to keep the planet in the temp range that it's enjoyed for the last 12000 years? I must have missed the meeting where everyone decided that this was our target. Why not the last 100 years? Or what about the avg temp of the late pleocene (sp?)? I know you realize what a tiny sliver of time 12000 years are when you talk about "global avg temps".

I'm sorry - but it seems to me that the AGW effect is not the end of the world - but is a great excuse to get new grants (which churns out another alarming report that gets more grants, which churns out...you get the picture). It's a great excuse to MASSIVELY increase government regulatory power (which of course requires many more mid-level beaurocrats making many more decisions for the rest of us).

Still no direct response to my original question: If global cooling was hitting (next glacier cycle) now, would you be advocating a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions to 'fix' the problem? oh, I guess you kind of answered it with your comment about the 12000 year desirable range...your answer would be YES, right?????

(um, your delusions that my fellow neo-cons are somehow "not nice" is so sad :).... we're all wonderfully sweet people)