Up to 2 years ago
there were enough anomalies in data and amongst the scientific fraternity
(small as they may have been) for “Climate Sceptics” to be able to claim some
legitimacy. Today there is much more consensus about Global Climate Change and
more importantly, Man’s role in it.
This debate is not
going on anywhere in the world, except Australia and the head of Lord Mockton.
In Australia the debate is not going on amongst scientist, but the wider
community. And when I say wider community, I must include the extremes. The
Greens, yes the Greens and the rednecks that Tony Abbot appeals to (in both
connotations of the word).
Not long ago, in one
of his press conferences, Tony was asked why people shouldn’t take up arms
against the Australian Government. Please read that again and absorb the
implications! An Australian citizen was asking the Leader of the Opposition of
Australia why he shouldn’t take up arms against the government. He was looking
for understanding. He got it. Tony said, “I understand your anger”. I guess to
his credit he followed with, “We are a peace loving nation”. I don’t think that
cuts it.
I would have
preferred to hear something like, “I’m sorry, but I don’t condone any such
action and I would like to see this as a political and not a personal issue”.
Unfortunately, Tony needs it to be a personal issue. It is basically his only
card and it is quite a strong one.
Are we too quick to
do this? What about the rest of the world? Why should we lead the way? The
question we don’t hear is whether Climate Change is real, because that is an
argument that only exists in Australia and certain pockets of the American
right. We will not be world leaders as many countries have implemented or about
to implement their own versions of the Carbon Tax, with the ultimate goal of a
global Emissions Trading Scheme. Certainly the opposition is doing everything
it can to delay the passing of the bill and has threatened to annul the bill
when they come to power. History has shown a reluctance for any government to
annul bills that ensure them revenue, especially when they can blame the other
guy for its existence. Tony Abbot does not seem to accept the scientific
evidence, although others in his party definitely do. I think it was US senator
Dan Monihan who said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're
not entitled to your own facts."
One of the more
macabre results of Tony Abbot's "people's revolution" against the
Carbon Tax is the level of verbal violence in and around the political arena
and the issue. Death threats have been made to some of Australia's leading
scientists. The government has gone ahead and introduced the “Clean Air Bills”
after almost 2 months of acrimony, and vitriol aimed at them by the opposition.
Maybe now the debate, will move from the personal to the actual topic itself.
Assuming we accept
the data in front of us, there is no question that a price triggered, market
base mechanism is needed to place a price on carbon production. With a trading scheme that allows companies to buy
more right to produce carbon. The idea is that the price must be high enough to
encourage expansion into alternative energy sources, but low enough not to
upset production and the vital role it plays in the Australian economy. The
need for the world to embrace renewable energy and move towards harnessing and
create new industries that grow out of these industries is obvious. These
industries will have to slowly but surely replace carbon and fossil energy.
The government had
determined that the Carbon Tax is the best way to achieve this goal and it
allows the government to cushion the population from the costs of the tax, by
compensating them in other areas and by determining a price on Carbon that will
not scare business to much, but allows the country to head towards and ETS. The
oppositions alternative which they call Direct Action, is more akin to inaction
and by all estimates would prove to be less effective, more expensive to the
consumer. I agree with the government
that the tax is the best way to go, with the least amount of cost to all sides
of the equation.
1 comment:
Once again you post a blog that will in retrospect show just how wrong you were. As in most of your predictions in previous post, you will be proven wrong again. The fact that so much money is pumped into research grants for green energy makes it almost impossible for most employed scientists to speak out. That is why those that are sceptics are either retired or not effected by the grants. But those that do speak out talk out a silencing of the scientists. If the Government were serious about proving AGW, they would also pump in money to prove it is wrong. Just like any legal hearing that has a prosecution and a defence.
In any case, the case for an actual Carbon Tax that cost billions to the economy, do nothing for the climate other and has the only benefit of making you feel good is nonsense pure and simple
Post a Comment