Flowers -- Central Australia
Climate Change
As I seek clarification of this issue I continue to read text that is barely understandable and often an exercise in point scoring. The article below by Carmody is an example of ‘barely understandable’ – about halfway through I became lost; the jargon, titles of protocols and the lengthy enumeration of his solution became an exercise in disappointment. As is my practice, quoted selectively
Geoff Carmody, “From Rio to Copenhagen the model was wrong”. The Australian, 13 January 2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/from-rio-to-copenhagen-the-model-was-wrong/story-e6frg6zo-1225818572530
THE UN’s Copenhagen climate conference was substantive failure and procedural debacle. Other assessments are dishonest or delusional. We must learn the lessons of history and adapt climate policy to reflect them.
First, a big-bang synchronised response by all nations to global climate threats is a pipe dream. This was acknowledged in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio in 1992 and in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Late last year, Copenhagen amplified this lesson.
Second, nations won’t compromise economic growth by losing industry competitiveness in the name of mitigating climate change. This applies especially in the case of developing economies.
Third, a policy focused on where national emissions are produced, rather than where they are consumed, only made some sense under a big-bang synchronised global response. But it’s been retained since 1992 despite failure to secure such a response. Under a non-synchronised approach, this emissions production model generates national concerns about loss of competitiveness, job losses and carbon leakage. Nations won’t play or will only play dirty, via extensive policy exemptions, using this model.
Fourth, a focus on emissions reduction targets and their distribution funnelled negotiations into sterile, zero sum debates about who will commit to what emissions reduction outcomes when. There has been insufficient emphasis on putting a price on emissions, comprehensively applied and growing predictably through time. This caused many problems, including failure to start pricing emissions globally. No emissions price, no emissions reduction. No surprises there.
Fifth, we have failed to learn the preceding four lessons of history.
There are other lessons. From Rio to Copenhagen, the lesson has been loud and clear: it’s the wrong model, start again.
At this point I abandoned the quest for understanding.
And in the article below, Furedi moves from commenting on the northern hemisphere’s cold, Australia’s hottest decade on record to witch burning – perhaps commentators could abandon their jargon and wit and write for the people.
Frank Furedi, “It’s 15 below zero as weathermen go witch-hunting”, The Australian, 13 January 2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/its-15-below-zero-as-weathermen-go-witch-hunting/story-e6frg6zo-1225818570353
IT is snowing big time in my town in Kent. The family sits in front of the television to discover whether there is more of the white stuff to come. However, instead of an informative weather forecast we are offered a political broadcast. A dramatic sounding voiceover informs us that David Shukman, who is the BBC’s environment and science correspondent, will report “on how one of the longest cold snaps for a generation fits in with theories of a warming planet and global climate change”.
Adopting a solemn tone that hints at catastrophes to come, Shukman announces that it is minus 15C in the Pennines and five cars are stranded before stating, “No wonder many are asking, `What about global warming?’ ” Just in case the cold temperature encourages the British public to assume a degree of scepticism towards climate change alarmism, Shukman reassuringly informs us that the big freeze is not inconsistent with theories of global warming. A swift cut to a chap from Kew Gardens who insists that “snowdrops are already blooming” . Apparently flowering is starting much earlier than previously, which must mean that the world is getting very, very warm.
“Britain’s cold snap does not prove climate science wrong,” argue two climate alarmist journalists in The Guardian. Leo Hickman and George Monbiot helpfully inform their readers that “weather is not the same as climate and single events are not the same as trends”. Just in case you are a complacent sceptic, Hickman and Monbiot seize on an announcement made by Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology that claims that the past 10 years are officially the hottest since records began. Apparently a rise in temperature in Australia may have direct significance for making sense of harsh wintry conditions in Britain. They speculate that the cold of the north and the warmth of the south “could be related”. It could be, and no doubt their alarmist imagination will have no problems in linking the two as different forms of extreme weather.
This then flows on to sixteenth century witch hunting and public burning at the stake, which leave me still puzzling over this connection.
Today’s Website
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology – Sydney
I use this site several times a day and was quite surprised on 6 January to see the new format. The old text bulletin was abandoned for a pleasing style.
http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/nsw/forecasts/sydney.shtml