What you need to know about: Climate Change
I’m going to make a confession. I haven’t seen An Inconvenient Truth. I know, I know. Former US Vice President Al Gore’s film about climate change and global warming should be mandatory viewing but I piked. I find the issue of climate change to be so…overwhelming that I struggle to get my head around it.
In case I’m not the only one, I’ve asked Mamamia contributor Julie Cowdroy to do a kind of cheat-sheet, laying out in simple point form, the most important aspects of the issue. With the federal opposition announcing its policy on Climate Change this week, I thought it was time we went there:
WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?
- Climate change refers to long-term changes in the climate, which includes earth’s average surface temperature, but also other factors like rainfall, drought, etc.
- Sometimes people confuse the term “global warming” with the term “climate change”
- Global warming is where the Earth’s average surface temperature increases
IS CLIMATE CHANGE MAN-MADE?
- This is the big debate between “the believers” and “the sceptics”, although many say we have moved on from this debate and most accept that climate change is occurring due to human activity
THE ‘BELIEVERS’ SAY….:
- Climate change is man-made and caused by increases in greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere
- Greenhouse gases come from carbon dioxide and methane gases
- These gases soak up heat from the sun but instead of the heat leaving the Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is trapped, making the Earth warmer
- We can cut down on the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by reducing and even ending our reliance on things like dirty coal as our primary energy source, and look for alternatives like nuclear, solar, clean coal and burying carbon deep in the ground
- We can cut down on methane emissions by reducing waste and changing our agricultural and farming techniques
THE ‘SCEPTICS’ SAY…:
- Climate change is a natural occurrence that has been happening for millions of years
- The primary cause of climate change is due to the sun where the heat from the sun is stored in the ocean
- The ocean in turn distributes the heat through its currents and evaporates heat into the atmosphere
- The ocean, making up 71% of the earth’s surface, therefore has the most impact on the climate
- Carbon dioxide and methane are only minor contributors to climate change
- We as humans have no control over the earth’s temperature, so ideas like an ETS or new energy technologies are pointless
WHAT MIGHT SOME OF THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE BE?
- A rise of more than 2 degrees average global temperature after 2015 would melt snow and ice across the planet and raise sea levels 0.4-1.4m
- This rise in sea levels could submerge several small island states and Bangladesh resulting in large numbers of climate change refugees
- Changes in rainfall patterns
- Changes in the migration of wildlife
- Species extinction
- Drought
INTERNATIONAL ACTION
WHT IS THE IPCC?
- IPCC stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- It is both a government and a scientific body
- Governmentally, the IPCC is open to all member states of the United Nations and brings together these different countries to take part in the work of the IPCC
- The IPCC has thousands of scientists from all over the world who contribute voluntarily
- The scientific research represents differing viewpoints and all reports submitted are subjected to thorough review to ensure an objective analysis of climate change
- Read more about the IPCC here http://www.ipcc.ch/
WHAT IS THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?
- An international agreement that set binding targets for 37 industrialised countries and the European community for reducing emissions agreed on at Kyoto, Japan on 11 December, 1997
- Read more here http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
WHAT HAPPENED AT COPENHAGEN?
- The governments of 193 nations, along with many scientists, activists and media representatives gathered together to discuss Climate Change in December 2009
- The result of the summit was an agreement called the Copenhagen Accord which states that the average increase of the earth’s temperature should be below 2 degrees with a long-term view of 1.5 degrees
- The Accord also established the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund of $30 billion to be directed to the most vulnerable countries with a goal of $100 billion per year by 2020 for the developing world
- The Accord also encourages all countries to make an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions every 2 years
- The collective travel and work of all delegates at the summit created 46,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide, most of it from their flights. This is the same amount of carbon dioxide produced each year by 2300 Americans
THE POLICIES OPTIONS
THE ALP’s POLICY:
- Target is a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 (140 million tonnes of carbon) with a view to reassess which could lift the target as high as 25% depending on the nature of future global agreements
- A Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that has an ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) as its centerpiece
- It is an economic incentive issued by the government to encourage corporations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
- It is a market based incentive that places a cap on the amount of emissions companies use and if they want to increase their emissions, they must buy credits from those who pollute less
- As time progresses, the idea is that the cap is lowered which results in a lower national emissions target
- The ETS makes the polluter pay for each tonne of carbon they emit
- Funds raised by collection of payments of polluters are reinvested into Australian households to help ease the burden of the carbon tax
- Cost would be around $114 billion over ten years with an estimated $45-$75 billion re-invested into Australian households
- The ETS was blocked in the Senate in November 2009, but reintroduced on 2 February 2010 in Parliament
- The Coalition have dismissed the ETS as an “energy taxation scheme” on the Australian public
- Other actions include creating green jobs, investing in renewable energy, research and development into new technologies
- First action of Rudd government was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2007
- Kevin Rudd has said Climate Change is the “great moral challenge of our generation”
- More information is available by downloading the PDF of “Tackling climate change and our environmental challenges” here http://www.alp.org.au/our-platform
THE COALITION’s POLICY:
- Target is a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 (140 million tonnes of carbon)
- The centerpiece of the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan is an Emissions Reduction Fund – a pool of $2.6 billion over four years that pays farmers and businesses incentives to voluntarily cut emissions. This money is proposed to come from budget cuts
- Penalties would be enforced for emissions over “business as usual” numbers (yet to orchestrate what the penalties will be)
- No cap on how much polluters emit
- No price charged for carbon
- An additional $100 million would be spent to install one million solar panels in households by 2020 ($1000 subsidies for individuals)
- Will plant 20 million trees
- 85 million tonnes of carbon would be buried in Australia’s soil (carbon capture and storage)
- Total cost would be $10 billion for 10 years or $3.2 billion over 4 years
- For twelve years, the Coalition had no acknowledgement of climate change and did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol
- The leader of the Coalition, Tony Abbott said in October 2009 the climate change argument was “absolute crap” but has since revoked the comments, deeming them as “loose” language
- More information available on the policy here http://www.liberal.org.au/DirectActionPlan/
THE GREEN’S POLICY:
- Target is a 40% reduction by 2020 with a goal of zero emissions as soon as possible and no later than 2050
- Introduce a carbon tax of a flat rate of $20 per tonne of carbon over the next two years as an interim measure to reduce emissions
- This would provide a $5 billion return for households to invest in renewable energy, energy efficiency and other emissions reducing alternatives
- It would then look into stronger options for the long term but believes the two-year proposal would get things moving
- More information on the Green’s policy here http://greens.org.au/node/764
Policies from around the world
- European Union: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7765094.stm
- USA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html
- India http://india.gov.in/sectors/environment/climate.php and http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1921138,00.html
Website Crikey has a page dedicated to the ongoing Climate Change debate in Australia.
http://www.crikey.com.au/topic/climate-change/
Do you ‘believe’ in climate change? Have you altered your behaviour in any way recently to benefit the environment? Will your vote in the next election be affected by climate change policy? What do you think is the best approach for Australia – and the world – to take?
You might also like:
-
Could you do meat-free Mondays to save the planet? Gwyneth does.
-
Spend? Save? Or pay off debt?
-
Is 18 weeks of paid maternity leave enough?
-
If you really loved me, you’d change your name. To mine.
-
Dear Govt: tampons are not a luxury item.
If you put an ice cube in a glass of water, once it melts completely the water level is LOWER than it once was. So why would water levels rise?
I don’t believe in climate change – I acknowledge that it is a real threat because I “believe” in science.
Re: Climate change/global warming – The term ‘climate change’ is used as an umbrella term for the consequences of the rise in the earths temperature (“global warming”).
And just a quick note on the targets of the 2 major Australian political parties: 25% is not a ‘high’ target, and the current 5% is dismal & embarrassingly low. Still, as much as it pains me to support a scheme that is going to benefit the biggest polluters (such as the coal industry), Rudd’s ETS is sustainable in the long-term and is more economically viable than Abbott’s. Cap and trade should coexist with investment in green technology & energy if it is to truly serve our countries environmental and economic development. And although Abbott’s so-called “direct action” may make more sense to those that do not currently understand cap and trade, it will not serve its purpose of creating any real and sustainable lowering of emissions. It is merely a front to offer the public an “alternative”, but will allow for business as usual with a few nice greenwash-esque campaigns.
Oh Mia – I love the opportunity to find out about these issues in laymans terms, without the risk of sounding dumb in having to admit you dont really understand the whole thing… thank you thank you.
If you have the opportunity, I’d love a similar run down on carbon trading (just dont get it, seems to me like you can still pollute as much as you want but you just pay your way out of it…) and also desalination plants (what’s the big deal?).
Many thanks. Many.
I meant to say ‘planets’
Let’s just agree to be on different plaents for this one.
Unfortunately many people choose to believe whatever suits their lifestyle. Cognitive dissonance.
As long as the sun shines out of Chairman Rudd’s arse, we have nothing to worry about…………..
Anna, I LOVE your post. Funny, clever, interesting, and spot on.
I haven’t read most of the article above, and I haven’t read the posts. BUT I don’t think it matters whether it is caused by people or whether it is to do with cyclical changes in the earth; to me it is unarguable that humans have made and are making it worse and that we should do what we can to live sustainably. If we don’t live sustainably, we will use up all the resources and Earth will die. Logical, yes?
Um no….
I am a skeptic yet still do my bit for the environment because, well it’s the environment and it’s the RIGHT THING TO DO.
Yet, I am still skeptical of climate change because, at this stage, while there is still compelling scientific evidence for both sides of the coin, I am yet to make an informed decision on the issue.
No deep down guilt here!
I know the definition of scaremonger, hence the reason I used the word….
Wow. I can’t believe there are people out there who are sceptical about this issue.
I wonder, deep down, how much of their scepticism is linked to people trying to feel less guilty for living a life where resources are so easily wasted, and everything around us is so easily disposable…?
Oh Mia, look! Tony Abbott’s arrived!
mostly how to solve global worming love to all ooxx
Greenpeace Italiy, and Beppe Grillo had done a must see video, called ” Terra reloaded” it is in english and you can wacth on youtube, and have some good informations about the subject of global warning, love to all ooxx
Scaremonger: a person who alarms others needlessly. Not scaremongering. Believe the science, flat earthers.
“For all their visibility and noise the real power and money of green groups is a pale insignificance compared to that of industry and big business. ”
yes, yes and yes again.
Ha ha not the camels! You have just divided Vegetarians everywhere into two groups… those that are vegetarians for environmental reasons and those that are because of a value they place on individual conscious life…not that they look live peace loving vegetarians, now that they are trying to STRANGLE each other. (I myself am sneaking off to hide somewhere quiet and dark until that particular discussion is over…I think I am secretly thinking please don’t massacre the camels…maybe we could teach them about contraception.)
I haven’t seen the Al Gore movie because I also think it looks both boring and alarmist, I also feel that he has made himself into some sort of environmental messiah..which makes me a bit uncomfortable and I wonder if a movie that had been a little less spectacular and alarmist and a little more thoughtful and interesting looking would have brought more people to the table to both watch the movie and get a little more of the science out there rather than polarising the community more. (Maybe a movie with all different interests coming to the table (scientists, economists, farmers, industry ect) where the best of the evidence is presented and some debate, with a really cool soundtrack and awesome special effects and some amazing 3D imagery of the world, and some sexy, sexy scientists, but little alarmist doomsday talk).
I don’t know enough about the ETS, I have been a bit lazy and haven’t really looked at it close enough to determine but I have heard a lot of valid sounding criticisms. The developed/developing divide is I agree one of the biggest hurdles to coherent international action in response to climate change. I disagree with you with our level of responsibility to help developing countries in this but that is another debate.
I agree a lot of people are jumping off and on the ‘global warming’ bandwagon’ without a good background understanding and this may have some effect on government policy, however I disagree that at a functional level our government has been unduly influenced by the Greens who really don’t have all that much power except as a ‘protest’ vote by everyday people to attempt to sway the mainstream parties.
Industry and commercial interests have a much bigger influence on both mainstream political parties than either scientists, who have virtually no power, or the interests of other groups. Four corners did an groundbreaking report on whistleblowers who came out about how government at the time was sitting down with powerful industry representatives to write cabinet policy on environmental policy!!
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1566257.htm
This was around the same time that the Liberal government gave Chief Scientist position in Australia (whose role includes direction about what to do about carbon emissions) to Dr. Robin Batterham (a chief technologist for RIO TINTO mining company)
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s1006343.htm
who continued to work (with a handsome salary) for Rio at the SAME TIME as helping determine government carbon policy, at around the same time they re-channeled millions of dollars from alternative energy research into Rio Tinto’s coffers to research clean coal technology (because RIO really needs government funded research don’t they!) For all their visibility and noise the real power and money of green groups is a pale insignificance compared to that of industry and big business. This has been shown time again with the history of Lead in petrol, DDT, cigarettes, ect.
Scientists themselves, happymom, would like nothing more than to be separated from politics and there are few things that I am personally as passionate about as the need for independent government funded scientific research (because industry research is suppressed when it doesn’t meet commercial interests or is slanted in a way that will be misinterpreted by the general public) and a clear voice for scientists in the community. They are also the ones that are more likely to want to sit down with farmers like yourself and industry to work together to find sustainable and workable solutions that consider everyones interests.
I would like to say also that I share your philosophy on mindful consumerism and will look up your article on water because it looks interesting (and important). I would like to suggest NASA web pages as a solid source of information on climate change if you are interested.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html
What a good reply Mabol. I was wondering that too.
One example of the problem with KRuddies scheme:
solar panels – you can only qualify for a rebate for feeding power back into the electricity grid if you use under a 10kw system, therefore there is absolutely no incentive at all for big businesses and buildings to go solar.
KRuddie says one thing and then means quite another when you get to the nitty gritty.
I think people are bored with it all and it has become too political and not actually what it was meant to be doing which is reducing the output of carbon and saving the planet.
I have been trying to properly articulate my thoughts on this matter before commenting.
I am a big believer in looking after the environment, recycling, not using too many fossil fuels, non wastage of precious resources – such as water. I am sick of consumerism and our thow-away society. We use and create so much garbage in the world and overfish and overmine that it has got to the point of complete overkill.
I am fairly critical of people like Al Gore who have used scare tactics to frighten the masses by beating them with the envio stick whilst he is a complete hypocrite. I came to this conclusion after reading that his mansion uses the same amount of power as 30 average sized households. He has his hidden agenda for sure.
I am very cynical and wary of any governments agendas on the Climate Change Policies. Only because they are only jumping on the Al Gore bandwagon because the Greens have quite an influence in Australia and to not be seen doing something will lose them votes in the next election. I have seen first hand of what a government will do when they are broke and need the cash fast. They will try to sneak policies in when they think no-one is looking and then it NEVER gets reversed even when the other Pollitical Party is voted in.
The State Government in NSW is totally broke and they tried to sell off the Great Artesian Basin a few months ago. No – one knew it was occurring and due to some diligent investigative work and lobbying we have managed to stop them selling water – for now anyway. You ask “Why is this a problem?” Well, water is something that belongs to the people of Australia, it is NOT owned by anyone and if people can “own” water well that would be a disaster on a worldwide scale. The Government tried to sell water to the highest bidder and that can mean anyone can buy as much as they like without consequense of how much is actually left there. I don’t have to tell anybody that water is the lifeblood of Australia and without it we are screwed. Mining companies would line up for a slice of it, Shire Councils without any water for their ratepayers would buy it, Feedlotters would love to buy it too. The biggest problem is that The Great Artesian Basin has been there for many millions of years and we have no idea of how much (or little) is left in it. If it runs dry, well just say anyone west of Orange and up in the centre of Queensland may as well pack up and leave because no water – no life. This is a completely short summarry of one issue we all face and if you want to learn more go to: http://www.gabpg.org.au
Moving on, I do not want to be a part of any ETS or Carbon Tax. Yes, big issue. Can we make sure every country in the world follows the guidelines, No I don’t think so. The Government wants to be a part of the greatest redistribution of wealth the world will ever see and there is no way that poor countries can be a part of it. I do not think that is particuarly fair whist we will be paying their share of carbon emissions. We already spend a lot on foreign aid and it will take money away from their immediate problems and create more middle-class welfare in Australia as no one will be able to absorb the costs such a tax would create. The only people who will win will be the carbon traders and big business yet again. The only reason the government have taken so long to put their plan together is because they have not worked out how they will get the lions share of the cash when some people will need compensation for their carbon credits (mostly farmers) for the use of their land as big carbon sinks.
There are many feral camels in Australia, about 1 million in fact and the Government has decided that only domestic camels will be a part of our count towards Kyoto targets, and she has rejected a camel cull. Imagine all those farting camels!
If the figures of our actual carbon use are lies, why should we even believe any of the figures the Governement spout off when it comes to meeting Kyoto’s targets of actual carbon use let alone counting farting domestic cattle.
Overpopulation is a key factor in this disaster and I would like to see some restraint, as we are definitely using too many resources too quickly.
I think it is an excuse for a new tax which will help them reduce some of the debt we have incurred by the mass cash handouts or (Stimulus Packages). I would like scientists to be separated from politics and give us the REAL picture and not because they were told or coerced with money to make claims on what our government has wanted to hear. If we are to have faith in scientists, they must be impartial and paint a clear picture of what is going to happen in the future. In the meantime, I will do what I can to reduce my usage. But I will not be leaping before we look to what will amount to an economic disaster on a worldwide scale.
The National Press Club is currently underway with a Climate Change Debate with Senator Wong and the Opposition’s spokesperson on Climate Change, Greg Hunt, on ABC1. Sorry for late notice.
This is interesting:
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/report-blasts-abbott-climate-plan-20100209-nprd.html
“THE Coalition’s climate change policy would cost taxpayers more than twice as much as the government’s emissions trading scheme, an analysis has found.
“A report by carbon market analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance said the government’s scheme would cost the budget $1.5 billion over the first four years – less than the $3.4 billion of the emissions reduction fund proposed by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.”
BS there is no ‘correct’ temperature of the Earth. Global warming is not about an ‘incorrect’ temperature, it is about environmental change. All life systems try to maintain homeostasis (i.e. cells all attempt to maintain a certain pH level, mammals as a ‘whole organism’ attempt to maintain a certain temperature, the heart beats with a fairly regular rhythm to pump blood around the body ect) this is true from an ameoba, to an Oak tree to a whale. Homeostasis is the process by which every living organism maintains it’s integrity and organisation against the physical processes of the universe which tend towards disorder (entropy). Organisms are often superbly adapted to their environment but are able to maintain homeostasis even when that environment changes to varying degrees. Change these conditions significantly and the organism dies. Coral is a good example of this in regards to climate change because it is only able to maintain homeostasis within a range of ocean temperatures and if this changes by even only 1.5 to 2 degrees for a few weeks then the little micro-organisms that the coral depends on is expelled and the coral dies (coral bleaching).
Global warming is not the end to all life, it is a significant and sudden change in the conditions that life (including humans) is adapted to presently. So goodbye Great Barrier Reef, goodbye frogs and goodbye lots of other species (Goodbye Biodiversity). It is expected to result in a mass extinction because the processes of genetic selection that react to environmental change are too slow to respond to such a sudden change. It will also cause massive physical changes to the environment (Hello Cyclones, Hello massive economic problems due to environmental change). Eventually life would probably bounce back and biodiversity may increase again but this could take hundreds of thousands of years or more. So I guess your stance depends on whether you value life on Earth (as in any life) or if you value the particular life (including humans) that is here now.
Actually Lulu, there have been many scientists who show that evolution as we have been explained it may, in fact, be wrong. The whole ‘experiement’ that showed the big bang theory was conducted under circumstances which a vast majority of scientists have shown to be nowhere near the state of the earth at that time. And why is that? Because nobody, not even Darwin himself, was there!
Oh don’t get me started on habitat destruction, deep sea trawling and overfishing. I will not stop for hours.
Procreation is not a “crime against humanity”…maybe go live in China if you believe that Em.
I heard this crap in the media a couple of weeks ago.
No wonder there are so many skeptics in this world – scaremongering at it’s finest
Thank you Em
thinking about what you said, i wonder if the governments are not using these experts to deflect their responsibilities onto the people…
i don’t think about this too much because i don’t think i could do any more than i do, not if i want to keep my current family alive….we’ve been living for 3 years without central heating, in the netherlands, use hot water for showers though (i’m not about to turn into a stalacmite for planet earth) , but i agree with cazza, instead of telling people to recycle, start selling pasta in paper bags, or whatever.Our governments thinks we’re not responsible enough to keep the peace without a police force apparently, why would we be put in charge of the future of the planet?
I forgot to ask: What is the correct temperature of the earth, and why?
A very passionate and emotional group of comments; it probably did not need Julie’s use of ‘believers’ and ’sceptics’ to warm the discussion.
I believe climate change is occurring, but is entirely uninfluenced by human activity. It is a natural phenomenon, probably governed by the sun. Consider the cycle of ice-ages and anti-ice-ages over the last hundred thousand years or so, that anthropology has shown to have occurred. We are currently coming up on the cusp of an anti-ice-age. Al Gore made use of ice core data from Antarctica, to show that high atmospheric carbon dioxide was linked to warming of the earth. Further studies on these cores have shown the exact opposite. (I wonder what was the comparative effect of the Black Saturday fires to other emitters.) (I suppose if we are worried about carbon dioxide emissions, we could all just stop breathing – now that would be a saving.)
Having said that, I have not altered my behaviour recently to ‘benefit the environment’, as I have always had a belief in the conservation of resources, and hated waste. I believe tips (landfill) should be obsolete. This probably stems from my scientific training many years ago.
My vote at the next election will be affected by climate change policy. The ETS is, to me, a way of directly and indirectly taxing us all heavily, so that we will think that we are doing something for the environment. (After all, it is being lead by an economist rather than a scientist.)
For me the best approach for Australia and the world to take is to rationalise resources and create real recycling of waste, as opposed to the pretend recycling at present. (I can see a time when old tips will be mined for their resources, such as rare metals.)
There seems to be a misconception that melting ice will cause the oceans to rise. It is expansion of the sea due to increased water temperature that would have more effect. The volume of the sea, dynamics of currents, and depths of oceans make this one a purely doubtful and hypothetical model. Also, as we all know, land masses are not stable anyway.
Did you just write down “www.mamamia.com.au” and give it to him? I bloody would have.
“I also agree with you that we need to take immediate and decisive action on this area, although for reasons of reducing pollution rather than mitigating climate change.”
Well said.
100% agree there. We should be doing something to reduce our impact whether we agree with the data or not. It’s the way the problem is framed by governments that I have a problem with.
I believe that there is man-made climate change and that humans are living unsustainably.
We have to talk about worse case scenario because at the moment we starting to see the effects – ongoing drought, food security, extreme weather events.
We can’t wait to deal with it when it’s more apparent like when those living on the beaches will be threatened with being underwater, it will be too late to reverse anything. We have to be proactive rather than reactive.
I know we’re all busy people, I work full-time and I study, but none of that matters if we don’t have a planet to live on.
To quote a Facebook group I recently joined… Climate change didn’t cause the drought!! Someone dropped a Shamwow!! =P
I probably should pay more attention to the whole climate change thingy, but personally, as a uni student starting my postgraduate degree in a few weeks, I have way too much else to fill up my brain with!!!! I know the bare facts and I do what I can to help the environment, and that’s enough for me. I’m not a person in power, and I’m not interested in being an activist for the environment, so there’s not a lot I can really do about the situation other than what I’m doing now, so that’s how it is!
I am not going to pretend I know because I dont. There are so many highly qualified people in this field who can argue and justify their polarising positions on this topic that I dont know who to be persuaded by. I have started turning the power off on our spare fridge when its empty and I try to avoid using the aircon as much as possible just in case they are going to make a difference. My vote wont be influenced by this issue though, I could never vote for a guy who wears budgie smugglers.
Agreed, thanks Mia. And Otto, love your posts, we are two of a kind!
Another “crime against humanity” is having unrestricted numbers of children (future consumers of fossil fuels, food, plastic)… Arguably, the best thing an individual can do for the planet is to reproduce with restraint. The ETS and the baby bonus at once is a joke. It’s time to question the assumption that growth (whether it be economic or population) is a good and necessary thing.
I want to say all the right things on this issue but here’s the thing: I’m a working mum with three kids (yes, like you, Mia). The environment? Just another mouth to feed. I use green grocery bags, I’ve cut right down on my usage of every appliance, I’ve educated my children about everything green. Enough already. If those overpaid public servants can’t get their shit together on a junket to Copenhagan, then frankly I’m about to lose interest altogether. Well, I’m losing faith at any rate. Policy feeds philosophy, not the other way around. Let’s adjudicate the science – critically, realistically – then let a bunch of overworked mothers organise the next Copenhagan. No-one goes home until a decision is made.
Thank you Lily. It’s so great to hear from an expert. Perhaps people will find the effect of CO2 on the oceans more of a ‘tangible’ impact if they can’t ‘believe’ in the effect it has as a heat-trapping gas.
And it’s not just CO2 affecting our oceans’ health, it’s horrific overfishing. The Australian Marine Conservation Society puts out a pocket sustainable seafood guide which you can download here: http://www.marineconservation.org.au/WhatWeDo.asp?active_page_id=238
I believe. I think the liberal policy seems a bit silly. It looks like Australians are getting budget cuts ( worse hospitals, schools etc) to pay big business. Where as the carbon tax is paid for by big business and those that consume. I can see this would encourage businesses to invest in more efficent processes and encourage consumers to use less energy.
I was so disappointed by the pathetic Copenhagen “accord” – but I was not surprised. Human beings seem to be inherently selfish, greedy and afraid of change.
I look around me and I see the damage we are going to our environment – our local lagoons are polluted and dangerous to swim in, the sky is shrouded in cloudy smog, the local playground is polluted with smashed beer bottles and the creek is full of rubbish and discarded shopping trolleys. Despite knowing that we are burning fossil fuels that pollute and are non-renewable people all around me run air conditioners all day, drive a car to places that are easily within walking distance and consume products like there is no tomorrow.
I try to do my bit – a water saving shower rose and a front loader washing machine have reduced my families water consumption by 60%, a company tried to save me money on my power bill but then said they couldn’t help me – our family only spends $200 a quarter (most people around here spend around $1000), So we are doing our bit but …I feel like a little country next to China – so to speak.
If I took the attitude of the skeptics and the opposition I would give up – what difference can I make when the big polluters are not changing their emissions? Why indeed? Well, I have a conscience, I can’t sit by and do nothing. I mentioned my experience to a few friends (as a joke) and they asked me how we do it. This started a relaxed conversation – no scare mongering or preaching – and you know what? Maybe through a gentle ripple effect someone like me can make a difference.
I do believe that human impact is changing our environment and our climate but, even if you don’t believe, surely we have a moral responsibility to treat the earth with respect, to clean up our messes and try to find ways to give us the energy we need by cleaner, more efficient means.
And yes Mia, I do consider the environment when I vote – amongst other things (health and education are up there too)
I agree with you there definitely, the idea of a “skeptic” probably needs more defining as just because someone is a skeptic doesn’t mean they believe in unlimited consumption and that humans have no impact on the environment. To me it means they are just skeptical with the current state of the data. PURE AND SIMPLE. Not that they hate the environement and are against conservation.
“you’re right, in that in the past 4 million years the earth has endured alot of radical environmental changes.
but its inhabitants have not.”
Yes so essentially we are killing ourselves. So can we label it as “self preservation” as well?
“why is it a bad thing that we are attempting to reduce our impact nonetheless? ”
“i would have thought someone who “respects” the environment would advocate all measures to ensure its preservation?”
I never actually said it was a bad thing to attempt to reduce our impact. Nor did I say that I would not advocate measures to ensure its preservation. Far from it actually. I’ve said people should be conscious of how their lifestyle is affecting the environment, respect the world in which they live, and cut back. Just because I might not completely agree with the intensity our impact has made, and as I said in my post I’m not disputing that we definitely have caused some damage, does not mean I’m anti-preservation.
Mia, i have seen Al Gore’s movie….and i had to write an assignment on it for an environmental science unit that i did at uni.
What i got out of the movie was…no-one actually knows what is going to happen!! Everything is based on ‘projected worst case scenarios’…based on what experts ‘believe’ will happen.
I think that, even if the ‘worst case scenario’ happens, its going to take a little while. we arent going to wake up in the morning, and discover all our houses that were once suburbia are now beachfront. I’m not saying that i’m a sceptic, or that i dont believe whats happening – there is a genuine case for the unusual weather patterns being caused by humanity’s pollution of the earth, and that we do need to take action to prevent further damage. I just think that ‘experts’ need to stop using scare tactics.
This is my family:
I am an environment advocate who thinks climate change is at least partiallly man-made. Probably severely man-made.
My dad thinks it’s all a part of the earth’s natural cycle, but if we really want someone to blame, blame the methane-producing cows.
My husband doesn’t care either way – as long as it doesn’t interfere with his ability to get to the gym each day.
My mother doesn’t want to hear either side of the story. She’d rather watch The Bill with a glass of red.
My mother-in-law is recycling, composting, water-conserving, saving, to within an inch of her life while her husband happily looks on while eating mini Violet Crumbles.
We are a mixed bunch. But the one thing we all agree on is that regardless of whether we are responsible for climate change, regardless of whether the earth is heating up or not – we should be taking care of our planet because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. We should be taking care of our planet for the same reason we do our housework – because it’s our home, because we should, because it looks and feels better & because we can.
@ otto, haha fair enough.
There are so many perspectives raised in the comments on this post.
I have a couple of points to add.
Firstly, I actually don’t think it is ideal to polarise this issue, however in an effort to explain how people receive the climate change science it was simpler to present two generic categories.
“Believers” and “Sceptics” certainly sound like religious terms and indeed, I chose to use them here to show how many approach the issue with the same zeal and fervour they approach their religious beliefs and/or scepticism.
Secondly, it is worth highlighting that all science must be constantly reviewed, debated and scrutinised. It is plain to see that there is plenty of tension throughout the scientific community because of the political and economic implications the acceptance of climate change science has. This means the lines become very blurred. Therefore, when reviewing an article or hearing information, it is worthwhile to check out what, if any, agenda a group may have when they present their cases.
I hope I have helped to clarify some of the mystery around the climate change debates.
As member of the research science community, in particular marine genetics and oceanography, from my experience, those “scientists” who are sceptics are generally shunned. And even if the sceptics are right there is no point in preparing for the best case scenario. The current increase in ocean temperature has seen a dramatic reduction in kelp and other algae (in case you don’t give a rats about this its in countless foods and other commercial products, even beer). The giant kelp forests in Tasmania have gone from hundreds of square kilometers to only half a square kilometer. Increase in carbon dioxide levels means an increase in ocean acidification meaning that the invertebrates that use calcium carbonate have it start to dissolve. And should you give a rats about this? Well do you like to eat them? Say bye bye to the yummy prawn industry. Say goodbye to the tourism dollars from the poor little polyps in the Barrier Reef dying (on top of the heat and extreme weather stresses). Why else should people care? The future of drug development lies in the ocean. The hit rate for finding bioactive compounds (such as anti-cancer compounds) is 1 in 10 in the ocean as compared to 1 in 100 for land. And with increases temperature, stresses and the livable range for the organisms that produce these compounds is decreased, minimising out chance of finding them. And why am I focusing on the ocean? Because there is so bloody much of it, and so hence it has the greatest impact on out lives whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. And if you do not at least acknowledge climate change an increase in anthropogenic green house gases, and modify your behavior (even small things like refusing plastic bags and choosing to buy products with minimal packaging), you are frankly selfish and ignorant. Place an economic value on the environment to see what we are to lose from not doing something now.
soz, but how can it be tongue in cheek when its entirely utterly wrong?
you’re right, in that in the past 4 million years the earth has endured alot of radical environmental changes.
but its inhabitants have not.
even if we are not causing “as big an impact as the experts say”, why is it a bad thing that we are attempting to reduce our impact nonetheless?
the industrialised world butchers the environment in more ways than one, and any step to improve the way we use our planet is a good idea.
i would have thought someone who “respects” the environment would advocate all measures to ensure its preservation?
Shouldn’t we be reducing, with a view to minimising and eventually negating, our impact on the environment irrespective of our beliefs? Now, if we could just get the experts to agree on the best ways to minimise our impact.
Correct, Nicola, Rudd may not be socialist as such, that really was tongue-in-cheek, but the ETS is just another way to further control the population via another tax. I don’t believe that Rudd or his ETS will serve the future of this country justice.
Shouldn’t we be reducing, within a view to minimising and eventually negating, our impact on the environment irrespective of our beliefs? Now, if we could just get the experts to agree on the best ways to minimise our impact.
Pippa how can you call Rudd a socialist when he has a market driven response to climate change and the “Liberal” party has a tax payer subsidy?! Do you understand what socialism is and that an emissions trading scheme is the most liberal way to address the issue by letting the market incentivise participants?
i want to know how being a skeptic actually mean to you though
does it mean that any polluter pays policy you will object to?
that you will consuming with no thought of environmental repercussions?
i too have doubts about scientific papers on climate change however i believe that every individual needs to think about the effect they have
consuming with no limits will effect the environment in so many terrible ways and mean less productivity for future generations
there are somewhere between 6-8 billion people on the planet and we simply dont have the resources for consumption to continue as it is going
I’m a skeptic and proud of it.
Here are my reasons:
1. Huge companies have billions at stake with “clean energies” etc. like Al Gore’s carbon trading
2. There are many prominent scientists who are skeptics
3. Science companies have been paid big bucks to make up figures about climate change
4. Humans have been using Carbon for about 300 years, in my opinion not enough time to alter the climate off a planet.
5. Scientists have got it wrong before – look at how Thalidomide turned out
6. Humans have been wrong before – the earth is not the centre of the universe
7. Just like evolution, there is no concrete evidence to prove WITHOUT DOUBT that climate change is caused by humans, or exists at all
8. There has been climate change before!!!! The ice ages – there was no one back then burning CO2 to have melted all the ice. Earth did this itself- 3 times.
9. There was a Medieval warming period when life in Europe flourished and then a cooling period – there was no industry then.
im pretty sure the change i from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ was made by skeptics in US politics.
They believed the terminology of ‘global warming’ was too over the top and would create fear etc, whereas climate change doesnt sound as harsh (eg. “the climate has been changing for millions of years”)
correct me if im wrong though. politics doesnt interest me
I would have to personally say I’m a skeptic in that climate change is obviously happening, but I think we overstate as humans our responsibility in making that happen. I’m not saying our lifestyles are not detrimental to our environment. What I am saying is that its hard for me to believe that we are causing as big an impact as the “experts” say we are when: we have only been an industrialised world for approximately 200 years, the earth has been around for approximately 4 billion years, in that time it has suffered volcano eruptions, earth quakes and has been hit by asteroids and meteorites, and endured previous climate changes. The earth’s conception was an extremely violent event!
Everyone should be conscious of their own impact. I recycle, rarely drive my car, don’t have a dishwasher or dryer, am always significantly lower than the average water usage in my suburb. Its not because I fear climate change, but I RESPECT the environment I live in. Do it for the right reasons! Not out of fear, but out of respect.
Al Gore has been widely criticised by skeptics too. So I don’t think you can claim he is left alone while only skeptics are discredited. Skeptics are all too vocal and keen to discredit anyone they can find.
I’d rather be attacked for trying to do some good in the world, than putting my short-term comfort and profit ahead of future generations’.
Whether human-induced climate change is scientifically-proven or not (and I believe it is), business as usual on this overpopulated planet is not sustainable. So why can’t everyone stop arguing and just try to do some good for the planet?
That’s exactly what i was about to say. Al Gore had “scientists” make crap up for that movie. Really it was all about advertising and making more money for Mr Gore. Did you notice how many times they showed Apple computers?
Riiiiight. So now we’ve got ozone layer hole skeptics too…
I have to say that I didn’t realise that climate change was something one could choose to believe in. I thought only the severity was up for debate. What I think is that, regardless of whether people believe in it or not, you can’t say that trying to do things more ethically/sustainably/green/whatever isn’t a good idea, even if you think the environment is in tip-top shape.
Elisha, I quoted my lecturer and his qualifications in order to give his statements more weight, of course he will not necessarily be correct in everything he says. But he does have a very well informed view in this area. My own research backed up what he said. If you knew of the environmental and humanitarian atrocities which have been committed within the law I am sure you would be appalled at them. I am. Unfortunately, many decisions are driven by short term economic greed with little regard to their longer term impact on the environment.
He would if we gave him half a chance…so let’s not give it to him!
hahahahaa Lulu.
Most of the time it’s just a freaking marketing strategy!
Kevin Rudd a socialist? Please excuse me while I die laughng.
I believe in climate change.
It scares me every time I think about it.
We humans only look to the near future: profits, consumption, immediate gratification. So few think about the generations to come =(
Ladies and Gents,
Please do your own research before you make up your mind on this debate.
Look into a UK judge’s 2007 ruling on the ‘Convenient Untruths’ in Al Gore’s alarmist film. This includes; the Polar Bears in the film did not die from Global Warming but rather from drowning after a violent storm; no evidence to suggest that Hurricane Katrina was caused by Global Warming; evidence that shows the Antarctic Ice is actually increasing not decreasing.
Look into how the practice of crop production for biofuels is actually taking farming land away from food production creating food shortages and price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry. A UN expert has called this ‘a crime against humanity.’
Look into the Climategate email scandal which clearly proves that US and UK IPCC scientists are lying, manipulating data and hiding the truth to increase their own cause and agenda. They have not been adhering to correct scientific procedures nor the IPCC peer review process.
Look into how Al Gore owns a Carbon Credit Trading company worth billions of dollars. How can his Global Warming agenda not be a conflict of interest?
Although both major political parties have a Climate Change policy, one clearly does not want to tax the Australian people and businesses as much as the other. Please think twice before voting Kevin Rudd and the ALP back into ’socialist’ power.
Again, please conduct your own research before you make up your minds.
hole in the ozone layer… Its still there! What are you talking about?
And what about all the Kiwis and Aussies getting skin cancer – what is that all about then ??
Helen, I’m totally with you. It’s the misinformation that really gets me passionate about this issue (and many others in this crazy fear-driven, propaganda-filled world). I’m a climate change skeptic, but only because I require PROOF that it is man-made before I jump on the bandwagon. Just like Prius cars and reusable nappies, people need to disseminate the information they’re given. Half the time it is innacurate, misleading, or not the whole story.
Elisha,
I would be thrilled if this summary prompted readers to pursue alternate ideas and independent research into all aspects of climate change science. As a preliminary step, I decided to clearly outline the very basics of the science and the policy options for those who are being bombarded with political soundbites, scientific graphs, conspiracy theories, green packaging in the supermarkets, and so on and so forth.
I hope I have given a helping hand to the uninitiated so that as many people as possible can participate in this important, dynamic and highly contested debate.
Elisha,
I would be thrilled if this summary prompted readers to pursue alternate ideas and independent research into all aspects of climate change science. As a preliminary step, I decided to clearly outline the very basics of the science and the policy options for those who are being bombarded with political soundbites, scientific graphs, conspiracy theories, green packaging in the supermarkets, and so on and so forth.
I hope I have given a helping hand to the uninitiated so that as many people as possible can participate in this important, dynamic and highly contested debate.
It’s interesting though that people will happily write off the non-qualified skeptics in a second, however major climate change figureheads like Al Gore (no scientific qualifications) and Tim Flannery (background in Earth Sciences and Biology – nothing to do with climate) are given all the airtime in the world, their opinions carrying ridiculous weight. The lack of balance in this debate – and yes, it is still a debate – is laughable.
Does anyone remember how Tony Jones attacked Martin Durkin, the creator of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ doco, on Lateline a few years ago? He hardly let the poor dude get a word in, and tore him apart quite viciously and unprofessionally. My disdain for Mr Jones really set in with a vengeance that night- you expect that kind of bias on Today Tonight, not the ABC. I really don’t think you can get an impartial discussion on this issue in mainstream media anymore.
I am writing this on behalf of my husband because he is a “skeptic”.
There is a difference between Climate Change Skeptic and denialist. Denialist are the ones who don’t believe it is happening at all. It is just the earths way of self regulating… A skeptic is one who wants to see the science based evidence. There are skeptics who definitely believe in climate change. My hubby is one of many. You just have denialist using the term skeptic a little too freely.
We both agree that we should be doing something about Climate Change, and hey if it not really happening, what does it hurt our earth to make these changes? Probably a simple view in peoples minds…
Vicki II, I must admit I winced when I saw the Wiki link (not the most credible source when trying to make an argument!), but that’s not to say there are no credible skeptics out there. I don’t have the time or energy to elaborate too much, but I have done lots of independent reading about climate change, and there are plenty of credible, highly-regarded, climate-specialising scientists who do not believe climate change is man-made.
This post is a good springboard for discussion, but I hope it also encourages people to consider alternate ideas (and pursue independent research) rather than only the mass-propagated scare campaigns favoured by the media and politicians.
I should add, I am all for the environment – it’s the fear mongering and theory presented as fact that pisses me off.
Vicki II, I must admit I winced when I saw the Wiki link (not the most credible source when trying to make an argument!), but that’s not to say there are no credible skeptics out there. I don’t have the time or energy to elaborate too much, but I have done lots of independent reading about climate change, and there are plenty of credible, highly-regarded, climate-specialising scientists who do not believe climate change is man-made.
This post is a good springboard for discussion, but I hope it also encourages people to consider alternate ideas (and pursue independent research) rather than only the mass-propagated scare campaigns favoured by the media and politicians.
I should add, I am all for the environment – it’s the culture of fear and theory presented as fact that pisses me off.
“the wikipedia link you give to support this seems like a controversial one, and has been placed on article probation by the wikipedians”
ALL articles regarding ANYTHING to do with climate change have been placed on aticle probabtion…not just the link I posted
Vicki II, I must admit I winced when I say the Wiki link (not the most credible source when trying to make an argument!), but that’s not to say there are no credible skeptics out there. I don’t have the time or energy to elaborate too much, but I have done lots of independent reading about climate change, and there are plenty of credible, highly-regarded, climate-specialising scientists who do not believe climate change is man-made.
This post is a good springboard for discussion, but I hope it also encourages people to open their minds to other ideas (and pursue independent research) rather than only the mass-propagated fear campaigns favoured by the media and politicians.
‘… the sceptics are not scientists, the scientists are all convinced of man made climate change’.
Just because your lecturer ’stated’ this does not make it true. Whatever he (or anyone) believes, there is still no definitive proof one way or the other, and plenty of climate scientists share this opinion.
My mistake. Sorry I think I was extra sensitive and hence my misinterpretation as I had just come out of a meeting with a chauvinistic pig who had said something along the lines of ‘Women who are interested in fashion rarely care about anything except the clothes themselves…not where they were made or that endless consumption is bad for the environment’….The Mamamia community had sprung to mind as a retort to his very small and misinformed opinion of women. I can see it was he who needed to be reminded we can be interested in it all Willow, not you!
Yes Willow, I agree it would make an excellent featured post. Not just here but everywhere!
Guest,
“But what about the scientists, who are also experts in their field, who are on the other side of the fence? ”
the wikipedia link you give to support this seems like a controversial one, and has been placed on article probation by the wikipedians
Of course, it is possible that the ozone layer may have repaired itself without our intervention. There is no proof that ‘without the science, and the agreement and the action then it would have been much worse’. It is not even a fair assumption, as we have nothing to compare it to.
‘… the sceptics are not scientists, the scientists are all convinced of man made climate change’.
Just because your lecturer ’stated’ this does not make it true. Whatever he (or anyone) believes, there is still no definitive proof one way or the other.
And thank you Mia & Julie for posting on this. I have been a reader for 18 months, and have been silently willing this topic to come up the entire time. I’m very grateful.
I’ve heard it said a million times, and you probably have too, but I’ll say it again: it’s about prudent risk management. If 90% of the world’s leading poisons experts told you that eating an apple would kill you instantly, would you eat another apple – trusting that the minority 10% of poisons experts were right? Or would you choose to avoid apples, just in case the 90% were right?
It’s the same. Whether you believe the science or not, it’s prudent to transition as quickly as possible to renewable energy (which – by the way – does not include nuclear or the unproven ‘Carbon Capture & Storage’), move to public transport & alternative fuel sources for cars (not ‘biofuels’), reduce consumption & waste, conserve water, reforest with native trees, reduce urban sprawl, recycle, compost – just be gentle on the planet. It makes sense.
Featured posts rotate throughout the day. Climate Change will have it’s turn….
A trip to New York late last year for work was fortunate enough to coincide with a brilliant special exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History on Climate Change.
For me, who has always preferred to have things presented visually it was a great way to really wrap my head around what I agree is a very overwhelming subject matter!
Something which really stood out for me was the issue of coal. It was explained that coal provides approx 40% of the world’s electrical energy which is terrible as out of all the fossil fuels available to us coal releases more Co2 for every unit of energy produced compared to other sources of energy available like gas. What was most scary was seeing just how quickly we churn through coal…indeed how greedy the world is for energy. A metric ton of coal-which sounds big, my memory of maths from high school is that a tonne was a very big unit of measurement-will only run an average US household for about 2 months.
2 months X 1 metric tonne Xall the months in the year X all the years x all the households in the US + all the households across the developed world….That is a very frightening number!
Apooigies – “remind” was obviously too obtuse. The point I was making was that a serious global problem was discovered by scientists, nations accepted the science, then took united international action to overcome the problem.
Like the fire that didn’t burn down your house because of the fire break, it may not be news that the Ozone hole is being repaired, but without the science, and the agreement and the action then it would have been much worse.
For that we should perhaps be gratefull there were no Lord Moncktons telling us the hole didn’t exist and the skin cancers in Australia were simply part of a long term cycle that had nothing to with human activity.
For me, if there is even the slightest chance that we are fucking up the environment for future generations, we should be working together to make sure that it won’t happen.
Because at the end of the day, it is a pretty big gamble we are making, while we sit around and argue one point or the other.
I think climate change is such a big topic that people don’t have the time or the patience to really grasp what is being said by both sides. There should be more simplified information being put out there, and this round up from Julie is a great start. Otherwise it’s too easy to get caught in the soundbites being parried back and forth by politicians in their bids to score political points.
But this issue isn’t just political, it has to do with the future of our planet, and if there is even the slightest chance that we are damaging it beyond repair, then I think we deserve more than a political punchline in a bid for re-election.
Considering that Lord Monckton’s qualifications are a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism I wonder whether we should be giving his opinion any credibility ….???
I also wanted to add that this is a fantastic nutshell from Julie Cowdroy. Julie – if you are not consulting to Parliament on this issue, you should be – so clear and concise. I doubt many pollies have as clear a picture of the state of play as you do!
I believe in loving and respecting or environment, no matter what is causing the climate to change.
However, so often the information is misleading. For example, when the Prius was developed many skeptics pointed out the impact of the battery was more than the battery would ever save in it’s life. It was no way a green car (although the technology was well worth developing and now you are encouraged to recycle the batteries, and the new ones are made from a different, more environmentally friendly alternative).
Also, reusable nappies. By the time you use the water to wash them, the chemicals, the dryer if you have to (I did pretty often, I had kids in NZ) etc they work out about the same as disposables in their impact. And not anywhere near as convenient.
Green bags are made from petroleum bi-product in China. How environmentally sound do you think their working practices are? Then they have to be freighted back to China for recycling.
Those stupid light globes – mine blow all the time, in 3 or 4 houses I’ve lived in, and they have so much mercury in them you’re not meant to throw them in the regular trash, but in special bins at service stations.
What I’m getting at here is that anything that is marketed to you as a ‘green alternative’ needs to be looked at so closely. I’d also like to see a serious attempt to cut industry use of unsustainable resources – The big imapct is not from household consumers.
I’ve seen quite enough of him already thanks. He’s not even a scientist – yet alone a climate scientist – so has about as much right to airtime for his whinings against climate change as your average mosquitoe.
Rather than sticking with the majority on climate change, I’ll stick with the majority on taking action because I believe it is the right thing to do whether it will affect climate change or not.
Pollution is bad whether we can link it conclusively to climate change or not.
That’s I guess what my point is – rather than always focusing on whether we think climate change is really caused by carbon emissions, we should focus on reducing carbon pollution because it is totally out of hand globally. If it helps climate change, so much the better, but even if it doesn’t, we should do it anyway.
When the “vast majority” are given funding by governments…
Can’t have climate without the weather.
Climate can only be determined after 30 years of daily weather data.
I can sort of see where Guest is coming from I guess
the vast majority in this case would be the safest option – or you can stick with the skeptics and feel really bad about it later…
Spring chicken!
By the looks of it Willows did not suggest the topic be “put down” just made the featured post.
But the thing is Lulu, no one really knows for sure on evolution or creationism. There are plenty of holes in both theories. You couldn’t convince me absolutely that evolution of humans really happened, just like a Christian person couldn’t convince me absolutely that creationism happened. Same with climate change. Everyone chooses their own belief based on the most compelling evidence to them.
Stephen is correct: the 1987 Montreal Protocol ordered the phasing out of the production & consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform by 2000 – 2005. Correspondingly, stratospheric chlorine began to decline and ozone recovery has begun.
So it wasn’t “all this hype, never to be heard of again.” It was great scientific work and an appropriate & coordinated international response which has helped to protect us (especially us in Australia & NZ) from harmful levels of UV-B radiation.
“3. Scientists have a hard enough time predicting the weather correctly on a weekly basis, how do they know what it be like in 50 years time? ”
They’re not predicting the weather in 50 years time. They’re talking about climate – which is not exactly the same thing.
Want to hear more on a sceptics point of view?
http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?vxSiteId=cb519624-44a2-4bf7-808b-3514d34e96e4&vxChannel=ENVIRONMENT Lord Monckton interview. Interesting, albeit a bit crazy!
What a fabulous nutshell.
Sorry Willows but I think that is the beauty of Mamamia. That in the same day we can be discussing handbags and Climate Change. I don’t think we need to ‘put down’ the discussion of the handbag to participate in the converation about Global Warming. That is the thing about Mamamia that I love, that it defies stereotype. That it isn’t just a community of women talking about handbags and it isn’t just another Greenpeace forum, it’s a collection of women who are not just doing it all but talking about it all!
Guest I would like you to name some of the expert scientists (i.e work in atmospheric/physical sciences/meteorology not an oil engineer from BHP) that disagree.My background and training is in the physical sciences and I haven’t yet found such a skeptic who is an independently financed scientist who is able to offer a plausible scientific argument against the evidence. P.s. economists and politicians do not count.
Also agree
I’m sure you could round up a number of “scientists” who are sceptical about evolution. Oh wait, someone alerady did – & they call it “creation science”. But I’ll still believe in evolution, thank you.
But what about the scientists, who are also experts in their field, who are on the other side of the fence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
This is a small list that I could find.
Who is the average person in the community meant to believe?
No one knows what the date of no return will be. That will only be known in hindsight, if there even is such a thing.
All scientists do not agree that climate change is man made. A vast number in fact disagree and say that they can’t identify the primary cause, but suggest that humans play a part. Although many don’t want to say even how big a part they believe humans play.
I agree completely with your points about the law.
I also agree with you that we need to take immediate and decisive action on this area, although for reasons of reducing pollution rather than mitigating climate change.
I believe that climate change is happening and I believe that humans pollute too much, particularly in the area of carbon emissions, but I don’t believe that one causes the other. We should however be doing everything we can do to modify out polluting behaviour for the sake of our health and the health of our planet. I think that climate change will happen regardless of whether we do this or not, but being in better shape in pollution-wise will help us as a population cope with the changes.
An Inconvenient Truth was the biggest load of crap I have ever seen. Quasi-science at best.
Also – it is worth pointing out here that a large number of internationally respected scientists are not certain of the causal link between carbon pollution and climate change. In fact, many downright disagree with it. This is not often publicised in the media. In science it is worth remembering that so much is open to “spin” and “interpretation”. It’s often all about “best guess”.
None of this diminishes the fact that I think we need to take steps to address our pollution issues however, with carbon being at the top of the list to deal with.
If you can’t handle An Inconvenient Truth, watch The Age of Stupid instead, you can download it online legally for the same cost as hiring it at the video store (you wont see it at blockbuster though unfortunately) and you don’t even need to leave the room! http://www.ageofstupid.net/product/download_ageofstupid
I found it really useful for grasping the importance of climate change and it has inspired me to find ways to cut my emissions.
I think the next step we need is a roadmap on how to reduce our emissions. It is really important that we act as indivduals, and avoid getting caught up in the dramas surrounding the politicians of the country, they are not leading by example at the moment. A road map I have found useful is http://www.1millionwomen.com.au (I despise the fact that BP are a main sponsor though)
MIA- Please take a look at both these links, it would be great to see you lead your audience in a positive direction with this issue.
AGREE
People – if the vast majority of scientists are worried – so should you be. They are the experts in this field. They have a process in the scientific world which means their work is scrutinised heavily before publishing (this is the pure science of it – not the IPCC report which was pulled together from all over the place). The vast majority of scientific papers (more than 90%) are in agreement with the science that climate change is largely contributed to by US!
What we need to focus on – and quickly is what WE can do. The politicians will play politics forever because that is what they do. Most of them are just trying to get re-elected.
If you work for a company, encourage them to make changes. They can choose to pay a higher amount for their power to ensure that it comes from renewable sources, they can recycle (ink cartridges, bottles and cans, paper), they can change light fittings, they can change temperatures on air conditioners, there is so much they CAN do – with a little effort!
As for the individual, it is true that we are only a small consumer in the big scale of things, but you can still make a difference. Buy renewable energy – all companies now have plans on offer, recycle, compost (one of the BEST things you can do), buy local, drive less (plan your trips).
My next goal is to start letter writing and get the local council and shopping centres to do more.
Get on with it folks – I for one am not going to be apologising to my children for my inaction because I believed the non-scientist skeptics.
Doesn’t really remind me of anything – I was 6 years old.
Just trying to make the point that I remember all the hoo ha but can’t recall the last time I heard anything specific in relation to the hole in the ozone layer…
I absolutely believe in climate change and I have changed my behaviour because of it. I do think that I am really middle of the road in my response to it though. I live in the smallest house of anyone I know (think sardines) and we are planning extensions this year. the extensions will still make it a relatively small house and have been designed to use space well, there will be no big open spaces to heat/cool. We live in a very hot & dry place for a lot of the year so this was really important to me. We’ll also have rainwater tanks & solar hot water. I try to do the shopping bag thing but I’m hopeless at it, I turn things off at the power, etc. I really think I could do a whole lot more. Bigger picture I’m trying to consume less, have less stuff come into my house etc. The car is a problem for me. We try to walk or drive around the village we live in, but live 20 minutes from town (work etc) which uses a lot of petrol. It would be much more environmentally sound for us to move into town I guess.
Anyway, I’m going to try and do more and yes, this issue is important to me when deciding who to vote for. My husband works for a government department which is involved in this issue, so that has also influenced my position. For me, I like to read/research, and when something resonates personally that’s where I sit. For me personally there is no way that the consumption of the past couple of generations can’t have impacted on the environment.
Hole in the ozone layer? It’s still there, and getting bigger, but it’s expected to stabilise by 2020, and be repaired by 2060-2075.
Why? well, science said there was a problem, nations came together and took action (banning CFCs etc) and slowly, over time, the problem will hopefully be fixed. Remind you of anything?
I am a skeptic. For a couple of reasons.
1. Scientific studies are a tricky thing. The average person gets so mcuh information about any topic (drink red wine – it’s good for you, red wine causes cancer; don’t smack your kids, smack your kids etc), not just climate change, and there is almost ALWAYS a scientfic study in support of both sides. Who are we meant to believe?
2. In my early primary school days, it was all about the hole in the ozone layer…whatever happened to that? I can’t remember when I last heard about it, yet it the 80’s it was a huge big deal – with climate change be the same sort of thing? All this hype, never to be heard of again?
3. Scientists have a hard enough time predicting the weather correctly on a weekly basis, how do they know what it be like in 50 years time?
Just my opinion, a mum who isn’t completey knowledgeable in this area but who looks forward to reading the responses of those who know a bit more about this subject than me!
Personally, I feel that the CETS is a flawed model. There is no incentive for the real perpetrators of carbon emition to change their behavior. They will just be able to purchase credits and continue on as usual. I fear the Labor party missed an opportunity to embrace the genuine will for change out in the community and do something meaningful. The cynic in me thinks that a ETS is merely an opportunity to set up another financial industry to benefit brokers and big business.
As for housholds being compensated for higher cost of living, isn’t that just another middle class welfare scheme? The Labor government are trying once again to justify more buracracy “managing” the lives and finances of the Australian community.
I agree Willows!!
I think this should be the featured post of the day, not a handbag that none of us can afford.
I studied Environmental Law a few years ago, our lecturer for this subject had been a practising lawyer and was then studying towards a PhD in Environmental Science so his teaching of us was skewed toward producing environmentally responsible lawyers. He said that a lot of legislation designed to protect the environment did not do so, he described the purchase of carbon credits via the ETS as buying a licence to pollute and stated that the sceptics are not scientists, the scientists are all convinced of man made climate change. He also pointed out that unless we change our practices radically, by the year 2048 there will be a catastrophic breakdown of society. I read on the web this morning that the date of no return in relation to this is 2015. As most water and power is used by agriculture and industry, what we do individually will not make a significant enough impact, it has to come from govt regulation.
I try to live sustainably, although I have a car. I use bike and public transport as much as possible. I do as much locally as I can so I don’t have to travel. I don’t do air travel. I don’t have air conditioning in my house. I have done voluntary work for an environmental activist organisation and will soon be working again for a RAMSAR wetlands org. I see lobbying as the most effective tool to combat this problem.
I don’t believe that the current political negotiating that is being done will be drastic enough to be effective and that any politician will not be brave enough to take the drastic steps that are required as they will be very unpopular with industry and the electorate in general. If you have not seen An Inconvenient Truth, you should do so. And you should also lobby your local pollies as much as possible so that they see that voters want effective change in this area.
In Australia we have the highest per capita production of greenhouse gases, we will have to make huge changes. If we don’t it will be our kids who will suffer.
I hope this post is not seen as being too outspoken and radical, it is how I see this issue and the more people who can be reached the better. It is an issue that affects us all and it will be our kids, and some of you, who will wear the consequences of what is being done now. None of us want that ….
Thanks for posting about this Mia! I try not to stick my head in the sand about this, but my knowledge is really basic on this issue.
I try to be environmentally conscious… I do small things like minimise use of plastic bags, use the plastic shopping bags I do have as bin liners instead of buying them, turn everything off at the wall (which is really easy to do once you’re in the habit – people are always so surprised that we do it in our house… actually get comments like ‘oh, you’re THOSE people…’), am vegetarian and try to eat as much of whatever’s in season and locally produced, buy the most energy efficient items we can afford… Small things like that, but I think if everyone did them, it’d add up!
Thanks Mia (& Julie),
As a practising Environmental Scientist I sometimes struggle to keep up with the details of climate change. I do try hard though. What you have put together is a great summary.
I am convinced of the need for us to act to stop the climate running away from us. There is nothing I have read or seen in the science journals (or blog sites!) recently that has even slightly altered my views on this.
It is, however, my role as a father (not a scientist) that makes me feel so strongly about this. I don’t want to even slightly risk the future for my little girl. I don’t want to look back on my life and wonder if there was something I could have said or something I could have done to make things different for her.
At the moment I have started small- we live in a smallish apartment (all we can afford), we use an evaporative cooler (not an airconditioner), we have shifted from car to public transport and we just traded our old inefficient fridge to a newer one.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by ArchwoFrontiers: Don’t understand what climate change is all about? here http://bit.ly/dDpVjH is a little blog that give you a break down of the current situ…
I’m glad your ‘cheatsheet’ showed both sides.
My stance is: I’m not a scientist. All I know about climate change I have learned from newspapers and television, the 99% of the people disseminating that information were not scientists either. I have been told that there will be dire, life-threatening consequences if we don’t ‘do something’. I’m on the fence. I have lived through similar scare campaigns (global cooling, the nuclear bomb panic). I suppose this makes me a sceptic, if sceptic means somebody who doesn’t believe something just because they keep getting told it again and again without any proof being involved.
Thanks for presenting a balanced summary of the differing views in this debate.
I am a climate change skeptic and feel that the global focus on carbon dioxide as “the bad guy” is the blurring the real issues and taking focus away from more pressing environmental concerns such as pollution, unsustainable logging, energy efficiency, fossil fuel dependancy, etc.
The recent revelations which started with the release of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia CRU, and continued with the errors and inappropriate source material in the IPCC’s latest report have only strengthened my skepticism.
There has been some interesting discussion on these issues at the Australian website http://www.climateskeptic.net.
Thanks Mia for bringing an important issue to the forefront of our minds. Learn about climate change people, and teach your children. If there is one thing we should instill in our kids in an understanding of the effect humans have on Earth. If we raise an informed and enthusiastic generation of children then we have a much better chance of keeping Earth as beautiful (and inhabitable) as it is.
My vote at the next election will not be based solely on climate change. Of at least equal importance is health and education. Any environment policy must be easy to understand, properly costed and show how it affects the individual so we are not duped. I do not think the world can agree because there are too many hidden agendas involved. Rather each country needs to find a solution that works for them, slow and steady is far better than a world agreement than means nothing.
Personally I do not drive, I walk or take public transport, I try to bring a shopping bag with me to cut down on plastic bags, I recycle, I have never been a big meat eater.
*phew* thanks Mia thought I was the only person whose head spun when the climate change discussions start …