What you need to know about: Climate Change
Do you like this story?
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:
-
2min cheat sheet: Climate Change
-
Could you do meat-free Mondays to save the planet? Gwyneth does.
-
Finally, a major policy difference between the 2 major parties: broadband.
-
Spend? Save? Or pay off debt?
-
The Greens: read this 2min cheat sheet before you vote.
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?
loading...
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.
loading...
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.
loading...
I meant to say ‘planets’
loading...
Let’s just agree to be on different plaents for this one.
loading...
Unfortunately many people choose to believe whatever suits their lifestyle. Cognitive dissonance.
loading...
As long as the sun shines out of Chairman Rudd’s arse, we have nothing to worry about…………..
loading...
Anna, I LOVE your post. Funny, clever, interesting, and spot on.
loading...
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?
loading...
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!
loading...
I know the definition of scaremonger, hence the reason I used the word….
loading...
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…?
loading...
Oh Mia, look! Tony Abbott’s arrived!
loading...
mostly how to solve global worming love to all ooxx
loading...
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
loading...
Scaremonger: a person who alarms others needlessly. Not scaremongering. Believe the science, flat earthers.
loading...
“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.
loading...
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
loading...
What a good reply Mabol. I was wondering that too.
loading...
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.
loading...
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.
loading...
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.
loading...
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.”
loading...
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.
loading...
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!
loading...
Oh don’t get me started on habitat destruction, deep sea trawling and overfishing. I will not stop for hours.
loading...
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
loading...
Thank you Em
loading...
thinking about what you said, i wonder if the governments are not using these experts to deflect their responsibilities onto the people…
loading...
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?
loading...
I forgot to ask: What is the correct temperature of the earth, and why?
loading...
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.
loading...
Did you just write down “www.mamamia.com.au” and give it to him? I bloody would have.
loading...
“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.
loading...
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.
loading...