Category Archives: Climate Change

HOME – YouTube

Posted on by
Reply

Not sure why I can’t recall having seen this earlier…

Via HOME – YouTube

We are living in exceptional times. Scientists tell us that we have 10 years to change the way we live, avert the depletion of natural resources and the catastrophic evolution of the Earth’s climate.

The stakes are high for us and our children. Everyone should take part in the effort, and HOME has been conceived to take a message of mobilization out to every human being.

For this purpose, HOME needs to be free. A patron, the PPR Group, made this possible. EuropaCorp, the distributor, also pledged not to make any profit because Home is a non-profit film.

HOME has been made for you : share it! And act for the planet.

Yann Arthus-Bertrand

HOME official website
http://www.home-2009.com

Teh Scary Wind Turbines

Posted on by
2

Adam Morton has a piece in The Age today on some of the political goings on around wind farms in Victoria: You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Well worth a read.

The article mentions the recent findings of the National Health and Medical Research Council research into Wind Turbines and Health. A helpful pushback to some of the random anecdotal claims going around.

The Public Statement presents the current evidence relating potential health impacts of wind turbines on people living in close proximity. The Statement concludes that there is currently no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects.

And also reminded me of a recent tweet from Hepburn Wind highlighting recent analysis done to overcome the need for illumination and red flashing lights on wind turbines: Wind farm switches off lights

Feature on Bob Brown in The Age

Posted on by
Reply

An interestingly timed feature on Bob Brown by Michael Gordon in The Age: Coming in from the wilderness. Worth a read. Quite a positive piece. It concludes with a focus on current events…

Brown agrees, and insists the Greens will work constructively with whoever wins the election to achieve good results and advance an agenda that includes introducing a carbon tax, better funding for mental health, a national dental scheme and a permanent solution for forest protection. Brown says he has worked with Julia Gillard on industrial relations and youth issues and found her ”matter-of-fact, plain-speaking and does what she says she will do”, but he isn’t expecting too much to change.

”Everybody with a progressive bone in their body raised a glass at the news of our first female prime minister, but that’s where that ends,” he says. ”Politically it doesn’t change the dynamic at all. There’s no way that we’re going to get a green Gillard government any more than a green Rudd government or a green Howard government. That’s why we’re here.”

Replace Hazelwood

Posted on by
Reply

The Replace Hazelwood campaign has been on in earnest for some time now. In short, from replacehazelwood.com.au

Hazelwood is Australia’s dirtiest power station. This election year, we’re calling on the Victorian and Federal Governments to commit to Replace Hazelwood with Clean Energy by 2012. Can you help us make it happen?

Check out the official website.

Doorknocking has been underway in a number of suburbs in Melbourne for about a month now. There have also been a range of other actions around the place. More info on upcoming dates at the climate action centre.

  • Sat 3 July – Brunswick with Climate Action Moreland
  • Sunday 4 July – Richmond with Yarra Climate Action Now
  • Sun 10 July – Westgarth (DCAN) 1-4pm Jika Jika Community House cnr Plant and Union Street Northcote with Darebin Climate Action Network
  • Sat 17 July – North Melbourne with Inner Northwest Climate Change Community

The Victorian Greens have recently incorporated action on Hazelwood into their campaign.

Federal Labor MP Kelvin Thompson has also recently voiced support for  taking steps to close the plant.

There is a National Day of Action to Replace Hazelwood on July 17.

Politician Rebranding in Clifton Hill

Posted on by
Reply

A very successful Politician Rebranding session was held this morning by members of Yarra Climate Action Now (YCAN) in Clifton Hill. Local Labor MP Richard Wynne had set out to promote his green credentials with a ‘Showerhead Exchange’. The YCAN members were on hand across the road to point out some more urgent environmental priorities! The ‘Honk for Urgent Climate Action’ sign proved a real winner with passing motorists (much to the chagrin of Mr Wynne and his staffers!) Video below.

For more info on the weekly rebranding sessions outside Richard Wynne’s office, check out the YCAN blog.

Greens’ Interim Carbon Tax Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

The Greens have put forward an interim (two year) carbon tax proposal in place of the CPRS (apparently based on a suggestion by Garnaut). Seems like this proposal ma do a reasonable job of buying some time to work towards a better long term proposal (hopefully improving rather than further worsening the targets, compensation, offsets, other dodginess). Not sure Fielding would every support it though (perhaps one Lib senator may). Rudd has said he’ll consider it, as you’d expect – need to see how strong the disconnect between words and action is (a force that is usually strong with this one!)

Update: Christine Milne in The Australian – Interim carbon price preferable to time-wasting political stunt

What keeps us from coming to terms with the climate crisis

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting perspective from psychologist George Marshall (who can also be found at Carbon Detox and Climate Change Denial) in Yes magazine: Why We Find It So Hard to Act Against Climate Change

So why has so little happened? Why do people who claim to be very concerned about climate change continue their high-carbon lifestyles? And why, as the warnings become ever louder, do increasing numbers of people reject the arguments of scientists and the evidence of their own eyes?

According to Norgaard, most people have tacitly agreed that it is socially inappropriate to pay attention to climate change. It does not come up in conversations, or as an issue in voting, consumption, or career choices. We are like a committee that has decided to avoid a thorny problem by conspiring to make sure that it never makes it onto the agenda of any meeting.

In opinion poll research the majority of people will define it as far away (“it’s a global problem, not a local problem”) or far in the future (“it’s a huge problem for future generations”). They embrace the tiny cluster of skeptics as evidence that “it’s only a theory,” and that “there is still a debate.” And they strategically shift the causes as far away as possible: “I’m not the problem—it’s the Chinese/rich people/corporations.” Here in Europe we routinely blame the Americans.

In all of these examples, people have selected, isolated, and then exaggerated the aspects of climate change that best enable their detachment. And, ironically, focus-group research suggests that people are able to create the most distance when climate change is categorized as an “environmental” problem.

How can we energize people and prevent them from passively standing by?

We must remember that people will only accept a challenging message if it speaks to their own language and values and comes from a trusted communicator.

We must recognize that the most trusted conveyors of new ideas are not experts or celebrities but the people we already know.

And finally we need to recognize that people are best motivated to start a journey by a positive vision of their destination—in this case by understanding the real and personal benefits that could come from a low-carbon world.

Quiggin to debate Ian Plimer and Lord Monckton

Posted on by
Reply

Should make for an interesting debate. Hopefully it will be available online in some format. Per John Quiggin…

So, the only way to approach it is to address the underlying conspiracy theory directly. If Monckton and Plimer are right, all the major scientific bodies in the world are engaged in a conspiracy to introduce communist world government by (drumroll!) auctioning tradeable carbon emissions permits. The question is, can I convince an audience sympathetic to delusionism that this is a really silly thing to believe?

Update: Per JQ in Crikey, looks like he won’t be banging his head against the brick wall in this instance. Good luck to Barry Brook then!

I actually thought about taking part, announcing my role as a participant in the global conspiracy and pointing out to the assembled sceptics the futility of resisting plans that already had the backing of all major world leaders and the entire scientific community. But before I had time to make up my mind I discovered the institute had also offered the gig to Professor Barry Brook, who had accepted.

Hottest Decade on Record

Posted on by
Reply

Not surprising, per The Age: Hottest decade on record

Australia experienced its hottest decade on record from 2000 to 2009 due to global warming, the nation’s bureau of meteorology said today.

The average temperature in Australia over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, the Bureau of Meteorology said in its annual climate statement.

And 2010 is forecast to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average.

China’s Role at Copenhagen

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting (and if true, rather depressing) perspective on what went on at Copenhagen from Mark Lynas at The Guardian: How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

Update: A valuable counterpoint is provided by Alex Pasternack at Treehugger: Why Blaming China for Copenhagen Won’t Help the Climate

China’s role at Copenhagen reminds us of the key issue dividing the developing and developed world: while it hurtles towards a clean tech economy, China, like other high-emitting developing nations, is laser-focused on its “right to develop.” And it expects the developed world to do much more to prevent climate change. Rightly so.

Ultimately, it was President Obama who seemed to keep talks alive. “I don’t want to mess around with this anymore, I want to just talk with Premier Wen,” he reportedly told a member of his staff as talks seemed to be devolving into an Upstairs-Downstairs farce (see also the President’s own account, from an interview with News Hour, at Dot Earth). Obama’s relationships with world leaders and his determination to get them to agree to something not only prevented back-tracking but kept intact some measure of good will. We need as much of that as possible as we continue trying to forge a climate agreement.

So what did Obama bring to Copenhagen? He offered cuts of 3-4% from 1990 levels (part of an average 11-19% overall reduction by other developed nations) by 2020. In fact, entering Copenhagen, no country seemed prepared to do anything near what scientists say is adequate to help combat climate change (cuts of 40% by 2020).

That makes the question of whether China held Copenhagen hostage moot. There was little to hold hostage, and no ransom to be won.

Ultimately, I left Copenhagen without bitterness or blame, but a head-numbing sense of confusion and conundrum. From the pile of debris left behind, I took these lessons:
- The world treated COP15 like a trade treaty, not a peace treaty.
- However powerful China may now be — or however powerful people wish to perceive it –the most powerful actor on the climate stage is the United States, led by President Obama.
- The fragile sense of trust exposed in the aftermath of Copenhagen cuts both ways.
- The leaders of the developing world have a lot to do. The developed world has to do more.

Keane: Take your CPRS and shove it

Posted on by
Reply

From a  while back, but an underappreciated piece of brilliance from Bernard Keane at Crikey: Take your CPRS and shove it.

I don’t know about you (no, really, I don’t) but I’m utterly over the CPRS debate. It’s been a long road since early last year, when Penny Wong blithely called the Garnaut Review “one input” into the Government’s consideration, in effect spilling the beans, or giving the game away, or belling the cat, or whatever cliché takes your fancy. I’m now sick of emissions trading. Sick of Wong’s tedious droning, of Kevin Rudd’s sanctimony, of the Coalition climate denialists who make a virtue out of their own intellectual and emotional disabilities.

Let us hope that decades hence, the descendants of our current MPs  — I mean their political descendants, not their actual kids, assuming the major parties don’t adopt preselection by hereditary right  — will not have to stand up in the Great Hall and apologise for it. Apologise to the people who died of dengue fever or in bushfires, apologise to the families of the elderly who succumbed to heatwaves. Apologise to the tourism employees who lost their jobs when our great reefs died. Apologise to the farmers forced off the land as the Murray-Darling dried up. Sorry, dried up even more.

I won’t copy it all here, but ’tis brilliant, so just go and read it!