Agmates has stated that the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme will do little to fight climate change. In my opinion the scheme is chiefly designed to give the Rudd Government global green kudos and Australian’s a warm and fuzzy green glow.
Dr James Lovelock
Leading British scientist Dr James Lovelock backs up what I and others have been saying. In an interview with Radio New Zealand he has warned that Emissions Trading Schemes world wide are a waste of time.
He says while an ETS will help the profits of some companies, it will do nothing to stop global warming.
Listen to a podcast of what Lovelock had to say Here.
Lovelock was one of the first scientist to warn the world of the impacts of global warming.
He is also the man who formulated the Gaia hypothesis, was the first man to detect the presence of CFC’s and has predicted that 80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD, and this climate change will last 100,000 years.
The Rudd government should abandon the ETS sham and move to take practical measures that will have a real and lasting impact on the environment. Those steps should be anything that will prepare us as a nation for what lies ahead.
( thanks to reader Jeff)
10 Comments
Steve,
James Lovelock believes that catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam.
“Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics.”
Of course, if he is right, and he may be, then the response could only be to keep polluting on . Let’s die with our boots on, our lights on and our 4wds ripping it up.
Of course if he is wrong, and he may be, then we need to find answers that will get us out of whatever sh*t we are in, the best way we can.
We could just stop polluting and hope for the best. Great! but who’s going to organise that one? I think we have run out of great dictators and a global one might be a little hard top organise – especially at such late notice.
As I have some (maybe misplaced) faith in the fact that people are not stupid enough to kill
themselves too quickly, the information we already have is enough for a dramatic a call to action.
So rather than re-invent to wheel I think the only sensible thing to do is to use the weapon that created part of this mess to fix it. Emissions trading, when done right, will harness the enormous power of the market and business to turn around this profligate and disastrous polluting.
The global corporate and business machine we have built over centuries is the single most powerful tool we have – more powerful than government and more powerful than any military hardware.
With such an urgent and massive problem the question for everyone is why on God’s earth would we not use it?
Well I guess the first point is should the whole simply forget what many other experts are saying and listen to this one person and say; ok every one else is totally wrong – this guy understands it better, has superior intelligence to everyone other person and is far smarter than the thousands of other scientists that say something different.
Then you would have to ask this person what respect would you have for any government that ignored the advice of an overwhelming majority of scientists and simply went with one persons views, because….well…he sounds more plausible? I’m not sure on what basis people would take this view over others.
I am certain this ‘its too late view’ is a godsend to major polluters – they have no impetus to do anything since nothing they will do can stop the inevitable. So, if there ever were a chance it will be totally lost.
So I have to ask this Scientist – is he so certain on his views that the whole world should give up trying to stop it. Don’t take the medicine it is too late. Don’t do the radiation and chemotherapy, you are going to die anyway, don’t look for a cure for Aids it is impossible to find and etc… SO that is a fair bit of self confidence there, willing to condemn the entire world on the basis of his opinion against a vast majority.
Then the next problem with this is if the population feel there it is too late then they will simply say there is no point in doing anything, we will just have to live with whatever the world gives us and, it is going to be future generations who suffer anyway.
Now he might want Rudd to undertake all sorts of actions – but with a its too late to stop climate change message there will be no support from the public at all – they will cease to care and any government spending too much time or money on some of these other things will be voted out quick smart.
The only reason the public is behind any of this (and that might change if it hits their pockets too much) is that they are being told that if we do something now we can save the situation – they have hope. Take it away and no conservation program is going to mean anything to them – especially if it costs them money.
SO regardless of the truth (and no one can say they have, and one can simply condemn the world on their personal view alone) the only way to get action from governments is to ensure their is public support and that can only be if they believe there is some good chance that actions they take can save the day.
“The Rudd government should abandon the ETS sham and move to take practical measures that will have a real and lasting impact on the environment. Those steps should be anything that will prepare us as a nation for what lies ahead.”
Care to make any suggestions? ‘Anything that will prepare us as a nation’ is a pretty broad statement to make.
Isn’t the ‘waste of time’ argument really just adding to the weight of material that sceptics can use to claim we should do nothing?
The biggest drawback to an emissions trading scheme is the concept of carbon sequestration. If you can take carbon out of the short term carbon cycle and put it into a long term one then you have sequestered carbon. But growing trees does not do this, trees are good for nature and sequester carbon short term but not long term. Practical solutions are what is needed. Join forces with other coal producing nations and tax the bloody bejesus out of coal. Use the tax to build solar power stations and to develop other renewable technologies. Make the coal generated power more expensive than the renewable generated stuff and people and business will stop polluting. Its not rocket science, it does harness the market via a bit of market interference.
People the world over want to fix this problem but business drags its feet. People will choose to support produce from nations where a project like this is implemented all they require is the information. Governments can help by doubly taxing the bejesus out of nations without the scheme so that their produce is uncompetitive. Come on lets tax carbon because any emissions trading scheme will only inspire innovation on how to cheat it. That’s why it wont work.
G’day All,
Good to hear your points of view. I ran the article to create some thought and discussion which you all obviously have.
I could have published any one of 1,000’s of Climate Change skeptics, but this is actually coming from the very first scientist who warned of man made climate change back in the 1960’s. As you all no doubt know Dr James Lovelock is the father of the man made global warming hypothesis, just as he is the founder of the Gaia Hypothesis.
So its good to see what he is saying (because of his pedigree on the issue) has made people step back a bit and think!
So let me briefly address your comments in the order they have been made:
1. Kit: I’m with you. I’m a great believer that human’s have the ability to adapt and innovate through technology to whatever challenge is thrown up to us as a species. History has proven that time and again.
Is an emissions trading scheme the correct response. Done Globally – probably. Done in isolation (Locally) – absolutely no chance.
The Global credit crisis the world is going through right now graphically demonstrates the following statement you made to be 100% correct:
“The global corporate and business machine we have built over centuries is the single most powerful tool we have – more powerful than government and more powerful than any military hardware.”
Again with the emphasis on “Global”
2. Thomas: Again I agree with what you have said. I don’t subscribe to the “fatalistic view”. If we as a species did subscribe to that view what need would we have for science, innovation, technology?
A great example I remember is the oil shock of the 1970’s and the Club of Rome prediction that the world runs out of oil in 30 years. Scared the hell out of everybody – so fatalistic. Those readers not old enough to remember it (I was a teenager at the time) the Club of Rome was todays equivalent of the IPCC.
What they did not account for was our ability as a species to innovate. Technology came up with computerized fuel injection to replace the carburettor and overnight effectively halving engine fuel consumption and thus doubling the life of known oil reserves.
I’m a firm believer that we are always just a moment away from the next great advance in technology that will solve the current climate crisis. If an emissions trading scheme is the catalyst that focuses the great minds and resources of the world on finding that / those solutions then it is a great thing. If an emissions trading scheme does not do that – it is a complete waste of time.
Itep: I hope I’ve answer your question with my comments above. I think you’ll find that Lovelock has made his comments based on what he has seen the EU scheme achieve – Which is virtually nothing. If it had we would have seen some great innovation coming out of the EU and reductions in their emissions. I don’t believe we have seen either.
twobob: I’m pleased that you mention coal. Let us just put coal into perspective:
1. Coal is the cheapest cource of energy in the world.
2. Australia is the worlds leading exporter of coal.
3. Coal is mined in 70 countries and most countries use all of their coal themselves to generate energy.
4. Japan (not China) imports 44% of all the coal Australia exports (2006-2007).
5. China imports just 2.4% of all the coal Australia exported last year.
6. China is the worlds largest producer of coal with estimated reserves of 76 billion tonnes which is about double Australia’s reserves.
7. China commissions a new coal-fire power station every week and as a results adds the entire Australian electricity generating capacity every 9 months.
8. India’s domestic coal reserves are estimated at 60 billion tonnes, which is approx 50% greater than Australia.
9. In China and India which have about 37% of the worlds population approx 1.8 billion people do not have access to power.
So which coal producing nations would you suggest that we
“Join forces with other coal producing nations and tax the bloody bejesus out of coal.”
China and India - I think not – not unless you are suggesting that we consign 1.8 billion people to living their entire lives without electricity ala in poverty.
Your suggestion about solar energy is a good one, but unfortunately at this stage the technology is not a cheap, self sustaining and reliable source of energy.
Through innovation – when it or whatever it is, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, wave – becomes a cheaper and more reliable source of power you won’t have to tax the bejesus out of coal, and in the process permanently enslave billions of people in third world poverty. Burning coal will become a thing of the past – just like burning whale oil did in the late 1800’s.
Cheers Guys – interested to hear your thoughts – Your Agmate Steve.
Steve
In 2006, the following seven nations exported the most coal by weight.
1. Australia … 231 metric tons (33.5% of the top seven coal exporters, up 23.7% from 2000)
2. Indonesia … 129 metric tons (18.7%, up 127.1%)
3. Russia … 92 metric tons (13.4%, up 168.2%)
4. South Africa … 69 metric tons (10%, down 1.4%)
5. China … 63 metric tons (9.1%, up 14.3%)
6. Colombia … 60 metric tons (8.7%, up 74.4%)
7. United States … 45 metric tons (6.5%, down 15.1%)
I would suggest that these are the nations who we should join with in increasing the cost of coal through tax.
We should also extend invitation’s to China and India realising of course that by taxing coal we don’t stop electricity production we just change the competitive advantage that coal has over renewables.
This does not mean that we consign 1.8 billion people to living their lives without electricity. If you look here you might realise that both China and India have at least as much ability to afford this as has Australia and the US.
While ever coal can be dug from the ground without tax it will be a cheaper source of power. You change that with a tax. (That’s what funds the innovative research and gives the alternatives a competitive advantage).
And finally according to a British Petroleum estimate in June 2007, India has 92 billion tonnes Australia has 78.5 billion tonnes.
That means that Australia has 85 % of India’s coal reserves not 50%. Burning coal will only become a thing of the past when either the energy produced from it costs more than renewable energy or we run out.
My suggestion will hasten the former.
G’day twobob,
While we are inviting China to tax coal we might also invite them to stop oppressing the Tibetans. My suggestion is that China will take about as much notice of an invitation to tax their citizens for coal fired power as they do about Tibet.
Why do you think that we need a government – any government to financially punish its citizens to make them responsible. Our whole economy, indeed the whole worlds prosperity has thrived on cheap energy – from fossil fuels.
I don’t mean to be rude, but you are actually fantasizing if you think that China & India are about to abandon cheap energy – China in particular is on the threshold of becoming the new world super power. Their citizens enjoy an average yearly income of about US $3,000 up from about US $700 at the start of the new millennium. In fact millions of Chinese families are now for the first time ever buying a car (remember how excited and proud you were when you got your first car, that feeling of independence).
Twobob did you not see in my previous response that China is replicating the entire Australian coal-fired power electricity output every nine months in an effort to allow millions of Chinese citizens to enjoy for the first time what we have always taken for granted – electricity in their homes.
Instead of us waiting around hoping that the governments India and China will impose taxes that will keep millions of their citizens in abject poverty we should be doing all we can as individuals to cut or personal carbon emissions.
We all need and should take that responsibility – not delegate the responsibility to a government – hoping by paying a carbon levy that the government will fix the problem for us.
If the government was fairdinkum about forcing industry into cutting their emissions they would just tax them and not allow them to pass those taxes onto us the consumer. What incentive is their for Corporates to cut emissions when they past the cost straight to Joe citizen? Its just a quasi GST, and for that reason I believe a total waste of time.
I know that you would already being responsible and cutting your personal emissions, because I think you care.
Cheers mate.
Hi all,
Looks to me like earlier comments might have interpreted the article as a rally to do nothing etc, I think Steve’s reply has clarified the theme i.e. the point is that ETS can be nothing more than another revenue-source for the big players, if it’s the big players that influence how an ETS gets implemented.
ltep – ‘prepare us as a nation’ I don’t think is a ‘bold’ statement – I think I get your point, but if we’re not approaching it on a national scale, then how else do we develop strategies? I think what is ‘bold’ is asking any one person to come up with suggestions
We all got little bits to put in to reach that point!
And as discussed, we as a ‘developed’ nation (for point of this argument, let’s ‘ignore’ fact that lots of remote/rural/indigenous Australia is under-developed) and with relatively small population and high per-capita consumption, cannot realistically expect to change some of the emerging powers like china, India et al.
They saw the west get where they are on the back of fossil fuels, and though they have the benefit of more technology now (look at the alt energy products china is implementing/exporting for example – hydro, PV, LED’s, etc) they will still no doubt continue to pull their masses (and therefore their companies/governments) into more lucrative living by using those cheaper, more accessible resources in the initial stages.
I guess that’s why aust is spending lots on geosequestration and clean-coal tech, they think they can sell it to these countries. I don’t really agree with all of this approach, but I see what is driving it, several billion people that can’t care about saving the world for Westeners to keep having movie theatres in their loungeroom, when said billions don’t have a loungeroom at all, nor power nor dentists nor basic hygiene services nor reasonable income for their slave labour.
Their priorities are vastly different to ours – they gotta survive from day to day before they can worry about saving the planet for their children. That’s not to say they don’t think about the future though, just what is accessible for them to make changes is more limited.
Returning to the point I’m aiming at – though putting a cost on e.g. coal, carbon, CO2 could be a good driver for changes, on a global scale it will be difficult, and the ETS could end up a farce. For example, I know in Europe, they like to promote how much they’ve gone towards biofuels to reduce emissions etc – but those biofuels come from clear-felled Indonesian rainforests that are replanted with palm-oil plantations and then the native animals like bats and primates that like the date palms for food (considering their other food sources were burned) also get decimated. And the local communities are at the whim of the multinationals.
So in one corner of the world, the “green” change has been anything but green for the people/landscape that foots the bill. But if you leave out the details of the damage prior to harvesting said palm oil, then of course it looks better than coal/crude oil.
So I think too much is being pinned on the ETS itself for trading carbon, rather than aspects of an ETS that could reduce i.e. direct development of renewable energies. That’s the take home message I get from the initial article.
My suggestions are nothing new – less spent on bailing out failed foreign companies and political wars, more spent on wind/wave/etc energy and generally educating people to use less and reuse/recycle properly, and helping developing regions develop without having to destroy their natural resources to ‘catch up’ to us.
How we achieve that – less simple to answer… because I could say that once people feel healthy and secure, then they will by their nature care about their environment and be able to do something for it, but I take a look around my society, and I see that once we feel healthy and secure, we develop an insatiable appetite for more security, more belongings and junk… or is that something we’ve had ’sold’ to us by the rich and powerful minority?…
G’day Shane,
Mate – absolutely spot on. The exact point is that we as Australians will pay an estimated $5 billion in the first year (indexed from there on). What happens to that money then. Firstly you have to take out the massive bureaucratic cost to administer it, then you have to take out 50% of it that will be given back to low and middle income households. Just a piddling 20% of it will go into research & development.
A huge churn of money for what result?
If as treasury forecasts that oil and commodities will slide in price by 40% over the next 7 years – The ETS will be a total farce.
Why as a nation do we need to rely on a government tax to cut CO2 emissions. An ETS will not reduce Carbon emissions unless it make a serious dent in our fossil fuel based economy. Note that the Global Credit Crisis will do more to cut carbon emissions than any ETS introduced into Australia.
Cheers –