My word, we are such a godawfully idiotic species.
I could only laugh last night as our television networks swarmed all over a Parliamentary committee report – a report by a group of politicians, so that makes it special – about the threat posed by rising sea levels.
The report might have been concerned about the fact that 80% of Australians live within 6m of sea level but it was the people who live within $6m of sea level that they were mostly interested in.
Nine, making a compelling bid for the most facile report of the year (step up reporter Mark Burrows), interviewed some clown living at Collaroy, who declared everything was hunky dory where he was, then gave some airtime to Ian Plimer and promptly declared “the scientists are divided”.
Despite Ian Plimer having the climate science credibility of those Hey Hey blackface blokes, that’s the view of an influential media outlet on climate change – it’s too early to tell. This sort of thing is infinitely more damaging than whatever The Australian tells its old white rich male readership, because it actually goes to a mass audience. According to those dribbling halfwits at Nine News, any scientist’s views on climate change will do. The consensus view of the world’s climate scientists, the depressingly rapid accumulation of data to reinforce it, and the repeated humiliation of Plimer by people who have a clue about climate science, mean nothing.
Still, the tabloid journo instincts couldn’t be restrained – what if all those well-off plonkers living on prime beachfront real estate ended up inundated by rising sea levels?
I know the feeling. I’ve always been sanguine about rising sea levels. I can only think of multi-million dollar properties disappearing beneath the waves and offer a glib remark about “position, position, position.” Maybe it’s a Canberra thing. Sea levels need to rise by 600 metres to worry us here, and that’s well beyond even Peter Garrett’s wildest projections.
Not everyone can be so sanguine. Not the owners of beachfront properties, who could see their land reclaimed by the sea in a matter of years, and who are starting to demand that ratepayers and taxpayers pay to protect their homes.
But then, if worst comes to worst, they can always move somewhere else.
What if there was nowhere to move to? No inland. No higher ground, no safe place away from the waves?
80% of Australians may live within 6m of sea level but that’s nothing compared to our Pacific neighbours. They face not the inconvenience of finding new homes for millionaires, but the end of their existence as separate states. It is starting slowly, with rising salinity, and more damaging storms, and changing vegetation patterns and growing seasons. Soon it will escalate. More villages will become uninhabitable. More people will be displaced internally. More civil conflict, more fights over resources, will occur. The “arc of instability” will demand more Australian resources and there’ll be ever-increasing pressure to increase immigration from the Pacific.
That’s what climate change means when your entire country is beachfront property, and it’s not the rich but the poor who live by the sea.
Yes, we’re so much better at understanding problems when we can put a face to them. Even if we have no sympathy for them, we can understand wealthy beachfront residents worrying – or not – about rising sea levels. The idea of entire countries disappearing beneath the waves doesn’t punch our buttons in quite the same way.
But it will, eventually. Sooner or later, our inaction on climate change will exact a price. Let’s see even the most bigoted xenophobe demand that refugees be “sent back home” when they’ve come here because their home doesn’t exist any more. Let’s see them turn around the boats when the boats have nowhere to go.
That’ll put the problems of northern beaches millionaires in a bit of perspective.
28 Comments
Well said Bernard.
Agreed, well said.
The last bit though – I have no doubt that there are bigoted xenophobes who would want to sink the boats of those refugees and have them drown. Or at the very least bigoted xenophobes who would send the refugees elsewhere: anywhere but here.
“…Let’s see even the most bigoted xenophobe demand that refugees be “sent back home” when they’ve come here because their home doesn’t exist any more…”
Nothing like a bit of baseless tabloid drama to spice up your column Bernard.
Well done.
Based on his previous pronouncements Clive Hamilton would send them back:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/its-life-but-certainly-not-as-we-want-it/2006/12/29/1166895477172.html?page=2
“…Under a policy of zero net migration…”
“…Unlike natural population growth, the immigration tap can be eased back tomorrow…”
“…Doing so is the only way to protect the quality of life in Sydney…”
I’d say that makes Clive Hamilton a textbook xenophobe.
Thank you for your comment, MPM. When I have magically transformed into Clive Hamilton, I’ll take note of it.
Having received little sympathy from people living east of the Great Dividing Range when it came to environmental problems in the country, I find myself unable to get too upset about the beachfront properties about to have their foundations wash away.
What I can do is give them the same advice that was often sent in our direction, if it’s such a problem, don’t live there.
Agreed Bernard. I really don’t care about expensive Australian houses being washed into the ocean. Same as I have no sympathy for people surrounded by eucalypts losing their houses to fire; there’s a risk/reward equation in choosing to live somewhere so nice. Beaches and dunes are mobile. Always will be.
But this is entirely different to forcing the change onto someone else. Which country will be the first modern Atlantis?
“the fact that 80% of Australians live within 6m of sea level” smells more than a little fishy to me. Are you sure you haven’t misplaced an order of magnitude somewhere? Variations I could believe are:
- 80% of Australians live within 60m of sea level
- 80% of Australians live within 6 km of the coastline
- 8% of Australians live within 6m of sea level
Is it any of these, or none of them? What’s the source for this, anyway?
Well done, MPM, that was one of the more spectacularly deliberately misleading pieces of nonsense I’ve read in a while.
Clive’s piece you link to in the very first paragraph talks about net population growth meaning accepting in the order of 40,000 people every year. That is a number far far greater than our current refugee acceptance.
It is arrant nonsense that Clive would turn around refugees from islands goingunder thanks to climate change.
Oh, and a great piece, Bernard. Clearly your frustrations are growing at the same pace as mine… The mainstream media, just like mainstream pollies, will one day have to take personal responsibility for their role in bringing on the climate crisis.
What is it with teh Left (of which Bernard, apparently, is a member) and not all being Clive Hamilton?
P.S. Great post, Bernard. A colleague of mine has family from Kiribati, where most of the land is just a few metres above sea level (as I understand it, one island approaches 100 metres above but hardly anyone lives there because its mining potential has been exploited already). Apart from seeing the recent fear whenever there was news of a tsunami in the Pacific, she lives with the knowledge that the long-term future for the nation is grim. We will be taking responsibility for the resettlement of people in this situation. It would be nice if we could show the anticipation and empathy in dealing with the world right now.
Al Gore bought a beach front property in California last year. According to the University of Colorado, Sea level has been rising at the “accelerated” rate of 3 mm per year on average for the last 15 years (but slowing) so in 100 years at this rate it will have risen and alarming 300 mm or for the Americans – 12 inches. (However tidal gauges suggest the rise is less than 2 mm per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise) I don’t think Al Gore is worried about his beach front property being inundated and the Pacific Islanders shouldn’t either. Sea level fell in the Maldives – some assume net evaporation or pressure differentials – I doubt that any of us alive now need worry. U of C satellite data shows the Maldives are in an area of stable or falling sea level: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/maps.php
Atmospheric pressure differences and storm surges make much more impact than the small global average sea level changes.
Which country will be the first Atlantis? Venice, or the Netherlands. Ok, Venice is a city. If we allow cities, then it was New Orleans.
Mark, I just googled “80% of Australians live within 6m of sea level” and got a lot of results. Seems everyone is using that number. It’s also not clear to me if someone who lives 1000km from the coast but at sea level would be included in these numbers.
Bernard as stated on Lionel’s piece, I have been delving into West Altas oil spill. Both parties are running scared of this monster. Washer is WA MP and invested as anyone in the real politik of the $50B Gorgon@Barrow@Kimberley. So far 5.88 million gallons have spewed out, which is half Exxon Valdez and counting at 10.8 million gallons. We know it’s this big because Siewart@Estimates got Env Dept wonk to admit Oct 21 that it’s 2000 barrels a day, not 400 barrels. Oakbarrel virtually conceded Seiwart was right all along despite his Sept 4 crash and slur in national News Corp press, by having Bob Brown on last Sunday – mainly on refugees but also West Atlas in very subdued tones. No attack on greenie exageration with Saint Bob.
Check The Australian today – the industry are turning on West Atlas operators looking for a big big scapegoat. What better way to smother the bad news with this politician controlled timing sea level report? Just as Garrett announced 2M ha NT park the day Siewart flew over West Atlas on August 28.
It’s a PR offset leveraging the run up to Copenhagen, but they must be scared there in Cabinet, as the oil spews out and the monsoon approaches to send it to … The Coast.
Uh-oh, I think we have a rogue meme in the making here. I haven’t tried this before, but if you can, have a look here. It’s a map I’ve just banged together of the Sydney urban area (red), overlaid with that part of the Australian 9 second DEM between zero and 6 metres above sea level (the little blue squares). If this is any sort of indication, and I reckon it is, I’ll eat my hat if 80% of Australians live within 6m of sea level. Other reports I’ve seen have it as ‘80% of Australians live near the coast’ (i.e. more like my second option above), which I find much more plausible (and of course nowhere near as alarming with respect to prospective sea level rise).
And Evan, I reckon you could literally count on one hand the number of people living both below 6 metres and over 1000 km from the coast; you’re basically talking the remarkably empty greater Lake Eyre region and very little else.
This is what Crikey does best – takes the small-minded NIMBY approach to journalsim of the tabloids and gives them a good slap with a reality stick dipped in perspective. Love it.
Considering the worst case scenario from the bogus IPCC modelling is less than the daily tidal variation the wailing above is nothing short of HILARIOUS.
Special shout-out to Evan for the “Pick o’ the Day”:
“…Which country will be the first modern Atlantis?…”
That’s GOLD!!
Much as I don’t like the well heeled folk who have made out like bandits while anything like productive effort in the world economy was strangled by debt, but its not only Bangladeshi’s who can’t tread water who have a problem. I fear that the rich and landed of Australia are going to start pushing the pollies to drain the tax payer for climate change mitigation which is suddenly so much needed when it means sandbagging the golf course, rather than paying for actual power and water for the greater masses. If suburbia is the greatest misallocation of resources ever, the saving it is going to be compounding the mistake somewhat.
I’m getting quite concerned about all this – can we have a suitably shaped ‘climate warmometer’ to keep the interest going.
Whatever works to radicalise the coastal chattering classes. I agree that it’s gross, it’s small-minded, but it’s what motivates people. Oh wait you’re talking about MY home? Why didn’t you say? Who do I make my cheque out to?
The fact that the disappearance of entire Pacific Islands is a much worse substantive problem is neither here nor there.
This interactive tool allows you to set the sea level rise and zoom down to street level in any part of the globe. I don’t know what it’s based on or how it’s projections have been calculated so cannot vouch for its accurracy. But if it’s accurrate it makes for sobering play.
I’ve set it for 1 meter rise and zoomed into Sydney harbour. All I can say is thank god i don’t live in Neutral bay. Set it at 2 meter rise and you start to see semi-major roads cut off in parts, and Blues Pt reserve disappears under water.
Thanks for that link, confessions, that would have saved me a bit of fuss and bother. It appears to be using the same digital elevation model that I did, so its accuracy is limited by its resolution (250 metres).
It serves to confirm what I’ve been saying, though: There’s no way that anything like 80% of Australians live less than 6 metres above sea level. If anything, my three alternatives above are still too generous. Bernard, are you going to acknowledge and correct the record, or are you happy to have me speak for you?
Interesting how the same picture can provoke different reactions. To my eye, Neutral Bay and indeed the entire North Shore seem remarkably little affected, even by a year 3000 14 metre SL rise. I think the Hawkesbury Sandstone is reasonably resistant to weathering, so there shouldn’t be too much shoreline recession by erosion, either. If you really want to have some apocalyptic fun, have a look at the Gold Coast.
By the way, MPM @ 5:28 is mostly right on this occasion: By 2100, 2 metres is the extreme worst case IPCC scenario; 0.8 metres is the current best estimate.
‘80% below 6 metres’ isn’t the only dodgy set of catastrophe forecasts flying around, either. ‘17,000 buildings around Tasmania’s coast at risk’ is another that’s been bandied about down here in the wake of the Standing Committee report. This too strikes me as well overinflated, but it’s proving non-trivial to find the original source of this claim and thereby the parameters employed.
Mark Duffet said ‘17,000 buildings around Tasmania’s coast…seems inflated’.
It’s an interesting link. I thought 17000 sounded inflated too, but a bit of playing with the link shows there are quite a few densely populated areas that would be under threat. On the Northwest coast a big chunk of Devonport and most of Latrobe would be inundated as would Port Sorell. In Launceston the CBD and the suburbs up the East side of the Tamar would get quite damp. Hobart seems pretty safe, but the nearby population centres of Lauderdale and South Arm would vanish beneath the waves. And the report said ‘buildings’ so i suppose it would include warehouses and similar buildings near ports. Also, there’s lots of shacks on the East Coast, many of which would be less than 6 m above sea-level.
Whether all that would add up to 17000 I don’t know, but it doesn’t sound unreasonable. Nevertheless, a reference would be nice.
Of course it’s a bogus statement – a meme even. The 2001 census showed that 85% of people lived within 50km of the coastline. I can’t imagine in 8 years there’s been a massive structural shift in our population even further towards the coastline, nor do I think that this is the pertinent point. Where we live in relation to our coast in no way mitigates the effects Australia will experience if there is a 2m sea level rise as predicted.
I agree it is in the eye of the beholder: you see a few streets and an entire head gone and think Meh! I see it and have different thoughts.
By contrast the Maldives are roughly 1.5 meters above sea level. Where do their residents go while we’re busy admiring our resilient Hawkesbury Sandstone? What about other pacific nations? What about places in SE Asia, and japan? Just because we might not be as ‘adversely affected’ as other places, doesn’t mean we won’t be in ways not immediately evident to us now. The problem with interactive maps is they don’t reveal actual effects, just a visual of what the coastline would look like.
As per my PR offset hypothesis:
This story in The Australian broadsheet shows dissension now in the north west shelf industry sector itself ….
“Industry lashes oil-spill firm
Nicolas Perpitch | October 28, 2009
Article from: The Australian
AUSTRALIA’S peak oil and gas body has turned on one of its own, saying established safeguards exist to prevent oil-well blowouts and the disastrous West Atlas spill in the Timor Sea should never have happened. [continues]”
Hilarious comments Most Peculiar Mama! The panickers who annoy me the most though are the gutless wimps who ‘died’ during the Melbourne January heatwave.
Too weak to survive in the heat, hundreds of people insisted on dying, just to panic us about global warming. Fancy global warming being linked with heatwaves – how ridiculous!
With your permission, Most Peculiar Mama, I’d like to write to the families of the deceased pointing out how inappropriate the deaths were, given that you have worked out global warming isn’t happening. Thanks in advance.
Also PS, I guess you’re looking forward to the incredible feedback due to be given the deniers in years to come – from a grateful population enjoying the interesting climate at that time. There’ll certainly be some feedback to give!
Most Peculiar mama is spot on! Ridiculous panickers really annoy me !
A good example are the people who ‘died’ from heatstress in the Melbourne january heatwave. These useless whining wimps insisted on just ’snuffing it’ because it was ‘too hot’.
And of course, these deaths were used to link to Global warming. Oh yes ‘heatwaves’ are a consequence of ‘global warming’. Pull the other one!
Most peculiar mama, with your permission, I’d like to contact the families of the ‘deceased’ here on your behalf to explain their deaths were inappropriate, and should be reversed at once.
Also, its going to be great in a few years time, when ordinary people see the results of all this and give climate deniers the full rich credit they so rightly deserve. The deniers are confident that there’s no problem, so obviously the feedback will be supportive, loving and positive!
I’m thinking the feedback for the climatic equivalent of ‘peace in our time’ will be as forgiving as for the original.
“But this is entirely different to forcing the change onto someone else. Which country will be the first modern Atlantis?”
The Maldives. Their government is already considering buying land somewhere else.