It is hard to keep track of the varying views regarding the economic feasibility and energy potential of the different modes for generating electricity.  There seem to be so many different views about what can and can’t work.

Professor Barry Brook, a well respected climate change scientist at the University of Adelaide, writes today that “Nuclear power is the only proven electricity generation technology that can simultaneously meet reliable baseload demand, anywhere, and yet emit no carbon dioxide when operating, ” and says that France generates nearly 80 per cent of its electricity this way.  He also details how just switching from coal to gas for generating baseload electricity will not be able to address greenshouse targets.

Meanwhile, this report states that “wind energy notched up a new record in Spain on Sunday, when it generated 53 percent of total electricity demand nationwide for part of the day”, before going on to suggest wind generating capacity could be quadrupled, including exporting more of that power to France.  It also details how energy generated through wind power is able to be saved for times of highest demand.

About the only thing that commonly widely accepted is that continuing to expand coal use is like continuing to run further away from the finish line. Naturally, Queensland is currently spending billions of dollars to enable an expansion of coal exports, while privatising coal rail and port infrastructure, making it even more difficult to take any action to reduce coal exports.

Sophie Black drew attention to the thread on the Rooted blog where people have been sharing their “… oh shit” moments about  when they first realised how major the climate change threat is.  It doesn’t make for uplifting reading.

I still believe urgent galvanisation to action is worth a try, rather than going to straight to despondency or staying back in denial. And highlighting the uncomfortable truths is an essential part of that.

If there is one thing less uplifting then reading all the ” … oh shit” moments of the general public, it is reading the about such perceptions amongst climate scientists.  But hopefully it can be galvanising as well.  So at the risk making people feel they may as well give up, go and read these two pieces by Margot O’Neill on the ABC’s site about the current feelings of climate scientists in the lead up to Copenhagen.

However, it is likely that the politics surrounding climate change and the emissions trading legislation will get more attention than the substance of the issue itself. Those who believe the environment merits closer attention are also not likely to be happy with the policy outcomes at the end of the coming week.

The Labor Party is certainly gearing up their efforts to make climate change a major political winner for them.  Climate change is the headline issue on Labor’s website, and Labor MPs have also been focusing on the issue in mailouts to their electorates.

Not surprisingly, the Greens’ website also highlights climate change, and the party has also been devoting some of their far more limited resources to getting their message out that Labor’s emissions trading scheme will not be strong enough, and – in their words – ‘locks in failure’.

There is little doubt the incoherence of the Liberal and National Parties’ positions will make it easy for Labor to come out looking good by comparison. But Labor looks to be wanting more than that, seeking to create a perception that their emissions trading scheme measure will be sufficient to provide Australia’s contribution to heading off rapid climate change.

The political battle on climate change will be a rare occasion where the battle between Labor and the Greens is as significant as that between Labor and the Liberals.  Labor will be working hard to portray the Greens’ position as untenable, unreasonable or too economically harmful.

If Labor can convince the general electorate that their position on climate change is more effective and workable than Greens, they will go a big way towards neutralising the prospect of them making any major inroads into Labor’s vote at the next election.

As well as maintaining their attacks on the Liberals – which is like shooting fish in a barrel at the moment – Labor is also trying to paint the Greens as playing politics and suggesting the Greens want to block legislation to increase the chances of a double dissolution, which it is alleged will favour the Greens.

I’m not convinced the Greens overall Senate position would end up better off if there was a double dissolution, and the outside chances they have in lower house seats like Melbourne, Sydney and Fremantle won’t be changed by a double dissolution.

Regardless of how soon the election is held, it is reasonable to expect climate change to be a significant issue in the campaign. And the more Labor can convince people their stance will properly address the issue, and paint the Greens as extremists, the more they will maximise their primary vote.

Of course, the Greens aren’t in any position to negotiate any sort of compromise with the government to get a better emissions trading scheme through the Senate, even if they wanted to. At present Senators Fielding and Xenophon would also need to be on board with such a compromise, and the prospects of that happening are less than zero.

Almost all the domestic political debate on climate change in Australia to date seems to have been focused on arguments about the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and to some extent on the relative merits of energy derived from renewables like solar wind and geothermal, or gas, or coal with sequestration or nuclear power.  Very little attention has been paid to the dire consequences facing many island residents – even Torres Strait Islanders get little attention, despite being part of Australia.

Ms Pelinise Alofa Pilitati, the Chairperson of the Churches Education Directors Association in Kiribati, emphasised the bonds between all the people of the Pacific region.  She spoke of water supplies and soil already getting saline, with damage being done to coconut palms which produce their main cash crop.

She also gave the example of the Banaban people. I had not been aware of this group, who were displaced by the Japanese in WW2 & again by western nations to enable phosphate extraction, and may now be facing a third shift.

Rev Tafue Lusama, from the Christian Church of Tuvalu; also spoke of the increasing degradation of water and land quality.  Damage to their coral reefs from warming water and ocean acidification will also deplete their fish stocks and weaken a natural protective barrier against storm surges.  The impact of this was made all the more stark when he informed people that the highest point in Tuvalu is about four meters above sea level.  He stated that their whole right to existence as a nation is under challenge.

Ms Marstella Jack, the former Attorney-General of the Federated States of Micronesia, noted that their staple diet of fish, coconuts and bananas were all under threat from climate change.  A couple of times during the evening she emphasised that her people don’t want to leave their islands, but they may not have any choice, as well as stating that it was natural that people in times of crisis would turn to their neighbours for help.

All three speakers, as well as Mr John Kris, who spoke as the Chair of the Torres Strait Regional Authority, called for Australia to adopt and push for much stronger and quicker emission reduction targets of at least 40 per cent by 2020, as well as more assistance to enable vulnerable island peoples to adapt.

King tides and storm surges have always been a fact of life for people living on islands in the Torres Strait, but the meeting was told that areas that had never been affected before, such as cemeteries and buildings, were now being inundated at such times.

Sam Reuben, a Townsville based man of Torres Strait Islander heritage outlined the human rights aspect of climate change.  In particular, he drew on the United Nation’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the current Australian government has formally endorsed.

Article 8 of the Declaration includes the following:

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.  States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
a.    Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
b.    Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

The application of climate change in this context and the obligation it puts on governments is obvious.

The speakers from Oxfam and Greenpeace were short, strong and to the point, emphasising our obligation to do all we can to assist poorer peoples in our region.  Andrew Hewett, the Executive Director of Oxfam Australia, also stated that the federal government’s current reduction targets are not good enough, and should be based on science, not politics.

He also said climate change was one of the dominant issues for anyone concerned with poverty & development issues.  If an agreement is reached at the upcoming Copenhagen summit which is not just, then it simply won’t work.  That means we all need to work to create the political will for greater emission reductions, as well providing more help to island peoples for adaptation, and think in advance about how best to deal with almost inevitable movements of people that will be occurring in the near future.

Hewitt warned that it would be risky to wait until the forced movement of people begins before figuring out what to do on the hop.  We need to plan how best to allow easier movement of people and ensure it is done in a manner that if based on the views of the people of the Pacific.

The evening as a whole was chaired by Sonia Caton, who is the Director of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Service in Brisbane.  Linking in with Andrew Hewitt’s comment about the movements of people that will be brought about by climate change, she emphasised that such people would not and should not be called refugees.  Movement brought about by natural disasters and extreme weather events are not covered by the Refugee Convention, which is another to think now about the best and fairest migration law framework to apply to people in these situations.

The same speakers will be in Melbourne on Thursday 30 July and then in Cairns on Sunday 2 August, in the lead up to the Pacific Islands Forum being held there next week.

Another group of people affected by the impacts of climate change on water will also be doing a speaking tour of Australia next months.  This time, instead of people from the tropics, it will be people from the icy mountain regions of Nepal.  Their Big Melt tour aims to draw attention to the huge impacts on water supply for millions of people if the glaciers melt.
The speakers will visit Canberra, Sydney, Wollongong, Brisbane and Melbourne between August 11 and 17.

ELSEWHERE: If for some reason you want to see my efforts to live-Tweet this forum, search for #climatechangePacific on Twitter.

See also this piece by Bernard Keane at Crikey.

This article by Jane McAdam and Maryanne Loughry examines why the people of Tuvalu and Kiribati don’t like the term ‘climate refugees’.

Some good balanced background information on Tuvalu and the climate change debate, by David Corlett, authour of Stormy Weather: The Challenge of Climate Change and Displacement.

There has been some small attention given to the climate change related legislation seeking to implement a carbon pricing mechanism, but even that coverage has mostly been about the politics surrounding the legislation, rather than the content and impacts of the legislation itself.  Meanwhile, many other proposed laws, such as workplace relations or transparency of donations to political parties, get almost completely ignored.

This isn’t about blaming the media – you can’t blame them for providing what people want to hear, and people prefer conflict, scandal and intrigue, rather than policy detail. But we should recognise such firestorms for what they are, and the excuse that such events suck the oxygen out of other issues is no real excuse at all. It is not politicians that determine what gets media attention, although they understandably try to do everything they can to influence that.

It was refreshing (and depressing) to read Ben Eltham’s perspective on the whole matter at New Matilda.

the OzCar debate is not about anything as real as actual policy. It’s not even about integrity. It’s about tactics. In other words, it’s not really about anything substantial at all.

But tactics and the cut-and-thrust of parliamentary attack and counter-attack seems to be what most politicians and political journalists care about in this country. For the media, it’s politics as a football game, complete with armchair coaches and half-time analysis. For both Labor and the Opposition, it seems, this affair is evidence that politics is really about manipulating the political process, rather than about the policies you propose to implement. The result is that in a week when emissions trading legislation is to be finally voted on in the Senate, Australia’s legislature and a large part of its senior public service have been consumed by a circus.

Of course, the emissions trading legislation wasn’t voted on in the Senate this week – it was put off until August. I doubt that bothers the government much. As I’ve noted before, the chances of the government wanting to call an election this year were very slim anyway.

If the legislation is voted down in August, reintroduced in November and finally voted on early next year, it just continues to leave the apparently unresolvable divisions within the Coalition festering. If another vote on the emissions trading legislation happens early next year, the Coalition will no longer be able to use the excuse that they need to see the results of the Copenhagen conference at the end of 2009 before implementing an emissions trading scheme. And whenever that final post-Copenhagen vote happens, it seems inevitable that the Coalition’s position and message will be split between at least two camps, if not more.

That will certainly be worth writing about.

Commenting on the National Climate Emergency Rallies held around Australia over the weekend, Senator Wong said

“What many of these people are calling for simply can’t be done. It can’t be done while supporting jobs.”

That’s a very clear indication that the government is not intending to make the sort of cuts in emissions that the majority of scientific opinion says is necessary, because they don’t believe it can be done with costing jobs.

It’s true some jobs will be affected if an effective carbon reduction scheme is introduced.  But other jobs will be generated. The task of government should be to facilitate a transition to a low carbon economy that is as non-disruptive as possible, not only go half way there to minimise impacts.

The problem with responding to climate change is that, unlike most other issues, there is not much room for compromising or trading off against other priorities. If you seriously believe the majority science view that major climate change is inevitable without rapid and major cuts in emissions, then your bottom line starting point has to be what the majority science view says is needed.

If you weaken that bottom line in an effort to soften economic or employment impacts, you may as well not do anything at all.  Once the climate change tipping points kick in, it will be too late.  Senator Wong’s comment suggests the government thinks it can have two bob each way on this issue – that might be doable in most other areas, but not on this one.

Back in February I wondered about the wisdom of the Climate Action Summit deciding to lock in a strategy of opposing the government emissions trading legislation so far in advance of the legislation being examined and debated.

Now that we are just days away from the start of Senate debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill, I believe we would definitely be better off with nothing than a half-adequate emissions trading scheme. I can’t see the logic in saying it would be beneficial for Australia to have legislation in place ahead of the Copenhagen Summit, if that legislation is inadequate. All that would do is tie our negotiating hands in a weak position.

They marked World Environment Day in Brisbane by labelling the offices of the Premier, the Environment Minister and the Resources Minister as “global warning crime scenes.”

Friends of the Earth declare the Premier's electorate office in West End a "global warming crime scene"

I fear that if the Copenhagen conference on climate change at the end of this year does not bear much fruit, and no strategies start to appear in Australia to reduce the reliance on coal, we will start to see direct action much stronger than a few photo opportunities.

Those who believe there is no threat from climate change are less of a barrier to effective action that those who believe there is a threat, but are either not willing or not able to confront the changes necessary to credibly meet the threat.

If only the climate crisis was being taken as seriously and urgently as the economic crisis.

It continues to baffle me that governments can continually assert they are taking the danger of major climate change seriously, while repeatedly using public funds to lock in major infrastructure designed specifically to assist greenhouse intensive activities.

The quotes give an insight into the world of a scientist coming up against the (un)reality of bureaucracy, politics and the media.

……

Dr. Chu said he had been frustrated by the job vacancies and the glacial pace of his department.  Borrowing an analogy from the world of physics, he said that in Washington, Newton’s first law — a body in motion tends to stay in motion — does not apply. “In a bureaucracy, if you start something in motion, it either stops or gets derailed,” he said. “You have to keep applying force.”

………

Asked later what part of his job he liked the least, Dr. Chu said: “The fact that I’m constantly being told that I have to be careful what I say to the press and in public. I can’t speculate out loud anymore.

……….

Dan Leistikow, the Energy Department’s director of public affairs, said “A Nobel scientist is more likely to figure out Washington than a career politician is to figure out how to deal with carbon sequestration”.

……..

For those of us who believe the assessments of the vast majority of the world climate scientists, the time for meaningful action to avoid major climate change has just about run out.  Probably the last real hope for the world to make the sort of rapid reductions in greenhouse emissions needed lies with President Obama and Dr Chu.

As the article notes, “President Obama has assigned Dr. Chu to carry out some of his central priorities: wean America from dependence on fossil fuels, rebuild the nation’s electrical grid and address the challenges of climate change.”

Let’s hope the laws of physics start operating inside the Washington bubble very soon.

– firstly that, unlike Australia’s stimulus package, President Obama’s – regardless of how well it works at helping restore the economy – at least makes a decent effort at using the stimulus to start on a major shift to renewable energy;

President Obama’s stimulus package has given a terrific boost to renewable energy. It will pay lasting benefits. And we need to keep working on all forms of solar, geothermal and wind power. They work. And the more they get deployed, the more their costs will go down.

– and secondly, while we’ll still need more than that, hoping for the big technological fix is a nice dream, albeit possibly a dangerous one.

But, in addition, we need to make a few big bets on potential game-changers.

I complain frequently about how debates about climate change seem to usually avoid emphasising the need to significantly change our own lifestyles. So I am particularly sceptical about the use of constantly looking for the big technological fix, as it encourages us to keep thinking we can basically continue with business as usual and hope someone else will sort it all out.

I get even more sceptical about technological solutions that rely on hopes for fusion or technology that produces more energy than it expends. It all seems a bit too much like a perpetual motion machine to me.

This NYT story about a possible “laser-powered fusion energy plant” just seems like more science-fiction style wishful thinking. But there are certainly many far smarter brains than mine when it comes to physics, so I suppose I shouldn’t let scepticism completely obliterate hope.

If the latest climate change assessments by many of the smarter climate scientists are anywhere near correct, hoping for a miracle – technological or otherwise – might be getting close to our best chance.