That’s what Kevin Rudd gave Australian delusionists in this speech to the Lowy Institute, . I agree with him that there is no point in being polite about this. Those who reject action to address climate change are doing so on the basis of lies propounded by tobacco hacks like Steve Milloy, bought-and-paid-for thinktanks like the IPA, loony world-government conspiracy theorists like Lord Monckton, intellectual cardsharps like Bjorn Lomborg and reflexive contrarians like Richard (‘the dangers of smoking have been much exaggerated’) Lindzen. In years following this debate I have seen no-one (literally and without exception) on the delusionist side separate themselves from these hacks and cranks and present a coherent case. That’s because it is impossible for an intelligent person to reach delusionist conclusions on this issue while retaining their intellectual honesty.
All that said (and I’ve said it many times before) I was surprised to see Rudd, who is normally pretty cautious, going all out like this. My immediate conclusion is that he doesn’t expect the Liberals to support an amended ETS and is preparing the ground for a double dissolution.
John Quiggin 
ProfQ,
Rudd said: “20 days away from the vote on the Government’s cap and trade emissions trading system which both sides of politics have recognised as the lowest cost way to tackle climate change.”
Is this true? Will a cap and trade system immediately stop climate change? If not, then is this not rhetorical overreach and could be seen as manipulating people?
This is apparently from the CSIRO:
“· Temperatures in Australia rising by around five degrees by the end of the century.
· By 2070, up to 40 per cent more drought months are projected in eastern Australia and up to 80 per cent more in south-western Australia.
· A fall in irrigated agricultural production in the Murray Darling Basin of over 90 per cent by 2100.
· Storm surges and rising sea levels – putting at risk over 700,000 homes and businesses around our coastlines, with insurance companies warning that preliminary estimates of the value of property in Australia exposed to the risk of land being inundated or eroded by rising sea levels range from $50 billion to $150 billion.
· Our Gross National Product dropping by nearly two and a half per cent through the course of this century from the devastation climate change would wreak on our infrastructure alone.”
What has their forecasting accuracy been like? No just sixty or more years into the future but rather six years into the future? If organisations cannot accurately forecast, then why use them to trump up a case?
And I find it funny when people like Rudd talk about fear campaigns.
Catastrophic climate change – a term often heard in the media to build up fear in the community.
What about climate change adverts like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w62gsctP2gc
That is pretty extreme, don’t you think?
What about those nitwits who are running a hunger strike?
ProfQ, you are a true believer. Much like the religious nutters in the past, you denigrate anyone who questions your faith on climate change, on cap and trade, on CO2 as something akin to the devil. That is why you are blind to the hypocritical aspects of Rudd’s (and by extension, your) approach to arguing climate change.
John, contrary to what many pundits are saying an agreement in Copenhagen is still possible now that the Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh, has openly declared India was committed to working with all like-minded nations in reaching a purposive and positive outcome in Copenhagen. If anything this should sway the sceptics from denying the bleeding obvious that climate change is a real threat to humanity.
Claymate chonge.
Rudd is still very quiet re: the Greens criticism of the CPRS.
Also no leadership from Rudd on the CSIRO ban on Clive Spash’s critical paper of the CPRS.
It’s pretty easy game taking pot shots at Barnaby et al (and rightly so) – but less easy to take aim at his own ineffective policies.
Iain, I am in agreement with much of what Clive says but for the good of the nation the CPRS must be passed even though many, including myself, have had reservations about whether giving out free permits to the worst polluters in this country will achieve its desired outcome of reducing greenhouse gases emissions.
Rudd’s problem is how to position himself as celan and green whilst supportiing the existing power structures. I do not believe he has the slightest interest in global warming other than as a lever to mainpulate for electoral advantage. What I think is happening is Rudd, and Labor in general, will be spinning a message of decisive action for the envirnment whilst actually doing the bare minimum to sustain the illusion. In other words they will describe their own dungheap as a mountain and claim first conquest of the summit. The psychology of influence through repetition of positive associations is well known. That’s all this is – a sweetener for the double dissolution to come
@SeanG
It’s a bit rich linking the considered reports of the CSIRO with a YouTube offering.
Have you considered the increasing salinity of farmlands in southwest Australia, increasing salinity of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area to name but 2 schemes.
Check out the climatology section of http://www.elderweather.com.au for various regions around Australia, some regions have records going back 150 years.
He even quotes Kenny Rogers! The Johnny Cash version is of course much better.
@iain
The third last chapter of “Big Fella: Rise and Rise of BHP Billiton by Peter Thompson and Robert Macklin, describes BHPs lobbying activities re climate warming and carbon reduction. They have played a 20 year game with Liberal Party candidates. The book says that BHP writes the government CPRS policy.
I can’t see how the ETS scheme will reduce our carbon footprint
@billie
Surprisingly enough (for you), salinity is something which I am deeply concerned about and I think that we are making a mistake linking climate change solely to CO2 and an ETS.
The ETS will once more provide an opportunity for big business to get their snouts in the public trough through lobbying for ‘free’ permits. There is no reason why any business should get ‘free’ permits and plenty of reasons why they shouldn’t. Businesses that have chosen to ignore the predictable necessity of some form of carbon pricing should not be compensated for their bad decisions. Moreover, to compensate these businesses is to further punish the cleaner and wiser businesses that made efforts to protect themselves from what they could see was coming. The efforts to protect their businesses from the predictable introduction of carbon pricing was not costless and if their dirty competitors are compensated for their dirty business decisions and tactics, clean businesses will be doubly punished. That those that funded deniers will be rewarded for their efforts looks more gallingly likely.
So, what, is the Liberal Party meant to negotiate on good faith with Penny Wong, while at the same time being attacked by the Prime Minister. It smacks of everything that happened last week – Kevin Rudd trying to get back into control after a poll result which was probably a rogue.
David Marr, on Insiders, while being fascetious at Piers Ackerman (and fair enough too), made an important point. Who polices what individual carbon permit holders’ can emit, and how do they decide when they have reached their limit and either must buy more permits or stop emitting?
Ive had enough of the denialists as well and welcome both barrels out …lock, stock and smoking! Anyone see the size of that iceberg floating 1500 ks off the coast of Tasmania?. Yeah…like right…”its not happening” is a greedy empire sized lie. I live amongst ostriches with ostrich sized brains masquerading as human beings. If it takes a double dissolution – all they have to do to win is remind people about workchoices. The grey gnome is out there telling people he stopped the boats now. Well the talking gnome can keep on talking. JH is just what Rudd needs to remind people of why they kicked him out.
If the PM is willing to go to a double dissolution then that is a good thing. A “browner” CPRS with more free permits and a longer period of scheme caps would not be a good outcome.
@LuxuryYacht
It seems to me the AFP must go round to the premises of a transgressor and throw the switch or impound a key piece of machinery. For example when the free permits run out an emitter like Hazelwood in Victoria will have to buy 20 million permits a year (1600 Mw X 1.4 tCO2/Mwh X 8,760 hours). If they bought just 15 million permits their ‘licence to pollute’ could expire after 9 months or so and the monitoring agency would be forced to act. If the power station was shut down apart from health emergencies customers could also sue.
Rudd talks tough but so far doesn’t seem to be able to back it up with action. The people he is supposed to boss around end up calling the shots. That is why I think we’ll burn as much coal as ever but we’ll delude ourselves with scams like the PNG forests.
“My immediate conclusion is that he doesn’t expect the Liberals to support an amended ETS and is preparing the ground for a double dissolution.”
It could also be that:
(a) he’s preparing the ground for making maximum political capital out of it, regardless of whether he will pursue a double dissolution some time next year;
(b) he’s not prepared to make the amendments the Liberals are asking for (and nor should he) and he’s preparing the ground for making maximum political capital out of it (and/or a double d);
(c) he was trying to turn the media focus away from asylum seekers on boats; or
(d) he was in a really grumpy mood.
Or all of the above.
Go the DD and hope for a Green balance of power in the senate to force some changes into the laws to stop big polluters getting free credits.
Our only hope as I see it.
Or we could just put lots of money into a scientific initiative to capture and store carbon. The idea would be to spend billions to develop a process whereby CO2 is captured from the atmosphere using a self-organising, organic, bio-friendly, low cost mechanism. The process would be generated using solar power and would require only water which could also be provided in the form of solar generated precipitate. By combining the CO2 with H20 using solar power one could generate hydrocarbons which could be used not only to store CO2 but as a source of energy in the future. It would have the added benefit of reducing soil salinity and halting desertification. If all the scientists in Australia got together we could surely come up with such a clean green scheme. It could be called, lets see, the Total Renewable Energy Enterprise (TREE). I am sure it would only take our superbrains a few years to replicate the inferior natural products available. This would create jobs and put Australia at the forefront of green-tech worldwide…
I would support a Green balance of power if the Greens were, themselves, balanced. Fortunately they are not as unbalanced as the Family First nitwit. A DD would be worthwhile simply because it would rid us of him.
@plaasmatron
A Labor Government will work with the Liberals before the Greens. Look how the environmental thing worked for Mark Latham in Tassie? It didn’t. Rudd is smart enough to work with the Liberals such that sensible policy is developed.
Any leader of a major political party has demonstrated, by achieving that position, a capacity for chicanery and mendacity baffling to honest people.
For Rudd, global warming is a means to an end and the end is to win the next election.
The coal and oil lobbies are winning the PR battle and they will soon spend both major political parties into submission.
I cannot understand how anyone can be so naive as to think that there could be a Copenahagen agreement that will result in coal and oil industries selling less of their products.
A DD is less likely to rid us of Family First, as the quota is 1/13 rather than 1/7. I’d love for the Australian Democrats to have the balance of power – at least they were balanced!
Climate change requires strong legislative and policy action from the Australian Government.
The government has proposed the CPRS.
These things are not equivalent.
Rudd is a damned hypocrite, his CPRS is economically ruinous compared to the alternatives (either a Garnaut designed ETS, or carbon taxes) and does SFA for Australina emissions.
They well and truly deserve both barrels, but by doing so Kevin Rudd hasn’t necessarily helped his case. A quick peek at the national rag (no, not AFR, the otherone) reveals a broadside offence as the defence against Labor’s scientific warrants; of course, as usual, every single noun and verb and number quoted by these defenders of the free (market) world must be cross-checked with the scientific literature carefully, if the reader wishes to avoid the usual traps set by the phonies.
In today’s broadsheet toiletry tissue we may find such gems as:
* Mitch (Captain) HooKe, who is Chief Executive of the Minerals Council of Australia, makes a compelling case for I dunno but it involves not affecting the minerals industry, surprisingly enough. The article is titled Emissions plan a meal unfit for human consumption. Thanks for your early input to that plan, Mitch. Well done mate.
* Sid Maher in “The Nation” section reports on “Mining boss lashes Rudd over ETS”, that being an advertisement for Mitch (Captain) HooKe’s diatribe.
On the Letters Page – Fighting the good fight and leading the charge are:
*Des (Less-is-) Moore, commenting on “The science of our sea levels”, presumably having been encouraged to research the topic scientifically, after Janet’s opinion piece on “Seeing through hoax of the century” which included these comments: Nils-Axel Morner – a leading world authority on sea levels – wrote an open letter to the president telling him that his stunt was “not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments”. , the president of the Maldives being the one referred to in the quote. Note the last clause of Morner’s statement, ie not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgements.
Now while Morner is indeed a geologist who specialises in the measurement of sea levels in geologic time, he is also a dowser of many things, including water dowsing. This wouldn’t overly bother me except that dowsing is “not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgements”, if I may be so bold as to quote from Nix-Axel Morner himself. The strange theories of E-rays and the like are occasionally trotted out to explain why the majority of the world’s scientists cannot find the connection between a “Y” shaped branch and underground water. Perhaps it is because dowsing doesn’t work? The academic studies with proper statistical and experimental design overwhelimingly – maybe unamiously but I cannot know for certain – retain the obvious null hypothesis, which in layperson speak is dowsing does not work. But, I digress.
* Graham Dick, getting hot under the collar – but presumably cold below the collar right down to his feet – since scientist John Church had the audacity to challenge Dick’s assertion that only a thin layer of the ocean surface is warming. He quickly brings in John Daly (RIP) and William Kininmonth for his defence.
Under the Letters section title “Sceptics started as agnostics, and then they were bullied”, we have the usual claims by:
* Frank Pulsford, explaining how agnohockeystics were “lied to” by Mann, presumably. Hey everybody, is the “lyin’ hocky schtick” and automatic Godwin?
*Peter Carroll charges up the back straight, easily overtaking Pulsford for the Godwin gong with his use of the Evil Communist Lysenko defence.
Well done chaps, jolly good show.
Finally, the “Climate” menu item seems to have disappeared from the online version of the rag. Far be it from me to be cynical – maybe the menu item is just under a different menu, or demoted to a link inside the “content” (LOLROFL) which I couldn’t locate amid the peals of wisdom (to mash a common cliche) – but maybe they got sick and tired of people locating some of the more evenhanded articles by Leonore Taylor, Leigh Dayton, Asa, and a few remaining true journalists.
As I finish this Monday Round-Up, the lovely garden surrounding the house and home is once again under threat of a vicious tail end to Spring. Perhap the drought is just a little bit longer around here; isn’t that the explanation?
Neither can I. Australia is a nation of coal junkies. Its our biggest export earner, and it supplies more than 80% of our electricity. Why seemingly intelligent people like ProfQ believe that Rudd is serious about punishing the coal industry is beyond me.
Both barrels my ar*e. Its all a charade! Rudd is creating a diversion by launching a false war on the denialists, so he can point the finger of blame when the CPRS and Copenhagen fall over. The last thing Rudd wants is a Senate with the Greens holding the balance of power (which is probably what he’d get after a DD) then he’d have to cop all the blame for a p*ss weak CPRS, and no commitment by Australia at Copenhagen.
Isn’t is obvious?
Pr Q says:
What a splendid rant, with vituperative flair like that you would have made a formidable RWDB. (Although I think that “hacks, cranks and crooks” would have scanned a little better.) You write beautifully when you are angry [no homo].
Pr Q says:
I am still holding to my prediction, made on 10 MAY 2009, that the LP will vote in favour of a diluted and watered down CPRS in the Senate. Although its recent outbreak of delusionism has lengthened the odds:
I am bewildered by the L/NP’s lack of basic Machiavellian realism, even when it comes to basic facts of political survival. Never mind ecological delusionism, they are flirting with psephological delusionism if they think they can take seats of the ALP on a climate-change double-dissolution election.
On 17 FEB 09 I predicted that the L/NP will lose the 2010 election, come what may. Given the success of the ALP in managing the (mild) eddies of the GFC that washed on our shores the best they can hope for is to hold the line at 53-47 TPP. But they can do considerably worse than that if they continue on their delusionist follies.
Its clear now that Howard was vital to the L/NP’s long string of federal successes, through his generally pragmatic conservative policies, competent admininstration and populist politics. The absence of Howard is turning the L/NP into a gaggle of dills.
carbonsink,
One of the few times I think you and I have agreed. From Andrew Barlett’s list above I would say the probable (in order of probability) answers are:
1. c with a bit of d
2. b
3. a – being the least probable by some way.
Jack,
I disagree. I think the Libs know that Rudd has no real interest in a DD election as all it would do is hand the balance to the Greens, pulling future legislation to the Left – making his job of getting elected the time after that a lot harder.
To me, the Libs are trying to appear to be be the voice of reason here, waiting until after Copenhagen to implement whatever is decided there or, even better, if there is no decision to be able to say “weren’t we smart not to get ahead of everyone”.
The only problem is that the
CountryNational Party will not play ball as they are just opposed to the whole thing.@Andrew Reynolds
It may well be a diversion from the boat thing as well. I can’t really say because I’m completely uninterested in politicians point-scoring over a few unfortunates in a boat.
What I can say for sure is Rudd is more than happy to see the Coalition take the blame for the CPRS falling over. The last thing he wants is a compliant Senate on environmental issues, then he might actually have to do something.
The CPRS is a dangerous nonsense. The best analogy I have read is that the CPRS is like giving a cancer patient a little bit of chemo therapy – not so much that makes her hair fall out, but enough that it looks like your doing something. In both cases, money and time is wasted, and the patient ends up dead.
Pr Q says:
I would say that Rudd’s Lowy Speech means that he is very sure that dissing the delusionists will not cost him any political capital. It implies that the Green philosophy is now more or less mainstream and that it is now safe to marginalise the “Browns” as a fringe group, in a Prime Ministerial way. Talk about role-reversals!
Its not totally out of character for risk-averse Rudd to go on the ideological offensive. I maintain that in matters of political style, “Rudd is the quintessential softly-softly diplomat who abhors damaging conflict”. But he also enjoys a bit of ideological argy-bargy, going by his occasional sallies in The Monthly. Not to mention the ideological pantomime of the Summit.
There is something of the testy vicar preaching a finger-wagging sermon to somewhat delinquent members of the congregation about him. Its a cheap way of grabbing the high moral ground, without necessarily committing to doing anything risky or momentous.
But more generally, in matters of policy substance, I maintain that “Rudd-ALP is the most “c”onservative, managerialist federal administration in living memory”. It must be embarrassing for those on the Left, and side-splittingly funny for Machiavellians like y.t., to watch how closely he cleaves to policy settings inherited from Howard. There is no end to the echoes of His Masters Voice, whether it be regressive tax-cuts, a tepid ETS, ramped up immigration, the Intervention or now “the Indonesian solution”.
(Granted the Santa Claus fiscal stimulus hand-out would probably have been given the thumbs down by Howard-Costello. But it was dwarfed in signficance compared to the massive cuts in interest rates made by the RBA from MAR 08 through JUL 09.)
Rudd cant even be bothered to breathe a bit of life into the comatose republican movement although this would be a cheap bit of symbolism and right up his political alley.
Andrew Reynolds@#29 November 9th, 2009 at 12:18
I take it that you predict the LP will vote to reject the CPRS. I agree that this appears more likely now, what with the ideological debate hotting up. Although I still think the LP will blink.
I agree that Rudd would be averse to a DD election. But if the L/NP reject the CPRS Bill then Rudd would have a good cause to call one. I dont think the electorate would punish Rudd for going early to the polls since he would be calling the election on grounds of policy principle, not political convenience. The result would be a landslide wipe out of the L/NP.
I dont see the GREENs making great headway in a CPRS-inspired election, mainly because the ALP tends to pick up moderate GREEN votes. The GREEN SENATE vote jumped by over 2% in both 2001 and 2004. But they only managed a 1.38% swing in 2007, despite melting polar ice-caps and a massive full-court press behind them from the media-academia complex. And people are probably more conscious of the economic costs of CPRS now than they were in 2007.
I dont see the GREENs cracking double figures in 200(9?)10. Why vote for the GREENs when the ALP are obviously doing some environmental hard yards? Mainstream voters are wary of the GREENs on issues un-related to environmental policy.
It could be that the PM made the speech for the following reason:
(e) to include a Kenny Rogers quote in a speech on climate change.
What was probably more interesting was what Rudd didn’t say in his speech. He said that
He didn’t mention anything about the CPRS giving too much handouts to generators and emissions intensive industries; policies that risk locking in weak targets for too long; that the CPRS does not allow the sale of permits overseas, but does allow unlimited import of international permits (including CDM CERs, but fortunately not AAUs); and in general too weak environmentally at the same time as handling certain industries with kid gloves. I suspect that there are many economists, environmentalists, and people in government who would agree that these are problems, even if they do support the passage of the CPRS.
Interestingly unlike The Rentseekers Review, there were plenty of letters to the editor in today’s The Age that responded to the PM by arguing that the CPRS was not going to do enough about climate change.
WTF is “Green philosophy”? Don’t you mean peer-reviewed science?
Acceptance that climate change is caused by human activity is more or less mainstream, I very much doubt that policies to reduce carbon emissions in Australia will have much acceptance.
My reading of Rudd is that it was just some bluster to cover the absolute intention he has of doing absolutely nothing on greenhouse emissions in order to keep the energy industry, the CFMEU, the conservationists (aka the general public who voted for Kevin 07), and Rupert Murdoch happy. The idea has demonstrably failed to keep any of them happy, most notably Murdoch a few days ago. Rudd is a man who clearly has less interest in the world we live in than Howard, and there’s a sentence I never thought I would write.
That could have been better expressed, the bluster was meant to keep the conservationists happy.
JQ: regarding Lindzen
You may wish to get Stephen Schneider’s new book, “Science as a Contact Sport”, which includes discussions with Lindzen as far back as 1972. I think it’s more complicated than reflexive contrarian. See p41-42 in particular.
John, according to the lastest reports, Nick Minchin is latest sceptic/spoiler making things tough for Turnbull by claiming the majority within the Liberal Party do not believe humans are responsible for global warming. What a lot of hogwash.
@Michael of Summer Hill
Except that its true Moshie…the majority in the liberal party are AGW denialists….just like they also think workchoices was the best thing to happen to the country…
There is a song about them
Alice, it wasn’t long ago that Turnbull consolidated his position and the sceptics failed to unseat him. I just think Minchin is wrong.
Those advocating the defeat of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) now find themselves in common cause with the “filthy polluters”, the big coal companies.
The Sydney Morning Herald weekend edition of November 7-8 says on page 4 that these coal companies intend to spend millions to defeat the ETS.
Those who tell us the ETS should be defeated because it does not go far enough and/or because the Government has caved in by giving too much compensation to the polluters now find themselves on the same side as coal polluters..
Yet these polluters will spend millions in the hope of knocking back this compensation by defeating the ETS.
The reason is that the coal companies know that once an ETS is up and running it can be amended, particularly after people see the effects are nowhere near as bad as the coal companies claimed.
The only reason coal companies are spending millions to defeat the ETS is because they consider it a threat to their long-term interests.
Advocating the defeat of the ETS means sharing the current major aim of the coal polluters.
It’s such a good feeling to wallow in self-proclaimed purity while sharing the same goal as polluters.
@JohnL
Bring it on (the defeat ) and a double dossolution. If they vote the libs back in, the vox pupuli get what they desrve – more of the same that is running the country into the ground in favour of big busines and big polluters. Serves them right. I couldnt believe the majority voted in favour of Iraq and Howard anyway. They deserve a crappy government.
@JohnL
I just can’t agree with this John. This is a very poor proposal — worse than nothing because it locks in dreadful features for at least 10 years. I really hope the Libs aan Nats do prevent this ahppening because then it makes them look idiotic and wedges their base AND stops a crap proposal.
What’s not to like?
We need a serious proposal that auctions all permits and sets a cap at least 25% below 1990 by 2020 and which is adjustable so that if we make speedier progress the cap can be lowered further (perhaps on three years notice).
Oh and agriculture and forestry and transport in, with carbon taxes while we work out the precise details.
I really think part of the problem is that the liberals have for so long labelled the environment a green “left” issue…now they are immobilised on the environment in case they lose “face.” They have backed themselves in to a corner. I also note that some newspolls show concern for the environment has dropped about recently. I dont wonder why when everyone has been wondering what on earth went wrong in the GFC.
The ETS is environmental theatre. It will give the illusion of action with little result. Have a look at Peter Martin’s comment at
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2009/11/perhaps-we-should-rename-it-carbon.html
Go ahead with your ETS, Kevin, and later on let us know if you have any plans to do anything useful about “The greatest moral dilemma of our generation”.
[…] is not as rosy as the government says and the UN is asking for heaps of money at Copenhagen. No amount of name-calling is going to change the fact that this policy is a lemon and needs to be radically […]
Politics:
a. The greens want a double dissolution (DD), they figure it will give them more political
clout. They are probably right.
b. Labour is aware that a DD would give the Greens more power and decides better the
devil you know then the one you don’t so choose to avoid a DD, but perhaps they could
bluff the liberals into submission.
c. Liberal party expects b. and so dosen’t expect a DD and continues to procrastinate.
d. Status quo retained.
On a second matter it is clear that the climate change debate and policies will be won by those that can change the perception of those within our democracy. It is perceptions that control emotions and emotions that control behaviour. Changes in perception will change emotions and therefore behaviour. No amount of logic will change perception. This explains JQ regular emotive tone on climate change, your only problem is that you have several skeptics infiltirating you’re blog who are resistant to emotive tones. This is not necessarily a bad thing. You may have to censor more, but it would get boring (at least for me).
Mr Rudd emotive speech appeals to our perception, but alas he is a poor orator, he just dosen’t know how to capture the moment anymore as the gloss washes off his shiny begining (bit like Obama). Mr Rudd has lost his direction as he struggles to maintain his hold on power rather than focus on his job.
So I intend to remain a “…….” whilst ever arguments of consensus and a closed door to criticism on proposed policies are dumped onto our society. No amount of emotive method to change perception and behaviour from a single entity such as the state will change anything, it will cause a bigger mess. This is obvious, just watch the circus as the pollies maneuver for power rather than good policy. To change behaviour it must start with the individual and work up through the communities. The greatest succcess for our precious environment will be achieved through local changes in behaviour, not global or state action. The state obviously has “greater” concerns than climate change.
JohnL — if you are dredging up the tired argument “don’t let great become the enemy of the good” as an implict method for silencing any discussion about “less bad or basically flawed approaches” then it is difficult to see your point. If you are unaware of the serious critiques of the CPRS (which seems more likely) then you may do no better than starting with Clive Spash’s paper.