Judging by the comments on my “derp and denialism” post, we seem to be mostly agreed on the proposition, amply demonstrated by economic studies, that the global economy could be decarbonized at a very modest cost in terms of foregone growth. On the other hand, it is equally obvious that the commitments made so far are nowhere near enough to achieve this goal[^1], and that the reasons for this lie in the operation of political systems, most importantly in the US, China and India. This raises several questions
(a) Why have political systems failed to yield the responses we need
(b) Can climate stabilization be achieved without fundamental transformation of political systems
(c) If so, what transformation do we need
(d) If not, what kinds of more limited change do we need
In this context, it’s only really necessary to look at the US, China and India. The EU may drag its 27 pairs of feet a little (it is the EU, after all) but will certainly match anything the US does. And, if the US were fully committed to climate change, denialists elsewhere in the developed world, like Harper in Canada and Abbott in Australia, would have the ground cut from under them.
In the US (and other English-speaking countries), the primary obstacle is not the entrenched power of interests that would lose from climate stabilization such as fossil fuel companies. The big global energy companies, like Exxon and BP, are perfectly capable of shifting their focus from oil to gas and if the market gets large enough, to renewables. In any case, they are balanced by potential losers from climate change like the insurance and finance sectors. Rather, the problem is the climate change denial is a rightwing culture war issue, which has became (one of many) Republican shibboleths.
Sustained action against climate change requires that the Republican party either be marginalized or replaced by something quite different (though it would probably still be called the Republican party). That’s a big challenge, but not impossible. A two-term presidency for Hillary Clinton, even without full control of Congress, would probably be enough to get things done through a combination of regulation and international agreements, the model currently being pursued by Obama. And four losses in succession would probably be enough to force a shift within the Republican party.
The situation in China is more opaque (to me, at any rate) but also more promising. Having been the worst of the spoilers at Copenhagen, and suffered a fair bit of opprobrium as a result, the Chinese leadership now seems willing to take a constructive role. Moreover, the pollution crisis in Chinese cities has led to a dramatic shift in sentiment against coal. So, it seems likely that renewables will be given a fair chance, including effective pricing of coal externalities, which is all they need.
Finally, there’s India. For a long time, Indian rhetoric on the issue was dominated by Third World grievance politics: the rich countries had burned lots of coal to get rich, and India had the right to do the same. But that seems to be changing, in part because most of the losers from climate change are also in the Third World, and in part because India’s coal sector is a total mess, making renewables more attractive. The new PM, Modi (from the deeply unattractive BJP, but that’s another issue) seems strongly committed to renewables. The historical arguments have shifted to the more productive terrain of arguing about how to share an emissions budget constrained by a 2 degree/450 ppm target.
At some level, all this is academic, in the pejorative sense of the term. Either existing political structures, with the kinds of changes I’ve discussed above, will manage decarbonization of the economy, or they won’t. There’s no chance that any kind of fundamental transformation of the political systems of the US, India and China[^1] will take place within the next 10-15 years, which is the time in which the necessary decisions need to be made.
To sum up this post and the previous one: even though the global climate could be stabilized at a very modest cost, the political obstacles are formidable. It may not be possible to overcome them in time, but we have no alternative except to try.
[^1]: I’m a little less confident in making this judgement about China. The apparent solidity of a one-party state can crumble quite fast. But the initial result of such a collapse would almost certainly be chaotic, and the outcome unforeseeable.
[^1}; There used also to be a lot of concern over whether these commitments would be met. While a couple of countries, such as Japan and Canada, have reneged, and Australia seems likely to follow, most of the big players are meeting their targets quite easily, reflecting both the softness of the targets and the low cost of decarbonization.
John Quiggin 
@Ken Fabian
I strongly disagree. It is very clear that DA has no support at all amongst economists as a tool of abatement. Its only support is amongst those who don’t attach a value to Australian abatement and therefore think that the less spent on it the better and/or think that it may have the extra benefit of tainting public policy more generally. Certainly, if we voted for it, we would part-own its consequences and lose credibility amongst those inclined to support us.
Far better IMO that we leave the Coalition to have a bunfight over it, not proceed, break yet another commitment and await the moment when a government with a passing commitment to participation in abatement policy is returned. I doubt this regime will win the next election or even see out its full term.
Fran, I still think it would be a grave political mistake, because it delivers exactly what Tony Abbott wants – no climate policy and with the strongest proponents of action on climate to blame for that – and The Greens will hand it to him if they vote it down. DA is crap, we know that, but if it doesn’t get up, the wider public will not know that.
Doing what your political opponents want you to do is not clever politics.
There’s also the maxim of not interrupting your opponent when he’s making a mistake. It is true that Abbott wants no action on climate, and for our part we want no fake action on climate because the fake action will be spun as real action until it is revealed as an absurdity that we Greens endorsed and becomes yet another example of why we should have smaller government.
Abbott should be candid and admit that he was never serious about action on climate. The fig-leaf should be removed so that his naked cant can again be exposed.
I don’t care if right-wingers ‘blame’ us for Abbott not acting on climate change. I will remind them that this is what they wanted and that the whole policy was designed with their desire to cop out in mind, and that all we did was ensure that expenditure they agreed was wasteful and pork-barrelling would not go ahead.
Such folk are not going to vote for us anyway, but I will demand their respect for having the integrity that their PM lacked.
If any non-rusted on asks us why we voted it down I will point out that in a choice between a bad something and nothing, the latter is preferable, and refer them to the analysis.
Whatever decision the Greens make, I predict most people on this website will say they are either a) playing cynical politics with an important issue see they’re just as bad as the parties they criticize or b) sabotaging an important political issue with their naive idealism see they don’t have any practical sense at all. It won’t disturb anyone saying either of these two standard lines if the last time they criticized the Greens they used the opposite line. Bonus points for needless hippy punching or calling Milne “strident”, “hysterical” or a “harpy”.
Fran, I still think it will set The Greens wider standing back with the larger portion of the public who are sympathetic to The Greens, who I think would understand the politcal necessity of not playing into Abbott’s hands and who know Direct Action is an LNP policy not a Greens one.
To me Direct Action policy looks like the mistake that the LNP should be allowed to make and letting The Greens take the blame for Abbott’s lack of climate policy is the mistake The Greens should not make. I understand your reasoning but I don’t agree with it. And I will be pleased if I’ve read it wrong and The Greens do gain respect in the longer run.
@Ken Fabian
I disagree. The most important thing our party can do right now is a kind of outreach. We need to be constantly engaged with folk who want rational and socially just public policy. We need to be a party that is not like all the others, not just in what we say but how we go about politics.
If people want opportunistic horse-traders, they already have two major parties and a minor party owned by a billionaire to do that. Why would they choose us anyway?
Our party is different because the members actually run it and the members only participate because we believe in certain principles and in inclusive practices associated with advancing those principles.
If people inclined to support us are confused as to why we voted down DA then let them come find us and ask why. We will explain it to them in a respectful way. Then, hopefully, we will get a new member. If they don’t like our explanation then maybe they really do belong elsewhere with one of the rightwing parties.
Climate has become politically off the table and may soon be put in the drawer; Tony Abbott has successfully stepped up to his very own crisis – War on ISIS.
I think we may safely assume that those voters who are concerned and knowledgeable about climate policy know that (a) the “direct action” policy is a dud and (b) the Coalition aren’t remotely serious about the issue. Opposing it will not be politically problematic for the Greens, especially given how must hostility there is towards the Coalition among rank and file Greens members and given that most of the Greens’ voter base is far more anti-Coalition than anti-Labor.
You can’t tell me contingency doesn’t matter to history. A couple of thousand less votes for Bush in Florida, or just one less brazenly partisan Supreme Court justice, and the US would now have had strong climate change policies. And by now such policies would be conventional wisdom rather than a tribal marker.
@rog
It is standard practice for the LNP. They need somebody to bash up or persecute. It serves two purposes. First, it distracts the masses from the fact that the right wing can’t actually do anything constructive, nor can they can they fix anything. Second, it seems to satisfy a deep seated psychological need in them. They are never happier than when they are exerting power over people by pushing them around, incarcerating them or killing them.
It is a clear sign they can’t handle complex problems like the economy, unemployment and so on. Their frustration makes them want to hit someone. Finding a scapegoat is a displacement activity. They look for a convenient target, be it refugees or shadowy militants half a world away. Then they puff their chests up and go after these scapegoat targets from a place of safety behind the shielding of their security and military apparatus.
Tony Abbott was fumbling around and looking like a complete dill while trying to deal with the real social and economic issues that a PM should be dealing with. Now, he is strutting and walking tall. He’s found a target to hit; just about the only thing he knows how to do. Actually, behind his macho facade, I sense he is scared. He’s got a scared look in his eyes. The massive security over-reaction he ordered is the sign of a frightened and not very brave man. Blustering bullies are always scared people who are over-compensating and trying to act tough.
The US President sets his desired legislative timetable, but does not control introduction/debate of bills that is the Speaker.
A Gore Presidency may have made the US more likely to have tackled AGW, but I doubt it.
I agree with your point on the US Supreme Court but I’m not aware anything AGW has been tested by them has it? The EPA CO2 regulations were tested and allowed by the current court (pretty sure that’s correct).
@derrida derider
Well, the 2000 and 2004 US elections were stolen. There is plenty of documentary evidence on this and it is not hard to find. Naturally, the main stream media almost completely suppressed this story. Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky both said separately these elections were stolen.
@Ikonoclast I wouldn’t say that Abbott is a frightened or not brave, more that he is uncomfortable when not in combat.
@Pete Moran
The current court gave us 5-4 decisions on matters like Citizens United (unlimited political spending by corporations, unions & c.) which has led to a lot of fossil fuel money entering politics.
@Pete Moran My reference to SCOTUS was to the effects of its behaviour in Gore vs Bush 2000 only, not to any later actual or hypothetical cases.
@Ikonoclast
There will be no leadership from what remains of the blue collar unions and working class on the matter of climate change. The metaphor Marx used to describe the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the working class was of ‘war’ but, like all metaphors, it has obscured more than it reveals. A far better metaphor would suggest that the relationship is like a bad marriage. At present, the two classes are locked together in a mutual agreement to hyper-exploit whatever is left of first nature. They are heedless of the way that they are wrecking the planet.
In my many conversations with coal miners and all types workers whose employment depends on coal mines, including CSG workers, they play the victim card; they suggest that they are just ordinary workers trying to earn a living and that the enviro movement is getting in the way of that. What? We should just eff off and let them get on with it? Well, pardon us for interrupting your lifestyle.
BTW: Craig Emerson and Greg Combet, former cabinet ministers, are economic consultants. Their clients include AGL. Nice move to the revolving door chaps. Remember that Combet had roles as Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and later as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change (then Wong). Apparently there are no AGW issues with fracked gas and nor are there serious concerns about water tables, toxic water.
Blimey.
Christine Milne has offered the Government assistance in making Direct Action more effective along with keeping RET as an effective tool – don’t know if she has had a response
@Ken Fabian
All else aside for now, how would blame be sheeted home to the Greens for opposing “Direct Action”?
In far more cases than not legislation is passed – or blocked – by ALP/LNP voting together.
As a Greens voter (and frequent critic), I don’t want them playing stupid/clever political games as Fran points out. When they start going after that perceived vote they lose mine, and I’m guessing others of a like mind.
My feeling is that there isn’t anywhere near the level of blindly obedient “rusted on” Greens as there is in the duopoly parties.
Greens can’t single-handedly block DA.
@jungney
Unfortunately there will be no change unless the working class takes the lead.
You cannot change conditions if in opposition to the working class.
The fact that the working class so far has not taken on this challenge probably explains why we are in the predicament we seem to be (or heading into).
Religion and politics seem similar. Why not seek advice from a select few well-educated heads of religion (no oxymoron jokes), asking if followers should continue in their current activities, leading to global warming and … high costs and lots of suffering. Or would their deity (or philosophy) be better served if followers were to make minor changes to their consumption habits to limit greenhouse emissions. If educated, one might expect support for limiting greenhouse emissions.
Then seek advice from politicians asking what they intend to do about climate change now that (this list of supportive heads of religion) think that their followers should reduce greenhouse emissions.
The Greens could get many new supporters, or the major parties could get new greenhouse gas policies for the next election.
@QuentinR
Western people who believe in deities need not wonder what God ‘wants’. By definition, God knows what will happen. It’s all for the best because God made it so. You can’t act without being part of the cosmic plan, so you are relieved of the need to serve his ends. By definition, you have no choice.
Quentin R,
The Australian Religious Response to Climate Change is quite active http://www.arrcc.org.au. Also the Uniting Church has been the first major Australian organisation to agree to divest from fossil fuels.
@Ken Fabian
Just to be a bit clearer: How does the vote pan out so that defeating/passing DA is due to the Greens?
If Greens are the only ones against it, then ALP/LNP/minors voted for it.
If Greens + ALP only are against it, then it gets passed by other minors + LNP.
If Greens + ALP + minors are all against it, then it fails.
Are you seriously suggesting the only other scenario? ie: Greens + LNP vote together against ALP/minors? And if so, you are saying that the Greens should do this to avoid criticism??
@John Quiggin
John: Give yourself credit. 20 years ago you were a voice crying in the wilderness. How many economists then were siding with the likes of Amory Lovins? Now the free lunch is CW. Opponents like Stavins just look slipshod.
Christine Milne has made a point of seeking to negotiate over Direct Action – voting for it if it’s improved. Of course they alone don’t hold the power to pass or deny passage, but, yes, I think perceptions of The Greens, as the strongest voices for action on climate/emissions/energy will put them in the spotlight on this even without deliberate efforts to frame them in the worst light. I’d like to see them avoid being seen in the worst possible light.
I think the electorate’s perceptions of them will be influenced strongly by what they do -whether they hold the crucial vote or not – and if they vote against it I expect all out effort to discredit them over that choice. I don’t think Direct Action will get up. I don’t believe Abbott and team actually want it to get up, but that they will seek to persuade the public otherwise as the lay the blame on others, as they always do, for their own failures.
It may be, as Fran insists, much better for them to stand firm against bad or inadequate policy and legislation and seek to have their rationale heard over the negative noise. There will be no avoiding criticism if they vote against it, no matter how bad it is; how bad it will always remain hypothetical and debatable if it gets voted down. It may be they will be blamed for it’s failures if they support it and it gets up somehow and it turns out to be as bad as expected but it’s a much harder job for Abbott’s team to make that it’s failure is The Greens fault, especially if they make their grave reservations clear all along. If they vote for it but others vote it down I think that yes, they would gain by that politicallyat little or no cost to their goals. Perhaps the gain will not all be with the well informed in the electorate but they will gain. But I think they will be thoroughly forked unless they stop doing what their enemies expect – and in this case what their enemies want. Avoiding criticism is part of it but I also see it as doing something a bit unexpected and shifting the battleground sideways.
Of course I continue to believe that we won’t get sufficient and timely climate policy unless the commitment is there in both Labor and Coalition, in which case The Greens could find themselves sidelined; that the issue is perceived to a large extent as being in their court because others have found it to their political advantage to do so – playing with public perceptions of them being fringe protesters in suits, with unrealistic and idealistic and even irrational policy aims – in order to associate commitment to the climate task as idealistic, unrealistic and irrational. I know very well that this is not so – it’s failure to address the problem head or even acknowledge it’s seriousness that is idealistic, unrealistic and irrational.
Here is a very good artcicle on the topic “Can We Make Steel Without Coal?”. It’s an issue because coal not only provides the heat via the blast furnance. Coal also acts as the reducing agent to convert iron oxide into pig iron.
http://coalactionnetworkaotearoa.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/can-we-make-steel-without-coal/
As a footnote I should say this article give the statistic that only 12% of all hard coal mined is used for steel making. Hard coal production is less than half of all coal production and maybe as low as 25%. I can’t quickly find an accurate figure. So, in the scheme of things, maybe only about 5% of coal burning is for making steel anyway. On that number, it’s not a desperate problem. Getting rid of all other coal burning first would make an enormous improvement to CO2 emissions.
As a second footnote:
To de-carbonise, we have to remove from the world’s primary energy mix;
(1) Oil – 31.5% of primary energy.
(2) Coal and peat – 28.8% of primary energy.
(3) Natural gas – 21.3% of primary energy.
These are 2011 figures and the total is 81.6 %. Let us assume that now in 2014 the total is 80%. Thus 4/5ths of the world’s primary energy comes from fossil fuels. This does show the enormity of the task. I am not saying it’s impossible. Indeed, I think solar and wind power, along with hydro and a few other renewables, feeding in to a fully electric and electronic economy can do it.
However, let us be under no illusions as to the requirements for an enormous revolution in the entire means of production, means of transport and modes of living. We will need the replacement of about 80% of fixed generating plant and the replacement of 90% or more of heavy machinery, goods transport and personal transport.
Land transport will be the easiest to de-carbonise. How do we de-carbonise air transport? Personally, I see air travel ceasing to be affordable/available for all but the super-rich, the military, police and emergency services. Sea transport is an interesting one too. How do we de-carbonise sea transport? Do we go back to sailing ships?
I think we can move to a fully renewables economy but part of that process will be accepting a more modest lifestyle in some respects. Unecessary physical travel will have to be reduced and electronic “travel” maintained or increased (like video-conferencing). I suspect global trade will reduce as it relies on air and sea travel which will be harder to de-carbonise. On the other hand, local, regional and continental trade will increase, at least as a percentage of all trade.
I really do need to proof read what I write. I was going to say that it may be that Fran is right and I’m wrong (but I shifted back to the rut of why I might be right). It would not be the first time, especially when I jump in with my thoughts of the moment and flesh them out after.
Maintaining internal integrity and honesty with members and with the public, and staying the course do count for a lot – are essential even – no matter that we have prime examples in Abbott and his team of how successful being misleading and deceptive with a liberal dash of appeals to fear, prejudice and nationalistic jingoism – plain old close mouthed – can be. Especially when your friends own the biggest chunk of the media – or is it that they own you?
Yet my sense of frustration with politics of climate and the failure to make much ground does suggest that those deeply engaged with it need to consider a change of tactics. I don’t really know what changes would work best but, to paraphrase another aphorism, if what we are doing is not working keeping on doing it some more may not be the best course.
@Ken Fabian
I think there is much more chance of the rationale being heard for opposing DA than objections being heard for passing it.
There seems to be a rapidly rising level of effort worldwide to take action on AGW which, if DA is scrapped now, could see the Abbott circus being forced before the end of its term to come up with a meaningful trading scheme whereas, if there was a DA scheme in place, no matter how crummy, it could be passed off as ‘doing their bit’.
There’s actually a good amount of theoretical/maths work being done on decision-making algorithms, where you’ve got multiple decision-makers [some of them broken in non-obvious ways] and you’re trying to produce some sort of sensible or at least coherent consensus.
You can’t reliably do this if more than a third of the decision-makers are broken in non-obvious ways.
This works for humans as much as for components.
[byzantine generals problem]
The Greens suffer from the fact that the Australian public are extremely conservative. We live in a time when imminent revolutionary change is necessary and will occur in some form. We might not have a revolutionary change in politics but we certainly will experience a revolutionary change in the way we live and produce. Either we will meet the challanges and revolutionise our economy going from exhaustible and ecosystem damaging resources (like fossil fuels) to renewable and sustainable resources or we will suffer the extreme consequences for failing to do so. Either way, the changes to how we live and produce (or don’t live and don’t produce) will be extensive and revolutionary.
We are in the last days of denial. Denialism is finally about denying that we have to change. The Greens and the general green and social democratic movement are in the vanguard of predicting that we must change or suffer the severe consquences. The Greens position is fully supported by all the science but often the messenger is unwelcome when the news is discomfiting. Conservative people don’t want to change. The conservative public are mentally wedded to the current system. They can neither perceive nor conceive of the need for anything much different from the status quo. They are moulded further into this false belief mindset by the mainstream media.
The Greens suffer opprobrium for being the bearer and predicter of unwelcome news. The free lunch from unfettered exploitation and despoliation of the natural environment is over. In future we will have to pay much closer attention to sustainability in all its forms and maybe, at least in part, accept a more modest but still eminently acceptable lifestyle.
In short, the Greens are suffering politically for being ahead of their time. When their time arrives, when they are proven correct as they amost inevitably will be (the laws of physics and biology pretty much guarantee this) then one can hope that finally they will become mainstream-acceptable. A change in the material basis of society will produce a change in the political paradigm.
Whilst I cannot comment comment on interim political tactics for the Greens (I do not know enough to comment), I think the main game is to stay on message about the absolutely necessary green and sustainable “shape” of our future. Eventually, being proven right-all-along on these vital and imperative issues should be a gold mine of positive political capital. The thing then will be to not allow the right wing parties (LNP and the misnamed Labor) to lie about their history of bad policy.
When the Greens are proven right they will need positive go-forward green policies for sure. They will also need to be a a bit politically hard-nosed, dredge up the ractionary party’s history continually. Keep it front and centre that the old parties were wrong, wrong, wrong about just about everything and nearly led us to total disaster. Rub their noses in it and destroy first their credibility and then them as viable parties at the ballot box. New parties can arise then and they will have to fight the Greens on the Greens’ home ground, “Sustainability Stadium”.
(Sorry, it’s footy finals time, I couldn’t resist that.)
Having criticized Milne in the past, I should say that I thought she made a good move offering to back Direct Action in return for retaining the RET. It increased the pressure on Abbott, and if he accepts the deal, so much the better.
@John Quiggin
And indeed, given that this is an area of policy that is fairly discrete, I have no problem in principle with our party negotiating with the regime over abatement policy. In practice though, one would want to ensure that no feature of a policy to which we agreed subverted any other principle or goal of our policy.
Milne has made clear that in addition to the preservation of the RET, fossil fuel subsidies should go, and paying not to pollute would be unacceptable. Our party would want to use these negotiations to illuminate the underlying abatement costs associated with DA as currently mooted. We would certainly oppose his proposed budgetary cap and of course the 5% target.
If Abbott were to accept he’d need not only to preserve the RET (repudiating both Warburton and his rejection of deals with minor parties) but also open the door to us rewriting the policy. It’s hard to see what he would get out of going this way apart from embarrassment and obloquy from the right.
All of this sits well with our role of educating the broader public about public policy so this is fine, providing we keep the above in mind. If he spurns us, as I expect he will, then he cannot later claim that we were unwilling to negotiate.
@Ikonoclast
“In short, the Greens are suffering politically for being ahead of their time.” Problem is, the Greens, of which I’m a long term member, have been ahead of their time for 25 years. Everyone else is taking their own sweet time catching up.
Arithmetic relapse again. To recap in 2013 BREE reckons 1.5% of our electricity came from solar and 2.9% from wind with biomass and hydro making up most renewables, the latter being mostly pre-RET. Transport consumes about 40% of our primary energy with the renewable contribution effectively zero.
80% decarbonisation by mid century is prorata 32% for the period 2000-2020. Direct Action may fail to get even a shameful 5% emissions cut. To put it bluntly RET + DA won’t cut it. It is a feeble and shambolic gesture which to me shows the Greens are irrelevant.
Well, it’s not like you’ve been standing still. When people are walking and someone’s a hundred metres ahead, the ones behind would have to walk faster to catch up… and that they’re trailing suggests that they mightn’t be the most interested in walking faster.
it’s not “left” and “right”, it’s “front” and “back”.
@faustusnotes
FN, I still hear apparently intelligent and well-informed people saying much the same thing about the Greens having voted against Rudd’s original carbon price legislation. They quite happily ignore the facts that:
1. It was nothing more than a cynical ploy to wedge Turnbull;
2. We weren’t involved in any of the negotiations prior to Rudd announcing it; and
3. We didn’t have sufficient votes in the Senate to get it over the line once Abbott rolled Turnbull and reneged on the deal.
Never mind that it was worse than useless – that tends to be dismissed as a matter of opinion rather than fact anyway.
@bjb
I know that. 🙂 I am 60 and I had friends in the School of Environmental Studies nearly 40 years ago. Those friends put me on to the LTG Club of Rome study (publ. 1972). We’ve had 42 years at least of knowing that we can’t trash the environment and keep a society and economy. In fact, we’ve had 52 years counting from the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” which perhaps first sounded the clarion against environmental destruction. Fifty-two years!!! And the PTB are still dragging their feet, kicking, screaming, denying, delaying, obfuscating, lying, propagandising, wasting, exploiting, despoiling, hacking and burning.
“Destroyers and usurpers! Curse them!” – Treebeard.
Yes.
But presumably most steel is needed for growth, not to maintain present infrastructure.
So we can back out of most steel production by “degrowth” and population controls.
Our climate is being massacred by the production of new fuel, steel, and concrete. This is a pure result of growth.
The Club of Rome had it right. There are limits to growth and we have breeched these limits.
If you want to see who killed the climate, check out Figure 2 here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html
If present trends continue – the end is clear.
Yes.
But presumably most steel is needed for growth, not to maintain present infrastructure.
So we can back out of most steel production by “degrowth” and population controls.
Our climate is being massacred by the production of new fuel, steel, and concrete. This is a pure result of growth.
The Club of Rome had it right. There are limits to growth and we have breeched these limits.
If you want to see who killed the climate, check out Figure 2 here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html
If present trends continue – the end is clear.
Hmm
http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/agl-warns-of-profit-hit-from-carbon-tax-removal-20140717-ztxwh.html
A long time ago a chap called Trotsky came to the view that ‘ ..revolution is impossible until it is inevitable’, seems he was correct. In my simple view it’s game over already to minimise or even forestall devastating climate change consequences and ecological collapse, simple arithmetic really – something to do with exponential functions and the misguided belief in never ending growth on a finite planet.
I believe AGL and Energy Australia were major recipients of the near $1bn in cash (plus free permits) they got for supposed loss of asset resale value. The cash was doled out in quarterly instalments I gather. I thought the idea of carbon tax was that consumers got compensated not producers. Producers should also have seen carbon constraints coming for a decade beforehand. A couple of small clapped out brown coal stations (Playford, Brix) were bought out. Bizarrely the Anglesea station that helped power Pt Henry smelter may survive since the rising gas price makes brown coal a cheap backup source.
What Ms Lambie seems to be ranting on about is that the remaining smelters shouldn’t have to pay the renewable energy certificate component on their power bills. I suspect that relates to a fiddle about a hydro ‘baseline’ being shifted from circa 1975 to 1997. If carbon pricing is ever to work keep politicians out of it. Xenophon for example wants Australia to buy a few million foreign carbon credits at 50c a pop. Pathetic.
@Ivor
Can I gently suggest that a source less than ten years out of date might be more appropriate?
Hermit,
Never get between a free enterprise advocate and a big bucket of free government money. Welfare for wealthy corporations and rich oligarchs dwarfs welfare given to the needy.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/01/13/ten-examples-welfare-rich-and-corporations
More on the same topic.
“All the Federal welfare checks, food stamps, and unemployment benefits don’t begin to add up to the more than $1-trillion in indirect tax breaks awarded annually to America’s middle- and upper-classes.
Whereas social benefits such as “welfare” are paid in the form of checks, “tax breaks function by allowing recipients themselves simply to keep more money, reducing the amount they would otherwise owe,” observes Suzanne Mettler in the current issue of The Washington Monthly.
“As a matter of budgeting, however, there is no difference between a tax break and a social program: both have to be paid for, either by raising tax rates or by adding to the deficit,” Mettler points out.
In short, “In the case of social tax expenditures…the most expensive of these subsidies shower their largest benefits on the most affluent Americans,” writes Mettler, a professor of government at Cornell University and author of “The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy,” coming this fall from University of Chicago Press.
Her message: “Beneath the surface of American government lurks a system of social programs for the wealthy that is consuming the federal budget.” – Global Research.
@Ikonoclast
Ikonoclast: A thought to cheer you up. You start with primary energy consumption. With fossil fuels, 60% of the energy is is wasted – it goes up the chimney or out of the exhaust pipe as waste heat. The number is a bit lower with state-of-the art coal plants, quite a bit lower for combined-cycle gas, and a lot higher for vehicles. Now suppose you go 100% renewable. The waste drops mathematically to 20% or so. Why? One, the generation has, by accounting convention, no waste. The inefficiencies in conversion are just left out. This is fair, as “waste” wind and sunlight has no cost or environmental impact. Two, electric machinery is very efficient. The worst is probably the electric car, with 15% losses plug-to-wheel. You lose 5% in transmission. So with absolutely no change in lifestyle or non-energy production, you cut primary energy consumption in half. Source: Lawrence Livermore energy flowcharts.
I suggest we all switch to using the LNL metric of “energy services”; the energy that does actual work for us in warming, cooling, turning pumps and motors, etc. But I wish they would change from the fossil-legacy quad to kwh, an SI unit.
If you want to see who killed the climate:
As India, Indonesia, China, Africa (quite rightly) seek the same living standard as in OECD, I see absolutely no solution whatsoever.
Unless some new set of international institutions emerge with capacity to negotiate a global living standard for 10 billion people that limits fossil fuels.
The human species do not have the ability to act rationally.
Ok OK
Rewrite.
“The human species does not have the ability to act rationally.”