As part of the FAQ “Behind the Seams” series being run by Mark Bahnisch and others, I posted a piece (here at Crikey ) arguing that CSG is less environmentally damaging than coal.

There’s not a lot new to be said about the leak of documents from the Heartland Institute, revealing that the Institute was channeling funds from far-right billionaires and corporations to a large number of self-described sceptics, notably including our own Bob Carter, who’s apparently on a monthly retainer, despite his prior claims of independence. Carter is of course, linked to the IPA, which has a long history of rejecting science for cash, most notably in its decades of work (still continuing) for the tobacco industry.

A few points might be worth restating, though:

* As regards the way in which the documents came into the public domain (still unclear, but Heartland alleges they were tricked into emailing them to the wrong person), Heartland and most of their supporters have shown themselves, unsurprisingly, to be stinking hypocrites. Heartland was among the leaders in publicizing and promoting the use of misleading excerpts from private emails in what they and others called “Climategate”. Now they scream about “stolen” documents, backed up by lots of the usual suspects. There’s an amusing response, with which I agree entirely, from some of the scientists victimised by Heartland and its criminal allies in the past.

* There is no such thing as an honest climate sceptic. Those who reject mainstream science are either conscious frauds or gullible believers. I can confidently predict that of the thousands of “sceptics” who made great play of the CRU email hack, no more than a handful will change their views, either on the substantive issue or on the credibility of people like Carter and institutions like Heartland, over this. Those who aren’t, like Carter, on the payroll are credulous dupes. While many low-information “sceptics” have simply been misled by reading the wrong material on the Internet, or trusting the wrong sources, the great majority of active opponents of climate science are complicit in their own deception, preferring to believe obvious lies because it suits their cultural and political prejudices.

* It may be worth restating the absurdity of the claim that genuine scientists (unlike Carter) are motivated by money. Leaving aside the absurdity of the suggestion that the scientists make their career choice because they were after a highly-paid job, there’s the fact that mainstream climate science has the overwhelming endorsement of scientists in all fields. It’s certainly true that the global warming problem has meant more funding for climate science, but there’s only so much in the budget, and much of this money has come at the expense of other fields which are no longer given priority status.

I’m going to relax my prohibition on discussion of nuclear energy, and offer a couple of points to start things off. I expect everything to go in circles as usual, but there’s plenty of room on the comments page, after all.

First, I have a piece coming out soon in the National Interest, arguing that 2011 marked a watershed in the development of energy sources to replace fossil fuels, with nuclear power finally ceasing to be a relevant option, and solar PV finally becoming a serious contender. I’ll add a link when it appears.

I’m sure not everyone will agree, so I’ll also offer a subsidiary claim which, if accepted, would at least simplify the debate. The claim is that the only nuclear technology with a serious chance of substantially reducing CO2 emissions before 2030 is the Westinghouse AP-1000.
Read More »

Bismarck is supposed to have said that for the sake of digestion and peace of mind, one should never watch the process by which either sausages or legislation is made. Certainly that’s true of the Draft Basin Plan released by the Murray Darling Basin Authority a few days ago.

What was supposed to be an evidence-based analysis aimed at determining sustainable outcomes was derailed by poor communications and legalistic processes. The botched release of the Guide to the plan last year produced an outpouring of fear and outrage among irrigators who were repeatedly told that their water allocations would be “cut”. The Government rapidly abandoned the process and engaged in the political bargaining that has produced a new plan, of which the most prominent feature is a proposed environmental water allocation of 2750 gigalitres (or perhaps less) well below the 3000 to 4000 GL suggested in the Guide as the minimum necessary for a sustainable outcome.

The process by which this outcome was reached wasn’t pretty and, unsurprisingly, no one is happy about it (I had my dummy-spit a fair while ago). But, considered as a political compromise, the outcome isn’t all that bad. If the 2750 GL total holds, the environmental allocation will be around 25 per cent of the median flow – that’s comparable to what the Snowy got in the deal brokered by Craig Ingram in 2009. It’s a lot better than seemed possible even seven years ago, when politicians could barely agree on measures to return 500 GL, and a suggestion of 1500 was ruled out of court before it was even studied.

Thanks to the Water for the Future program, something like 1700 GL of average flow has already been (re)purchased from irrigators who have been happy to sell. If the government pursues this path, they could declare victory in a few years time and abandon the costly boondoggles involved in subsidising supposedly water-saving engineering projects.