My thanks to Ms Meggit for her courteous response to my comments of July 21
Unsurprisingly, I’m moved to comment further.
Ms Meggit is right in saying that China and India are doing something, and I stand corrected. That isn’t the point.
Both have massive populations and an understandable urge to lift them closer to the lifestyle that we enjoy. They’ll emit large and increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in the process and we shouldn’t complain if they strive for a lifestyle comparable with ours. The Government says it wants to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by reducing Australia’s.
In 2010, China, the world’s largest emitter, increased its emissions of carbon dioxide by 6.7 per cent, which is approximately 441,554 thousand metric tonnes (wikipedia, quoting UN-produced statistics). The same source tells us that Australia, ranked 16th in the world, emitted a total of 399,219 thousand metric tonnes. China’s increase in emissions in that one year exceeded Australia’s total emissions in that same year – and we haven’t even counted India, third on the list after the 27 countries of the European Union taken together. Forgive me the emphases, but they’re important to understanding the facts. Whether the concern is the total quantity of, or the annual increase in, carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere, Australia’s contrib-ution is so insignificant that anything we may do to attempt to reduce it is unmeasurable and of no consequence at the global level.
On the point of Treasury modelling, I’ll wait for the empirical evidence. Models rely on assumptions about how people will react. If those assumptions turn out to be incorrect, the output of the models won’t reflect reality either. I’d consider it rash to assume that business will not seek the lowest cost environment in which to operate and, as the cost rises, so will the incentive to operate in a more welcoming environment. Parts of Australia’s manufacturing industry have already moved offshore in search of lower cost operating environments. Should we not apply the famous “Precautionary Principle” to this situation, too?
Global temperatures reached a peak in 1998, and at no stage thereafter have returned to that peak (UAH – University of Alabama in Huntsville – satellite-based temperature of the global lower atmosphere). We might legitimately be entitled to refer to that as cooling. Empirical evidence is more convincing than computer modelled predictions. It’s short-term evidence, of course. So, in the geological terms over which climate changes, is the period for which any reliable evidence of temperature variations exists and, if you claim one, then logic suggests you admit the other.
I yield on the volcano point. I misread volcanic output to be 1 per cent of the total output rather than the correct 1 per cent of human output.
The Federal Government’s performance in staving off the worst effects in Australia of the USA’s sub-prime mortgage failures wasn’t and isn’t the subject to which I referred. Introducing it is a furphy. It’s a topic for separate discussion. My comments about China above are relevant to the point.
Apparently, I “seem to think” that there’s no evidence for human-induced climate change. Reading carefully what was printed, note the words “…. in the face of evidence – not overwhelming, but sufficient to cause concern – that human-generated carbon dioxide emissions are not responsible …”. The evidence is questionable, in other words, and therefore it should be questioned. Interpreting somebody’s words to mean what they didn’t say isn’t considered good practice.
Scientific consensus equals scientific certainty is a dangerous claim. Galileo Galilei, Joseph Lister, Alfred Wegener, are well-known examples of how “consensus science” in different eras sought to dismiss new thinking that didn’t fit entrenched ideas. Those who claim that the evidence is conclusive may be right – but they may be wrong, and I refer again to the observed global temperatures mentioned above. We hear claims that 97 per cent of scientists accept the global warming contention, claims based on polling a very small number of carefully-selected respondents. We hear claims that 2500 scientists at the IPCC accept it. Authors write drafts; lead authors edit those drafts. Occasionally, activist polemics creep in under the guise of “peer-reviewed science”. The drafts go to governments for review before publication (as lead author Michael Oppenheimer has told us). How many former IPCC contributors have severed connections with that organisation because they disagreed with the material it was publishing? Some climate scientists demand that their work may only be scrutinised by those whose qualifications the climate scientists accept. If we’re required to bow to that demand, we might then ask what standing have the non-climate-scientists of various Academies of Science on the matter? “Everybody knows” doesn’t justify scientific conclusions. Once, “everybody knew” that the earth was flat. Entrenched opinions aren’t necessarily correct. Treating them as inviolate merely stifles the scientific method.
It’s common ground that our children’s futures, and those of their children in turn, will be influenced by decisions we make now. On the one hand, the “Precautionary Principle” is cited to justify significant changes to the way we live, in case the scientific consensus happens to be right. Remember, too, the calls for a 40 per cent reduction in Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 from some quarters, not just 5 per cent. That same principle should apply to the danger of imposing significant changes to our lifestyle in the absence of conclusive proof that it’s needed. We may disagree on what constitutes “conclusive proof”, I suspect with little hope of achieving common ground. Allowing different points of view is an important part of society’s tolerance. As long as we can agree to differ in a civilised manner, society won’t be harmed, and we can continue to apply the scientific method of questioning received wisdom.
So we come to rent-seeking. Demanding that currently cheap energy sources be penalised economically, in order to make expensive energy sources finan-cially competitive, seems to me to fall into that category. Oil companies or other energy suppliers are accused of it too, and I haven’t suggested otherwise, but it seems to be a concern for some who support the climate change policies of the government. If a behaviour is bad in one instance, isn’t it bad in the other? It’s another furphy. I didn’t knowingly quote David Archibald. I didn’t attend his rally. I don’t knowingly quote other populist speakers. David Archibald is entitled to his opinions. Bob Brown is entitled to his opinions. Both should be able to express and promote those opinions freely.
Brian Panisset
Port Macquarie.
