I have previously written about every current sitting member’s position on the science underpinning climate change and found that the conservatives from the Liberal and National party are split where Labor and the Greens overwhelming accept the science. This is true for both the House of Reps and the Senate. What will an Abbott led government do about climate change policy?
From Climate Code Red:
“Critical decade” or “lost decade”? (2)
Inside the beltway
With a victory for Tony Abbott and the Liberal–National Party coalition at Australia’s federal election in September, and conservative domination of Australian parliamentary politics for the remainder of this decade both likely, what will the major parties do on climate action?
If Tony Abbott or his political party claim they are 100% committed to the environment then I would suggest that is a big fat lie. Here is an example of Tony Abbott's commitment:
The Opposition leader, Tony Abbott’s pitch to major polluters reached new heights today. Addressing a conference in Brisbane, Mr Abbott said he would out-source the protection of the environment and impacted communities to the States and Territories eager to fast track massive new industrial developments.
Those crazy Republicans in the United States have some pretty stupid people representing their party and I feel sorry for their constituents. Today I am featuring Ed Orcutt. Ed in an email exchange between himself and the owner of a bike shop who was protesting a tax on bicycles, came up with a new hypothesis to explain rising emissions…
“You claim that it is environmentally friendly to ride a bike. But if I am not mistaken, a cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That means that the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride.”
Yes you read that correctly. Apparently it isn’t environmentally friendly to ride a bike. We should probably all drive. So, just how much CO2 is produced by a huffing and puffing cyclist? Well, according to a report from the European Cyclists Federation, a cyclist produces 21 grams of CO2 per kilometer travelled, and that includes the CO2 emissions from the production of the food to fuel the cyclist, where as a car produces on average 271 grams per kilometer “based on short trips similar to those a bicycle could make”.
I think if anyone is making unnecessary pollution when they open their mouths it might be Ed. Here is a screenshot of the original email…
The 2013 election to be held in September, is potentially the most important in our country’s history for the very real problem of human induced climate change and our national policies to address it. I have already posted a couple of articles highlighting the huge difference in the levels of acceptance of the science underpinning what we know about climate change and the anthropogenic input amongst our federal politicians. What I found, based on a comprehensive search of Hansard, personal websites, party websites and interview transcripts was a large difference between the conservative parties and everyone else. In the House of Representatives, nearly all Labor Members accept the science whilst in the conservative ranks, the split is close to 50/50. In the Senate, all Labor and Green Members accept the science whilst the conservatives generally don’t, with deniers outnumbering acceptors by 3 to 1. No National Party Senators accept the science.
If recent polls being conducted are replicated in the election, the conservatives stand to win government, resulting in at least 3 years of well…..some sort of mish mash of policy where climate change is concerned. I really don’t understand how sensible policy can be formulated when half the team are in disagreement with the other half as to whether the very thing they are legislating for even exists? If that’s not dysfunctional at least in principle, then nothing is. To turn that dysfunction into something resembling a cohesive position, half the team have to ditch their principles. Personally, I have no respect for anyone who won’t stand up for their principles no matter who they are. I’d never vote for Bob Katter, because I think he’s batshit crazy and his politics are something out of the 1950′s, but I have the utmost respect for him, because he stands up for what he believes.
So, what would an Abbott led government look like in terms of who is looking after which ministerial portfolios and what their position is on the science underpinning climate change? How many of the potential ministers are deniers?
Acceptance or rejection of the science underpinning climate change amongst the conservative Coalition’s potential ministers in an Abbott led government.
I don’t know about you, but that concerns me. More than half of the conservative politicians in the potential cabinet wanting to make decisions on your behalf in relation to climate change, reject the science underpinning it. Using the current list of shadow cabinet ministers in the Coalition and the work I have done previously, I have made the following table. (I have elevated their status under the hypothetical situation of them winning government).
Potential Coalition ministers, their portfolios and their acceptance or rejection of the science underpinning climate change based on current shadow ministers and the work undertaken previously to identify position. Members highlighted in red reject the science, green accept. Blue indicates not enough information to determine position.
From this list, I have examined in more detail the Members whose portfolios are the most important in relation to matters associated with climate change.
Members of a potential coalition government whose ministerial portfolios relate to matters associated with climate change.
The first thing that is apparent is that the majority of members responsible for portfolios associated with climate change reject the science underpinning climate change. I don’t know about you, but I find that completely absurd. It would be like having a Flat Earther as the Minister for Geography or a KKK member as the Minister for Cultural Affairs or a xenophobe looking after Immigration and Foreign Affairs. It actually goes beyond absurd…and these people want your vote! So let’s just have a look at a few of the major players here. I’m not going to pick on the poor bastards I’ve coloured in green. Can you imagine being the Minister for Climate Change when your boss, your boss’ offsider and the majority of your colleagues think you’re in on the “scam”. How do you win their support to do what’s right in the party room? Short answer, you don’t. You go against your principles, do what the boss says, and convince yourself that his flawed logic is whole and sound. Poor Greg. He has my sympathy. The same applies to Ian McFarlane. How do you initiate policy that facilitates the uptake of renewable energy and wean your country of coal and oil when your party is full of windbaggers and others with close ties to the mining industry? You poor bastard. Oh Joe! What were you thinking? You don’t even know your own policyon compensation for businesses hurt by your boss’ inane decision to scrap the carbon tax. You’re a likeable guy but clearly inept.
So, let’s start at the top with the Mad Monk himself. Just remember, this is the guy who claims he accepts climate science and refers to the climate tax as “toxic” and has been unrelenting in repeating how he’s going to “scrap the toxic tax.” Can you believe anything he says? I can’t and nor does he. Don’t forget he was caught out lying and used the excuse that you can really only take what he says as “gospel truth” when it is carefully scripted for him.
So what about Ms Bishop? She is a definitely a denier. She appeals to one non-authority to reinforce her “science isn’t settled” mantra.
“The Prime Minister and her ministers have repeatedly declared that the “science is settled” and there is no need for further debate on how to respond to the environmental challenges from climate change. A Nobel Prize-winning scientist told me recently that “science is never settled” and that scientific assumptions and conclusions must always be challenged. This eminent Noble Laureate pointed that had he accepted the so-called “settled science”, he would not have undertaken his important research, which challenged orthodox scientific propositions and led to new discoveries, which resulted in a Nobel Prize.” Julie Bishop
I suppose though that if you are a denier in charge of the government, you’re going to want a denier trade minister to oversee the sale of 2.5 times the amount of fossil carbon than we use at home. You can’t have an attack of conscience when you don’t think there’s anything wrong. The same applies to Warren Truss. When you want to dig up billions of tons of fossil carbon, you’re going to need infrastructure and transport. I’ve featured Warren’s comments on climate change elsewhere on my site. I won’t repeat them here. Quite frankly they were embarrassing enough the first time.
Barnaby, Barnaby, Barnaby. So many stupid comments to choose from but lets just get to the core of where he stands in relation to climate change science.
“It is interesting, isn’t it, when you see those opposite reading speeches delivered to them straight from the local propaganda unit in the other place? It is just the biggest scam that this nation has ever seen concocted. This scam started out as global warming. That did not work so then it became climate change. That did not work so now it has become clean energy. If we hang around long enough, it will be ‘Saving the pets’.”
No Barnaby, the only scam going is the National Party scamming the very people they are supposed to be looking after, the farmers. But seriously, Barnaby actually thinks tens of thousands of scientists from all a round the world and all the major scientific institutions and the UN are involved in a giant conspiracy. This is a grown man people, and he wants to make decisions that will affect you. He probably thinks there are aliens buried in the Arizona desert and the moon landing was faked. Neither of those two conspiracy theories is any crazier than the one he’s proposing. But let’s just talk about water which will be part of his portfolio should the conservatives win government. Water is vital to farming obviously. Farming is at the frontline of climate change in this country. Barnaby doesn’t accept that this is happening…
The National Farmers Federation, the peak industry body does. In a recent report, THE BLUEPRINT FOR AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE | 2013-2020, they identified challenges facing farming both now and into the future. They say…
It is likely we are already seeing the effects of climate change, with indications including higher average surface temperatures and changes in rainfall trends. Climate models project that, by 2030, average annual temperatures across Australia are likely to rise by 1°C (above 1990 temperatures), with warming of 0.7–0.9 °C in coastal areas and 1–1.2 °C inland. Drying is likely in southern areas of Australia, especially in winter, and in southern and eastern areas in spring. Changes in summer tropical rainfall in northern Australia remain highly uncertain (State of the Environment 2011 Committee, 2011). The impacts on Australian agriculture are likely to be spatially and temporally diverse, with many regions likely to experience more significant adverse consequences than others. The rate and extent of warming will be a key determinant and will affect the success of adaptation strategies while investment in R&D and innovation will be important (Kingwell, 2006). This could bring both negative and positive results, such as a gradual shift southwards for temperate agriculture. In the southern rangelands, animal production is likely to decline while the converse is true in the northern rangelands. Regions currently constrained for cropping, for example due to frost, waterlogging or grain sprouting, may become viable, which will impact the supply chain. The entire industry will require adjustment, as regional changes in production will affect input supplies and the location of processors and other industry assets. Earlier investment in adaptation will reduce the cost of mitigation and sequestration. The challenge is to mitigate the degree and potential impacts of climate change—for the sector and the environment—and to ensure farm, industry and transformation (or ‘radical change’) climate change approaches, such as shifting regions industries to new regions, continue to evolve.
With those changes in rainfall, proper water policy will be critical. Presumably the National Farmers Federation are either in on the conspiracy or they’ve been hoodwinked? Either way, Barnaby will have to ignore them to keep his silly ideology intact.
John Cobb, all things going to the conservatives plan will be looking after the agriculture and food security portfolio. So, what does John Cobb have to say about climate change?
“Many highly regarded scientists do not believe that everything being released and dealt with by the government under the climate change banner is a proven fact. Climate change has also become a growth industry and there are many people with a vested interest in it. So we are not talking about proven science we are talking about a climate change theory.”
Well, he’s correct about the vested interests but I suspect not in the way he is insinuating. Unfortunately he doesn’t name his “highly regarded scientists”. I suspect the darling of the conservatives, the non-expert Ian (I’m the director of 7 mining companies) Plimer is one of them. I must say, I’m pleased that Mr Cobb has elevated climate change from a series of well tested and demonstrated hypotheses to Theory. In which case rejecting it means he should also consider rejecting other Theories like Evolution, Germ, Plate Tectonics or Relativity. If however he means theory in the general sense used in non-scientific terms, then all he has done is demonstrate his ignorance of basic scientific convention.
The thing about John Cobb that really bugs me is the fact that he will be the minister for Agriculture and Food Security yet I don’t know that he will take that role seriously. In 2012, Mr Cobb in his capacity as the opposition shadow minister for agriculture and food security rose to speak 61 times in parliament. Of those occasions, only once did he discuss food security. Clearly, not a topic he considers very important. He did outline what he considers the main threat to food security though…
We work to sustain the way of life and prosperity for all Australians.
That should be a government mission statement, not a specific department within it. Labor’s indifference to agriculture is trashing the agricultural brand, undermining the industry, and is our nation’s biggest threat to food security.
The 2012 Year of the Farmer is a chance for the agricultural sector to explain the need for government to help with research and development, to educate researchers, agronomists and rural scientists towards increasing efficiency and productivity, and to have people with the ability to look after Australia’s biosecurity and quarantine. We absolutely must have those people.
So in 2012, the year of the farmer, the would-be minister for food security spoke only once about what many would consider a very important issue. He wrongly believes the Labor government is the biggest risk to food security. he is playing politics with a very significant issue. Whether he likes it or not climate change is the biggest threat to food security. Perhaps in the rose-coloured world of climate change denial, everything is fine and it’s business as usual, despite the fact the National Farmers Federation, the peak industry body, that I assume he will be expected to take seriously has labelled climate change a “high priority”
The Blueprint has grouped the following issues under the Natural Resources theme:
• security of access to the use of natural resources (high priority)
• higher expectations for environmental care (high priority)
• impact of climate variability and extreme climatic events (high priority)
• increased risk of domestic diseases and pests (moderate priority).
Finally, Sophie Mirabella, the shadow minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. In 2012, Sophie , the opposition shadow minister for Industry, Innovation and Science rose to speak 51 times in parliament. Of those 51 occasionss, only 3 contained the word “science”. On one of those occasions, she said this…
“On science, what is the precise role, as you see it, of the Chief Scientist? Can you give the House a clear statement in principle of the kinds of conduct or circumstances that would cause the government to lose confidence in and/or terminate the employment of any Chief Scientist?”
No discussion of science funding or putting forward any intitiatives, just looking for justification to sack the Chief Scientist when she gets into power because she didn’t like the fact that he acted in the best interests and on the advice of scientists at ANU when they told him they feared for their lives because of nutjob deniers sending them “death threats”. Well it turns out the death threats weren’t really death threats and only one could potentially be construed as a death threat. But you have to wonder, what if they were real death threats and the Chief Scientist didn’t act and someone did get killed? No doubt Ms Mirabella would be calling for blood? Ms Mirabella should concentrate less on working for her whacky ideology and return to working on, oh I don’t know, something to do with science.
So there you have it, deniers in the conservative ranks, looking after climate or climate related policy. A cabinet, divided over the science. Dysfuntional and absurd and led by a liar. That’s the coalition and they want your vote.
In undertaking a little bit of research into the position each sitting member of our federal parliament has on climate change, I quickly came to the conclusion that the National Party (Nats) couldn’t care less or completely reject the science. For example, here is a graph of the sitting coalition members showing how many accept the science of climate change and how many don’t.
Position on the science of climate change by Coalition Members of the House of Representatives by political party affiliation n=59
As you can see, most of the National Party members don’t accept the science. I have recently taken to highlighting some of the individuals from the coalition who reject the science. These have included the National Party members Mark Coulton and John Forrest. I also highlighted individual statements like this one from National Party member, Darren Chester.
“We are after all only talking about models and forecasts. Just as an aside, when the weather bureau cannot reliably tell me what the weather is going to be like tomorrow and then tells me that in 100 years there are going to be sea level rises of a metre as a result of climate change, I think I am entitled to exercise a level of caution in deciding whether to accept everything that is put to me about weather, climate and long-term trends.” Darren Chester
Here is where the disconnect comes in. With 8 out of the 12 lower house members (Senate info coming soon) outrightly rejecting the science, 3 accepting and 1 unknown (Paul Neville is listed as retiring in my election 2013 post but appears to accept climate change science), it makes me wonder if any of them have actually read up on what the Nats allegedly stand for? It might be fairer to ask if the people who preselected them actually know what the Nat’s allegedly stand for? I decided to go to the party’s website and see exactly what they are about. Here are some key statements about climate change from their policy platform document and more generally from their website.
If they are so concerned about the environment, sustainability, food security, land and water management, and recognise climate change as an “urgent environmental priority” why is the party full of deniers? What’s going on? They might be all about respecting differences of opinion and lauding our proud democratic traditions, but these are policy statements and core party values aren’t they? Perhaps whoever writes their stuff is engaging in some feel good greenwashing? Perhaps the party has been hijacked by extremists? Anything is possible, but I suspect, they use words and terms without a complete understanding of what those words, and more importantly the implications of those words, truly mean. What is a “sustainable environment” to a National Party member? The World Commission on Environment and Development defines environmental sustainability thus…
Sustainability is to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
If ever you were going to talk about something happening now that will compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, it is climate change. All the best science available points to a fairly difficult future should nothing be done to combat it. The National Party’s website and policy words do not match its actions or the words and actions of most of its parliamentarians. The saddest part is that the farmers, whom the Nats claim to represent, are those who will be amongst the first to suffer. They are at the frontline. It’s about time they woke up and realised that the people they keep electing are not, either through ignorance or ideology, representing their best interests or the interests of future generations.
Mark Coulton is the National Party Member for the federal seat of Parkes and here he is…
Nice tie. So, what do we know about Mr Coulton’s electorate? From his website we get….
The Parkes Electorate covers an area of approximately 256,643 sq km which is equivalent to the combined size of Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Austria and Switzerland.
This electorate spans from the Queensland border in the North to Ilford, Tomingley and Lake Cargelligo in the South; from Bingara, Boggabri and Coolah in the East to Wanaaring and Cobar in the West.
In other words, it’s a big rural electorate. It’s main industries are listed as wool, beef, pork, wheat, cotton, oil seed crops, lucerne, fruit, vegetables, dairy cattle, horse, sheep and cattle studs, comprehensive agricultural support services, coal and opal mining, timber, wine growing, light engineering and construction industries. (AEC)
Being a rural seat and so heavily engaged in agriculture, one might expect the elected representative to have real concerns about issues most likely to affect agriculture. Naturally, the one that comes to mind for many people is that of climate change given that long-term climatic trends will directly affect seasonal weather patterns. Now, if you ask any farmer “How’s it going?” I can almost guarantee in the first 30 seconds of conversation, weather will be the dominant subject. So, what does the honourable Member for Parkes have to say about climate change? On his website on a page called “Coulton’s Catch-up 3rd October – Carbon Tax Debate” he writes…
The debate in Canberra has seen one Government Member after another talk up the prospect of global disaster brought about by climate change. The dire predictions of coastal flooding by rising sea levels, extreme weather events and drought are based more on Green doctrine than fact.
Green doctrine rather than fact hey? I guess it depends on what one classes as green doctrine and then what one classes as fact. Well, let’s just have a look at the three specific examples Mr Coulton gives one at a time.
Sea Level Rise
This one is pretty straight forward because its simple physics and simple maths. Greenies and non-greenies alike can cope with this. The fact is, ocean sea levels are rising. That is measurable and indisputable. At present, the greatest contributor to sea level rise is thermal expansion. What do all those greenies at the CSIRO, say?
It’s not just the CSIRO being run by greenies either. It seems the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency also must have been pushing their green agenda when they released a series of coastal inundation maps so that councils could begin planning for the future.
Coastal inundation map of a section of the Gold Coast based on projected sea level rise to the year 2100.
Extreme Weather Events
Weather extremes, whether Mr Coulton likes it or not, are becoming a fact. James Hansen demonstrated in a recent paper that there has been a statistically significant shift in climate extremes with more record high temperatures and less record lows. This is simple physics. You cannot add energy into the climate system and not expect it to affect the weather. Warmer oceans lead to increased evaporation leads to changes in rainfall and more intense storms. Higher land and air temperatures leads to greater evapotranspiration with changed rainfall can lead to extremes of drought. This ain’t rocket surgery Mr Coulton. I do love a good animated graph. Check this one out. Those hippies over at NASA made it.
Drought
Of the three issues Mr Coulton mentioned, the one of most relevance to the primary producers in his electorate, the people whose interests he is supposed to have at heart, is drought. Without water, you can’t farm. Thankfully those pot smoking greenies at the Bureau of Meteorology have long-term rainfall and temperature data for the entire country. Here is what it looks like…
Remembering where Mr Coulton’s electorate of Parkes is in New South Wales you can see that over the last four decades there has been a drop in rainfall of 10-30mm per decade. This may not sound like much on the face of it but when yo consider just how little rainfall these areas receive it is quite a substantial reduction. If you take Mr Coulton’s electoral office in Dubbo for example. It is an area receiving 120mm less rainfall now than it was 40 years ago. The long-term average rainfall for Dubbo is about 580mm. So it’s about 1/5th drier. Combine that with the increasing temperature of 0.30-0.40 degrees C per decade and its its a recipe for future disaster if the trend continues and there is no reason to suspect it won’t. So why won’t Mr Coulton embrace the facts and start doing something that will help his constituents, the people he is paid to represent, to prepare for the indisputable fact of climate change? Because it’s all nonsense made up as part of the green agenda. Mr Coulton, you are an idiot.
Principle CSIRO climate scientist, Dr I M Green showing the Victory sign shortly after being informed that everyone is accepting his organisation’s green propaganda as factual evidence of climate change.
I have just added a two new pages to the site each with a single post titled Election 2013 Reps and Election 2013 Senate. These pages are a resource for anyone wanting to know where their local federal Member and Senators stand on the issue of climate change. Feel free to direct people to them in the lead up to the federal election.
In compiling my list of politicians and their acceptance or rejection of the science that demonstrates unequivocably that human-induced climate change is real and serious, I have come across a number who haven’t made a definitive statement either way. With some of those, the position is a bit ambiguous as they do make general statements about emissions or protecting the environment. For the purpose of this list though, the criteria to be classified as an acceptor is a definitive statement acknowledging what the science tells us. To search for that acknowledgment (or rejection), I go to a site that allows me to search every speech recorded in Hansard by a given member for specific words and phrases. My word of choice is of course “climate”. So how did Karen Andrews go?
In Karen’s 153 speeches to parliament, she used the word “climate” just 5 times. Given that climate change is arguably the most important issue affecting the Earth, perhaps Karen’s use of the word “climate” was more about quality than quantity? You be the judge.
Mar 1, 2011 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011; Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-2011: Second Reading
“We have great beaches, a wonderful climate and many things to do. Why wouldn’t you want to holiday with us on the Gold Coast?”
Okay, that’s one down. Perhaps the next four will be hard hitting…
Nov 2, 2011 Questions without Notice: Qantas
Nov 2, s011 Bills: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Online Games) Bill 2011; Third Reading
Nov 2, 2011 Bills: Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011, Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011, Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011; Second Reading
“We have an excellent climate on the Gold Coast, with wonderful beaches and an equally beautiful hinterland.”
Well, there you go. Three separate speeches on three very different subjects on the same day and she just recycled the same irrelevant line for each speech. Lazy lazy lazy. I’m beginning to think she should look for work as a travel consultant. Well, one to go…
Feb 9, 2012 Bills: Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011; Second Reading
“With the current economic climate, the Gold Coast’s building and construction industry…”
So disappointed. I was sure we were going to get five statements about the Gold Coast’s beautiful climate. Instead we got four of those and one about the economic climate. Nothing about climate change though. To me, the thing that makes this failure to discuss climate change so astoundingly stupid, is that the Gold Coast, being at sea level with many properties only just above on reclaimed swamps shaped into canal estates, is an area destined to be extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change. With the Gold Coast deriving most of its economic returns from tourism, Karen Andrews’ travel agent-like sales pitch seems even more ridiculous. What tourists are going to come to a beachside resort city with no beaches?
In 2010 the federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency produced inundation maps for the Gold Coast. The first shows projected sea level rise of 0.60m by 2100. The second, a more serious sea level rise of 1.1m by 2100.
Well it seems that at least somebody is taking the threat of climate change and its projected effects on the Gold Coast seriously. But the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency are not the only public officials who are. The Gold Coast City Council released a document identifying all the climate risks and strategies for adapting to them. It’s called the Climate Change Strategy 2009-2014 Gold Coast City Council. From the Executive Summary…
It is anticipated that climate change will impact Gold Coast weather patterns and amplify the occurrence of extreme events like cyclones and heat waves. Climate change will require more intensive responses to natural disasters like drought, bushfire and flood. Council will lead our community in preparing for these unavoidable events by increasing efforts to mitigate future impacts.
Further, in 2011, the Insurance Australia Group made a submissionto the Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation
Productivity Commission. In it calls on government to undertake a number of actions in regard to climate change focusing mostly on mitigation and adaptation as they pertain to infrastructure. Here is the Executive Summary…
Weather and climate are “core business” for the general insurance industry. At its most basic, insurers underwrite weather-related losses (including physical damage to insured property and interruptions to business continuity) by assessing, pricing and spreading the risk and then meeting claims when they arise.
Adaptive measures can complement insurance in dealing with the consequences of climate change. Insurance is a means to provide compensations for financial losses. However, it is preferable to prevent losses from occurring subject to the cost-benefits involved. The optimal solution is a combination of the two – implementing preventative measures to reduce loss frequency and severity and insuring against rarer and more costly events. Government preventative infrastructure spending reduces future losses and enables more affordable property insurance schemes.
IAG appreciates that the Federal Government is mindful of a general policy, adopted by successive Australian Governments in recent times, to the effect that where commercial markets, including insurance markets, operate efficiently and effectively on their own, the government should be reluctant to intervene.
IAG recognises the crucial role of government in providing a comprehensive and clearly defined regulatory framework that promotes community resilience to risk and facilitates more affordable premiums and more predictable claim costs. Government has a particular role in encouraging and regulating risk-appropriate development of the built environment and providing an appropriate emergency services framework.
To further mitigate against risk, IAG believes there is a need for greater emphasis by government on community adaptation to extreme weather events, including stronger building codes to protect structures from extreme weather hazards – tropical cyclones, severe storms, hailstorms, bushfires and flood – more risk-appropriate use of land and greater emphasis on hazard mitigation infrastructure.
Until now, building code standards have focused in principle on protecting life and safety. IAG suggests there is scope to enhance building standards so that they also cost effectively protect the property itself, and its owner’s financial interest, without sacrificing safety performance.
Government has a crucial role to play in risk-appropriate land use planning and zoning. Land that is, or becomes, at unacceptable risk from hazards such as tropical cyclones, severe storms, hailstorms, bushfires and flood should not be zoned for residential or commercial use. Without sound and consistent government controls, there is little to prevent ongoing building in locations of extreme vulnerability.
Cooperation and data sharing with government is essential to ensuring that the risks can be mapped and understood, and significant solutions are yet to be implemented.
The general insurance sector argues that there is a clear social and economic case for eliminating or at least reducing State insurance taxes and charges as a priority in any reform of Australia’s taxation system.
It is in the insurance industry’s interest to educate the community on how to become more resilient to increasingly severe weather events, as well as how to reduce their impact on the environment.
There are also numerous papers dealing specifically with the issue of climate change in Australia generally and on the Gold Coast more specifically. For example, here,hereand here. The fact is, climate change is real, caused by us and serious. For places like the Gold Coast, it will ruin the tourism industry it so heavily relies on, unless serious mitigation and adaptation is undertaken. The LNP Member for McPherson, Karen Andrews, is either completely oblivious to the important issues that will face her electorate, or she is deliberately burying her head in the sand. The other option of course is that she thinks she knows more than the experts. Whatever it is, she is an idiot and does not deserve to represent the people of McPherson. It is the inaction of people like her and her party full of climate change deniers that will ruin the livelihoods of the very people who vote for them.
As this is an election year here in Australia, I believe the time has come to start highlighting a few of our politicians…. the really stupid ones. These are the politicians that leave me scratching my head wondering who the hell voted for them and what the hell they were thinking when they did? Hopefully within the next four weeks or so I will posting the full list of incumbent federal members and their stance on human-induced climate change and global warming. For each I will quote statements (some of them are fantastically stupid) they have made that support my assertion that they are either climate science acceptors or idiots. Some will make you laugh, some will make you cry, some will make you want to throw your computer out the window in a fit of rage, and I can guarantee there will be more than a few facepalm moments. So without further ado let me introduce our first idiot, John Forrest.
Johnno is a long time member of the conservative National Party. “The Nats” as they are affectionately called by many Australians can be considered to be the party for the farmers. Johnno’s Akubra hat is a definite clue. When you see a hat like that on a pollie, you just know he’s from the bush. A bit about his electorate, Mallee. This comes from Johnno’s website
First proclaimed in 1948/49 the Mallee Electorate is 70,694 square kilometres. It is the largest geographical electorate in Victoria with only 11 larger electorates Nation wide.
The region is noted for a variety of industries including tourism, services, manufacturing, dried fruit, citrus, stone fruit, almonds, olives, pistachio and other nuts, bee-keeping and pollination, wheat and other cereals, wool, sheep, vegetables, forestry, wine grapes, table grapes, dairying, beef cattle, meat works and sand mining.
To give an idea of the size of Mallee, the total area of England, Scotland and Wales is 219,000 square kilometres, or equivalent to just 2.8 Mallee electorates.
England at 130,395 sq kms is 1.67 times the size of Mallee; Scotland 78,772 sq kms is about the same size, and Mallee is 3.75 times bigger than Wales.
The electorate stretches from the South Australian border in the west to Campaspe in the east, from Sunraysia and the Murray River in the North, and the Wimmera, Grampians and Western District in the south.
In other words, it s a big electorate in the bush. Now, don’t let Johnno’s laid back country looks and hat fool you. He is a bona fide scientist, fully equipped to make informed decisions about climate science. I kid you not. He says so himself.
“There are several positions about climate change. One is that the climate of this fragile planet has always been changing, and there is plenty of evidence of that. In some instances this climate change has been quite dramatic, even cataclysmic. The second position is that the current phase of change is caused by human activity and therefore we can have an impact on it if we change our ways, particularly our prolific consumption of energy. I believe that a realistic position is somewhere between these two propositions. Then there is debate in the scientific community about what is causing these changes. This is where the debate gets much more controversial. Every day my office is bombarded with positions from both points of view about carbon… Thankfully, I have a masters degree in science…”
Well there you go. A masters in science. Hang on……what kind of science? Well, according to his website he has a Master of Science and his undergrad degree is a Bachelor of Engineering. Apparently he also has a Diploma of Civil Engineering, and published some “professional papers”. What is it with deniers and their failure to recognise expertise (or lack thereof)? So Johnno, the country pollie with the engineering degree, considers himself suitably qualified to dissect climate science. Hang on, I’ll be right back. The plumber has just arrived to rewire my house! Well, maybe we should have a look at just how scientific Johnno is. I stumbled onto the following hilarious exchange between Johnno and someone called Peter, at the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc forum. Peter had emailed all of our Liberal and National Party politicians asking them to consider climate change, and in his words “the reversal of hundreds of millions of years of carbon sequestration carried out by the decay of plant life and our reversal of this process which can not continue.” he received the following reply from Johnno.
Dear Peter
Do you know what the specific gravity of CO2 is?
Look it up in an old school physics book.
It’s heavier than air.
Get some dry ice which is actually frozen CO2.
Tell me what the vapour does when it thaws.
It drops to the floor.
If this is the case, can you tell me how it gets up several kms to become a greenhouse gas?
We have been duped.
Thankfully, more and more Australians are waking up to it.
Climate change is real but we are being led up the garden path as to the causes.
I will remain resolutely opposed to this Bill which crucifies our economy for no global gain.
Malcolm forgot his basic grade 6 primary school physics and should never have taken us to these embarrassing circumstances.
I’m with the Nationals and will have no say in what happens from here in respect to leadership for the Libs. I am praying for the greatest of wisdom to fall on my Liberal friends including Malcolm.
I hope they read your Email
John Forrest MP
BE(Civil), MSc, FIEAust, MASCE
Federal Member for Mallee
John Forrest, MP
Federal Member for Mallee
How fantastic is that? Rather than pull this apart myself. Let’s just see how Peter responded.
Thank you for your prompt reply Mr. Forrest.
When you use the term “air” what gasses which comprise air are you talking about?
Because air comprises 3 major gasses.
Nitrogen (N2) forms the bulk of our atmosphere it has a specific gravity of 0.9723.
Next comes oxygen (O2) which has a SG of 1.1044.
Lastly comes CO2. This has a SG of 1.5189.
As you will notice nitrogen is the lightest gas followed by oxygen and then carbon dioxide.
Are you suggesting that our atmosphere is layered? Each layer containing only one gas?
So we, at sea level have to breath CO2, unless we can place ourselves at an altitude where we can breath pure oxygen?
And above these layers lies the bulk of our air made from nitrogen?
No, sir, the continual air movements make our “air” more-or-less a homogeneous mixture of all three of these gasses along with other, rarer, ones.
Now this is where it gets really (insert any emotion here). Johnno replied with the following.
You forget that CO2 is utilised by all vegetation to extract the carbon and release the oxygen.
Part of the designers plan I happen to think
What I am expressing is my serious reservations that CO2 is the great villain being made out
Methane and the other nitrous oxides and nasties yes but not CO2
The modelling upon which this whole premise is based is progressively being discredited.
What’s the hell bent rush all about?
Because of my engineering and scientific background, I am a stickler for proper process. Let’s wait to see what occurs at Copenhagen and a full enquiry in to recent world wide questioning of the science.
We have time. The rest is haste for blatant political purposes to create an illusion about who is more climate change conscious.
Of course the atmosphere (air) is amorphous. Wind and sheer are great mixers but not greater than the law of gravity
John
John Forrest, MP
Federal Member for Mallee
So there you go… I think I can paraphrase this quite nicely. Let me know if I’m on the right track here. Johnno is effectively saying, “Because I am scientist, I know this is true. God made plants low to the ground. Because he designed them to consume CO2 and because he invented gravity he had to make CO2 heavier than other gases so that gravity would pull it to the ground where the plants are. People and animals don’t die from the CO2 because the plants consume it. The air is mixed , but it isn’t.” It actually makes perfect sense… if you’re a child or a moron.
Now, I could go all sciency here and get into fluid dynamics and atmospheric physics and relativity and various other disciplines but I think, given the Inhofesque comment about the “designer” I think I’ll just run with a picture that sums it up.
Denier Comment of the Day March 6, 2013
Ok…headgear on people.
Those crazy Republicans in the United States have some pretty stupid people representing their party and I feel sorry for their constituents. Today I am featuring Ed Orcutt. Ed in an email exchange between himself and the owner of a bike shop who was protesting a tax on bicycles, came up with a new hypothesis to explain rising emissions…
Yes you read that correctly. Apparently it isn’t environmentally friendly to ride a bike. We should probably all drive. So, just how much CO2 is produced by a huffing and puffing cyclist? Well, according to a report from the European Cyclists Federation, a cyclist produces 21 grams of CO2 per kilometer travelled, and that includes the CO2 emissions from the production of the food to fuel the cyclist, where as a car produces on average 271 grams per kilometer “based on short trips similar to those a bicycle could make”.
I think if anyone is making unnecessary pollution when they open their mouths it might be Ed. Here is a screenshot of the original email…
Damn those environmentally unfriendly cyclists.
11 Comments
Filed under Classic denier comments, idiot politicians
Tagged as CO2, cyclists, DCOD, Ed Orcutt, pollutant, Republican