Reality in Kiwi land

Having 3 weeks holiday clears the brain and body of its lingering stresses and worries. My holiday with elderly relatives in New Zealand exposes me to an older way of living.
People do things by getting outside and talking to each other. No one has Facebook.

Holt's Forest, Tutira

My relatives enjoy company with endless rounds of lunches and coffees, supporting local jobs and produce growers. (Note including getting upset about NZ Apples not being allowed in Australia!)
Some have computers but most keep these in the background, not allowing these boxes to take over their waking life.
Marketers will not be able to track them as they rarely use credit cards, can't fill in their tax forms online and listen to radio, TV and read newspapers. No push email's for them.
My elderly relatives also don't care about debates on climate change. After all, they won't be around to see the effects. They also won't be around to get any benefit from energy savings apart from insulation.

Rangitoto Island - Now Pest Free!

But thank goodness for smart phones! At least I got a small drip of news and views of what has been happening in Australia. Thanks to push emails from Getup, Climate Council, ACF, Environment Victoria and other organisations.

But in New Zealand, the climate change debate continues with many a denier and whats worse, much apathy. The North Island is suffering another summer drought, and Christchurch was inundated with a 1 in 100 year flood, made worse by the land changes from the earthquakes.
I hardly saw a Solar Hot Water System, or Photovoltaic Array on any roof, and I was in one of the sunniest parts of the country. I saw few string shopping bags but much worry about rising Electricity costs. Petrol was $2.19c per litre.
For 100% Pure New Zealand, there is still lots more they can do to decarbonize their economy. But at least they have an Emission's Trading Scheme- https://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/

That's more than what we will have, come July 2014!

Consilience, Science and Politics

Today's ABC Radio National's Science Show gave one of the best discussions on why the scientific method works. Consilience Powers the Big Scientific Ideas by Paul Willis talks about the multiple lines of evidence that interweave and support a scientific theory. Big ideas such as the Theory of Evolution and Climate Change are supported by thousands of experiments by thousands of scientists, who vigorously attack, repeat and extend the results of those who came before them. Thus the theory builds robustness,
nuance and specificity.

Meanwhile, those who attack some of these consensus theories, do so by cherry picking- single criticisms built into improbable heights. Most legitimate scientists talk about the known knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. By which they mean the grey areas and questions still to be answered and indeed asked. Thus building consilience.

Such scientific processes are different from what the rest of the world uses. Politics is the art of the possible - getting the members of the party and the people to agree to what is proposed. We saw this week what happens when the science becomes politically savaged when the Federal Parliament House of Representatives repealed the Carbon Tax, Australia's price on Carbon Pollution. Its a shameful episode in our history - economic theory, scientific theory and politics coming to very different results. I too can only say sorry this has happened like Ross Gittins in the Sydney Morning Herald

I've always felt that until and unless our economic systems are soundly built on the long-term energetic's of our natural world, we will do nothing productive, sustainable or correct. I look forward to the battle in the Australian senate on the Carbon Tax Repeal. As someone who gathered in Melbourne's Treasury Gardens and signed several petitions, I hope the small minority of people who are genuinely concerned can sway the political process in this time of greed and insanity.

More Laws of Power

To continue
Law 4: Always Say Less Than Necessary:
Powerful people impress and intimidate by saying less.
Stop the Coal Mining!

Law 5: So Much Depends on Reputation - Guard it with your life
I hope Bill Shorten understands this.
I hope Federal Labor members understand this and stick to defending their Carbon Pricing Scheme.
Mr Abbott certainly understood this and the previous law!

Law 6: Court Attention at All Costs
Everything is judged by appearances. When Opposition Leader, Mr Abbott was out and about all around Australia, running, swimming, pressing the flesh. Grabbing headlines with short, forceful, negative slogans (see Law 4). Now that he has gained power, fewer press conferences, but still saying as little as possible.

The Victorian Liberals govern with one vote, Geoff Shaw now an independent MP, charged with 23 counts of obtaining financial benefits by deception and one count of  misconduct in public office. But not a peep out of Labor Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews about  'illegitimacy of the Government', something we heard about long and clearly from Tony Abbott when a similar problem occurred in Federal Parliament.

Clive Palmer is courting attention appearing larger (easy that one), more colourful, more mysterious.

Climate Change Science Digest

 As a Sept 13 Take Part article says "Labor’s “polluter pays” carbon tax will be replaced with Abbott’s more expensive “taxpayer pays” in which taxpayer funds will pay for emissions mitigation at lowest cost within Australia. Both systems promise to reduce the country’s emissions by a paltry five percent by 2020."

BTW 3 Public Servants down, 11,997 to go!
Carnage, here we come!!!

Climate Change, Carbon Tax and the Coming Election

With the change of Labor leadership to a recycled Kevin Rudd, it will be interesting to see if "the greatest moral challenge of our time", that of effective response to climate change will feature heavily in the coming election.
Seeing Malcolm Turnbull on Q and A on Monday made me wince. I felt for his answers to various questions regarding the Coalition's "Direct Action" Policy - including the statement:

"The Liberal Party's policy is to do that with a range of measures, so-called direct action but that involves a lot of things. You know, by competitive bidding of carbon reduction mechanisms and a whole range of measures and but the big difference between our policy, apart from the fact it has a much lower cost than obviously the carbon tax at the moment, is that it is not designed to go any further than 2020....So it is not a long-term policy."
And "I have been a very strong advocate of market-based mechanisms. I have to say, however, being very honest - frank about it, that emissions trading schemes to date have worked better in theory than in practice. The over-allocation in Europe has really been something of a disaster in terms of the emissions trading scheme there."

My remembrance of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was that more permits were being requested for business by Malcolm (then Liberal Leader), an over-allocation perhaps!.

My early flowering Jonquils

So now we know the Federal Opposition's Direct Action scheme is short-term. So why do it and then have to change schemes?

So is the current scheme, the much maligned, Carbon Tax working?

Matt McDonald, in the Conversation "Why Labor should fight the 2013 election on climate change" writes:
"Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation hit a 10 year low in early 2013, driven by increases in cost for wholesale electricity and an increase in the share of electricity provided through renewable sources. Both of these dynamics are attributable to the carbon tax."
And "Most industry representatives they interviewed, all from fossil fuel intensive industries, indicated support for increased government intervention to set and maintain carbon pricing mechanisms to create business and investment stability". See the Conversation for the rest and his comments today

Other interesting media discussions on the topic include "Extreme Weather" on ABC TV Catalyst show, explaining in some detail why we have been having such cold, bright weather recently.
Jonathon Holmes, now retired from Media Watch, also reprised the topic "Hot air stoking the climate change debate" on 24 June 13.

So does Kevin have the moral fibre to make this an election issue and keep the price on carbon a market based scheme?

Climate Change and Media Reporting

Good on you Media Watch!. Last night Jonathan Holmes provided a succinct and interesting take on the bias against factual reporting of Climate Change in the commercial media. He clearly laid out the bias of these radio stations and showed their lack of balance, factual veracity and general bad reporting of the topic.
I have issues with inviting many skeptics on such shows, mainly because the short time period on radio reporting cannot give even the modest amount of data needed to understand the topic (unless of course you have read multiple books, journals and other in-depth publications). Its all emotion and poor reasoning.

My scientist family generally has the ability to seek beyond the 3 min sound-bite in search of factual information. ABC The Drum also reported on bias in programs on the ABC on Climate Change last year and its take on the problem was interesting also. But as they said - "But if I were running a science show on the ABC, I might well feel that what should guide me is the science, not shifts in popular opinion"

Yes the weather is changing and so is the climate. One you can see if you look out the window (weather), the other is a long-term, mathematical construct with huge variables and specific regional variations.
I can understand radio talk back hosts not being very good with numbers as per this statement(and I quote from Media Watch)
Alan Jones: Nature produces nearly all of the carbon dioxide in the air. Human beings produce point 001 percent of the carbon dioxide in the air...— 2GB Sydney, The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 15th March, 2011

That's one of Australia's highest rating radio hosts with a very odd figure. The fact is that almost 30% of the carbon dioxide in the air is there because of human activity in the past two hundred years - and that's thirty thousand times more than Alan Jones's point 001%"

But isn't that why we have calculators and the people able to use them??
Please a bit of humility. But I forget again - after all who's paying these people??
Follow the money!

SBS Insight: Climate Skeptics Program

It was good to see Insight last night on SBS. Stephen Schneider faced a vocal group of climate change skeptics and discussed with them the reasons for the scientific evidence for global warming. Much of the debate exposed a number of issues including the small scientific knowledge of much of the audience.
An example of this included the pH scale and acidification of seawater with dissolved CO2. Wikipedia has a couple of fine entries on these topics - and I quote: 
"Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.^[1] Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104, a change of −0.075 on the logarithmic pH scale which corresponds to an increase of 18.9% in H+ (acid) concentration.^[2][3] By the first decade of the 21st century however, the net change in ocean pH levels relative pre-industrial level was about -0.11, representing an increase of some 30% in "acidity" (ion concentration) in the world's oceans."
My geologist son then whipped out his calculator ( far more complex than the basic ones I used at school) and proceeded to verify this figure using the appropriate logarithmic calculation, and came to a very similar conclusion using the numbers on the show.
A general lack of scientific knowledge in the community is understandable.  Having 2 practicing scientists at home now makes me very wary of how my discussions are framed. I know (even with my own science degree) how much I've forgotten over the years and how much more experimentation and evidence has been gathered. Hence the need to get good and detailed evidence when framing these debates, not belief.
Watch the program at : http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/302#watchonline

Global Warming Melts Liberals

Warning, warning!! - there's a Liberal iceberg breaking out near you. Following the marathon  meetings earlier this week to try and shove the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme down some very reluctant dinosaur throats, the climate change party skeptics have melted down into open revolt. Tony Abbott et al have resigned their posts in the front bench and senate, leaving Malcolm's Ice Sheet cracking open.
A pity after all those negotiations with Ian McFarlane and Penny Wong.
Is it the taxation aspect that the pollies don't like or is it the climate change theory thats causing the meltdown. Whatever happens to the Liberals, they are handing Labour an election win on a plate (so long as it happens before the next big thing!). (update: except for the incompetence of Labour!)
By the way, my patio is covered in mud from a small flood engendered by the short, sharp, shower that dumped 36mm of rain on my place within 30 mins this afternoon. A veritable flood of mud and leaves came rushing under the fence from next door, overloading the drains and spreading into the house. Great excitment and some work for the family in mopping and cleaning up. Climate change or just weather - your choice!

Climate Change survey

Yesterday the media was full of the news regarding a new survey by the Lowy Institute regarding the concerns of Australians, particularly the importance of Climate Change. Supposedly we are more concerned about Jobs, the Economy, Terrorism etc.
I'm not surprised that this has happened given the saturation coverage of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC)over the last 9 months. During that time many committed people have done more than ever to change their greenhouse habits and use the various rebates given out by the government.
Leadership is always something that people respond to as well as changes in legislation and carrot-like handouts. There is always a few early adopters, a large number of "wait til it becomes mature technology" types and a long tail of uninterested types. This last eventually wake up and find the earth is not flat and they cannot buy anymore BetaMax videos.Complaining mightily at times!
So long as the various levels of Government keep their eye on the ball and the various environmental lobby groups keep the pressure on here and overseas, then perhaps we might get some positive changes.
After all, we already pay extra costs for Power, Gas and vegies due to the Victorian water crisis. The sky hasn't fallen in although some people are certainly suffering from these costs. Not doing anything will just make it certain we will pay more for the current standard of living.

Senator Fielding, Al Gore and Anna Bligh in the news

More news about Senator Fielding and his Climate Change views. Now he wants to talk to Al Gore about climate change to see if the former vice-president can answer his questions. Please! After all this grandstanding he wants someone else's views to use, rather than coming up with anything sensible by himself.

Anna Bligh's request for more concessions for the Big Coal lobby will prove to anyone that the Federal Government of Australia will have to show real leadership (and or luck) to actually get anything worthwhile through the parliament regarding CO2 pollution reduction. So we all hope that CO2 capture from coal fired power stations and carbon sequestration is not just hot air, as lots of $$$, time and effort will be expended on this hope.
Probably the reason for Senator Fielding's recurring climate change outpourings.

Lets hope the hot air regarding the upcoming Copehagen talks produce something better for the world than promises that we won't keep.