Climate Promises So Much Hot Air

Janet Albrechtsen Blog

September 26, 2007



http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/climate_promises_so_much_hot_air



WHAT is it about climate change that attracts charlatans? While
the focus has been on the Howard Government these past few days,
what about the political snake-oil salesmen who would have you
believe that we can reduce carbon emissions and fix global
warming in the near term?



That we can pull it off without noticeable economic or political
pain and without worrying about what developing countries do. All
bunkum. But you wouldn't know that just by listening to the siren
songs of the federal ALP or the Greens. They tell us breezily we
can have it all, no worries. Where is the probing, sceptical
media when these sorts of porkies are told?



Labor's climate change policy represents the sort of brazen
deception that Hugh Mackay would have no hesitation labelling
"shameless mendacity" had it been offered up by the Liberal
Party. But because Mackay and his progressive friends are
barracking for Kevin 07, they have gone missing in action on the
issue of what an ALP government can, and will, deliver on climate
change.



A couple of striking recent developments in NSW tell us what a
real live ALP government would be forced to do if it got its
hands on the levers of power. It doesn't bear any resemblance to
the cuddly, idealistic promises of the Kevin 07 campaign. Federal
Labor is hoping nobody will notice the yawning gap between what
can be delivered on climate change without passing through the
public's pain barrier and what Peter Garrett and co are holding
out to us.



Which is why we ought to take a close look at NSW, where this
problem is writ large. The NSW Iemma Government is acutely aware
of the chasm between reality and spin because it actually holds
the reins of government.



Exhibit one from the NSW Government reality file is Moolarben. A
few weeks ago, the NSW Government approved the development of a
massive new coal mine at Moolarben near Mudgee despite loud
protests from environmental and residents groups. Moolarben is
huge. The Sydney Morning Herald reported it would produce 504
million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 168 million more
cars on the roads and almost as much climate change pollution as
Australia generates in a year. If you're a climate change purist,
this is surely a disaster. But the iron law of political reality
meant it had to be approved. A cleaner environment tomorrow is no
substitute, electorally speaking, for jobs and prosperity today.



As Tasmanian forestry unions taught us at the previous election,
the first duty of any Labor government is to preserve and enhance
the jobs of union members. Utopian promises of a clean, green
environment free of coal mines and timber workers must always
surrender to reality.



This is one reason that those telling you it is possible to have
meaningful and binding international targets on carbon emission
in the near term are practising a fraud. If the NSW Government
cannot say no to the jobs generated by the coal industry, can we
realistically expect developing countries such as China to do so?



And any scheme that imposes real and effective targets on
developed countries but not on developing countries is no more
than a scheme to export jobs from Australia to China. Now, Bob
Brown and Garrett may have no objection to that. But the hard
heads in the ALP know better.



Exhibit two from the NSW school of practical political reality.
The NSW Labor Government realises that NSW needs at least one
large new power station to "keep the lights on", to quote Premier
Morris Iemma. But as Tony Owen told the Government in his report,
it cannot afford to have one without privatising the NSW
electricity retailing sector at a minimum, and probably also the
generation sector as well.



Herein lies not one but two delicious ironies. Privatising the
power industry in order to fund a new power station, inevitably
coal-fired, shatters two sacred tenets of the left-wing faith.
Thou shalt not privatise. Thou shalt not build more coal-fired
power stations.



The need to preserve the jobs of electricity workers, no matter
what the cost, will likely mean privatisation will fail because
the unions will oppose it, just as they did when former premier
Bob Carr and his treasurer Michael Egan went down that path in
1997. Already the unions who pull the NSW Government's strings
have vetoed privatisation.



Interestingly, according to reports in The Daily Telegraph, they
have done an unholy deal with the NSW Government to keep any
dispute between them quiet until after the federal election.
Similarly, if NSW needs a coal-fired power station to keep the
lights on, they will get one. At public expense. No matter what
climate change commandments are broken in the process. Union jobs
will always outrank the cost to the public and certainly trump a
clean atmosphere.



The hard men from Labor's NSW Right faction learned those lessons
of practical politics along with their two-times tables. And the
key lesson for voters is that federal ALP is run by such
practical men today. Men such as Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan. They
know, though they are not saying, that Garrett, Anthony Albanese
and ALP promises of a clean, green tomorrow are all just
flim-flam election material. They know that, pre-election, the
vast gap between what they promise on climate change and what an
ALP government can actually deliver needs to be filled with a
combination of smoke, mirrors and lies.



Should Labor win the federal election, these childish stunts will
stop and the real business of governing will begin. Perhaps we
should be grateful: adhering to idealistic targets, butchering
the coal industry and banning electric hot-water systems will
simply impoverish Australians and send jobs offshore without
making a jot of difference to world carbon levels or global
warming.



If we think the Chinese are going to stop opening new coal-fired
power stations because we veto new Moolarbens and won't sell them
coal, we have a shaky grip on reality.



So the realpolitik of the ALP hard heads is infinitely to be
preferred to the Pollyanna-type views of the dreamers who write
the campaign ads and the jingles about clean green futures.



But it would be nice to think that when this inevitable deceit is
practised upon us, it would be fearlessly exposed. To think that
the left-wing faithful, the artists, poets, actors and
playwrights will complain about a lack of public decency in
public life, led by Mackay, excoriating the mendacious in public
office. To think the intelligentsia will moan about being lied to
and write books titled, Not Happy, Kev.



Not likely. I guess that's my own utopian fantasy. But don't say
you weren't warned.


-- 


Regards

Bonzo

The increase in CO2 since about 1945 has been from 0.03 percent
[of the Earth's atmosphere] to 0.038 percent, a change of only
0.008 percent. The data indicates that CO2 is not the cause

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?