First defeat of bad climate change legislation

Today the Australian Senate is expected to knock back the government's key climate change bill, which sets up an emission trading scheme.

The scene would then be set for a re-introduction of the bill in November, potentially to be followed by a double dissolution snap election.

The opposition, scheduled to knock it back ostensibly via a raft of amendments, is opposing the bill for the sake of opposing. The government doesn't have the numbers in the Senate unless the Greens are on side.

Which they're not, because the bill is a thorough travesty. Despite Al Gore's backing (on the basis that taking something to the end of year climate change conference is better than nothing), this bill is seriously regressive.

Under the bill, large polluters are obliged to cut back carbon emissions, but any action by individuals means the large corporations don't have to do as much. In effect, individual action only benefits the corporations (see Ross Gittens here). In fact, this encourage people to engage in greater carbon polluting activities, simply to force the corporations to become more energy efficient. After more than a decade of paying higher electricity prices for green energy, as soon as the bill is passed I should move to brown electricity (as Gittens points out).

Kevin Rudd should be thoroughly embarassed to present such a perverse message to Australians.

Al Gore: weak climate change policy better than nothing

If Al Gore endorses it, is it good enough?

That doesn't seem to be the right question.

In Australia at the moment, Gore has endorsed the Australian government's proposed emission trading scheme. His core rationale is that some policy is better than none. He identifies the failure of two leading industrial nations (Australia and USA) to ratify 1997's Kyoto protocol as one of the biggest causes of inertia in action on climate change. And for those two countries to go to the Copenhagen conference with leadership on the issue is a strong signal to the rest of the world, even if the plans are weak (in the case of Australia) or aimed too far into the future (USA).

For comic relief, Senator Steve Fielding [a foolish sceptic who holds balance of power in the Senate] is hoping to persuade Al Gore that he's wrong on global warming - based on a very selective chart which focuses on 1998, which happened to have abnormally high temperatures.

Meanwhile, Crikey has some harsh words to say about this apparent leadership, which they characterise as based far more on hope than action.

An interview with Gore on the 7.30 Report fleshes out very well his position on Australia and the US in the lead-up to Copenhagen.

Garnaut on emission changes: too late?

In commenting on the Garnaut report, the Herald's Ross Gittens points to the obvious elephants in the room: the economic growth of India and China.

Yes, we knew this. But he also provides an breakdown of carbon emissions increase.

Garnaut notes that global carbon emissions grew at an average rate of 1.1% per year through the 1990s. This would have been what was taken into the 1997 Kyoto talks.

However, from 2000 to 2006, the rate of increase surged to 3.1% per year.

This change has been attributed to the following:

• Global economic growth was 5% per year rather than the anticipated 3.3%
• Growth became more energy intensive. In the 1990s, the "energy intensity" of global gross domestic product fell (improved) by 1.4% per year; however this decade, the energy intensity has been falling by only 0.2%
• Energy use became more emission-intensive. Through the 1990s, cleaner fuels were used and the emission-intensity of energy use dropped 0.2% per year; however this emission-intensity increased by 0.4% per year this decade.

And all of this is said to be due to India and China coming on-stream in the economic world.

It remains difficult to begrudge those countries their due, although it makes the job that much harder.

Simulations run for Garnauts team require global emissions to peak by 2010 if atmospheric carbon is to stabilise at 450ppm.

Unlikely? It needs leadership from the developed world: to cut emissions by example, and to forge partnerships with those emerging nations to tip the balance in the right direction.

Two years is too short. Ten years might have done it. And that's what we lost with George Bush being declared winner in the 2000 presidential election. And officially, that's 537 Florida votes.

You couldn't write fiction like this.

Mass extinctions in earth's past, when due to climate change, have taken much longer than we're taking.

Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize

Congratulations, Al Gore. I've been saying this for the past year, but the issue's been on the table for 15 years, quite clearly. The Nobel Peace Prize is a challenge for the whole world, to action.

World: The bottom line of Global Warming: An inconvenient Truth

"the era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences."

- Winston Churchill

Global Warming is An Inconvenient Truth - and that's the name of a dynamite film (which kicked off my sojourn at this year's Sydney Film Festival).

This film is the clearest and most comprehensive overview of global warming that I have ever seen. Its basis is a graphical presentation given by Al Gore, who has constantly refined and updated it over the thousand plus times he has given the talk.

I am suspicious of activist films, simply because I don’t expect to learn anything new. But the power of the presentation is undeniable: if Gore gave his talk in Sydney, I’d be there in an instant. The message is direct, the most succinct it’s ever been, and the presenter has won my renewed respect.

The outcome is frightening: even if we act now, the oceans will likely rise 6 metres, which will result in 100 MILLION refugees from lowlying areas in India, Bangladesh, China, the Pacific, and so on. The west is barely able to acknowledge current refugee situations (Darfur, for instance); we will become a spiritually poorer world as we knock back their suffering and focus on our own problems. Massive infrastructure investment will be needed to protect and mitigate.

A survey of a random 10% of over 9000 published (peer-reviewed) scientific articles gave NO dissent from the fact of global warming; a similar review of newspaper articles showed 53% expressed doubts about this reality. That is a very stark illustration of the extent to which the public is misled. A clear parallel was made between this situation and the “doubt” spread by tobacco companies when the links between tobacco and cancer were scientifically drawn.

The film clearly shows other climactic effects that we are already seeing. Desertification, extremes of weather: increased drought, heat and violent storms in particular.

This is the first work in any medium that draws together all strands of the issue in a complete summation of the issues. It even deals with the temptation to move straight from uncertainty to do-nothing despair: there are always things you can do. At the very minimum, a) vote strategically to make this issue top of the agenda; b) change your electricity source to (certified) green energy – most energy companies now have this option. More than this, the film and web site has many suggestions.

The web site for the film also has a trailer - take a look.

Whether you’re a climate change skeptic or think you know it already, this film is a must-see. It should be text-book material in all schools.

What will you say to your children about your action at this pivotal point in history?