Spring wisteria: early

 I'm recording here 2020's spring flowerings, the wisteria and jasmine in particular.

This year, the jasmine started coming out mid-August.  This is roughly what I would hope for in a normal season: it was initially a late winter blossoming.  In the recent climate-disrupted past, it had been coming out early to mid July at the earliest.

The wisteria started appearing last week - around the 10th of September.  When it first started flowering, it had come out in early-mid spring, the first few weeks of October.  It hasn't come out this early before.

I have to emphasise that this represents the immediate micro-climate at the front of our house.  Other jasmine and wisteria around Sydney - and even around Coogee/Randwick - tends to flower earlier than ours, by several weeks.

So: in 2020 the jasmine came out at a more traditional time, and the wisteria is out a fair bit earlier.

If I were to pick a reason for the wisteria's differential, I might guess that because it spread onto the Bottlebrush and Lilly Pilly trees outside the gate, at least part of the wisteria is getting significantly more sun.

As you can see, it's all white this year - so far.  When I planted it, the wisteria was a light side of purple.  After a few years, the flowers along the side path emerged white, while the rest was purple.  Now it seems to be white everywhere.  On past experience, a few purple flowers may turn up in a few weeks.

Sydney Climate Change report: We're a full season out of whack

35 degrees today.  That's truly awful.

This is the middle of autumn.  Sydney is seeing a week's worth of temperatures hovering in the 30s - temperatures that should be gone by the beginning of February; today's peak should sit squarely in the middle of a bad, hot summer.

Autumn leaves are blowing around while elsewhere spring flowers are confused into coming out for a second season.

And this is a population safely ensconced in a large, safe, wealthy metropolis.  Never mind the rest of the world that lives at the margins.

We knew about this over 25 years ago.  We could have stopped it if we'd done the right thing.  Conservative politicians are beholden to a self-centred support base that's in denial because they don't like to be disgusted [by reality], and while things are okay within their immediate circle.  So-called liberal politicians are likewise captive to a voter base and marginal voters that doesn't want them to make the hard choices.  Voters who do not vote Green are culpable.  Non-voters are absolutely culpable.

Phew.  Now that I've got that off my chest... no, I don't feel better.  But I will offer a couple of sparks of hope today.  And one evil signpost of complacency.

First, the global investment in renewables - half of which comes from China, a command economy - is now double the investment in fossil fuels.  Too little, too late for a two degree rise in temperature, but the catastrophe is slightly lessened.  And a possible forward is flagged by the increase in climate change litigation.  This is the path that had demonstrated success when tobacco companies were fostering political paralysis: courts may help achieve what couldn't be done by those you voted for.

The evil signpost of complacency: Marketing makes our favourite animals seem common as they slide towards extinction.



17-Apr-2018 Sydney bushfire:  The "Holsworthy" fire has a far more direct, tangible impact.  It was raging over the weekend; on Monday, a colleague who lives in Menai stayed home, messaging me: "Sore throats and noses from the smoke.  The fire has formed an arc around us.  All depends on the winds and ember strikes.  We just watch and wait."
At Jannali station on the way home last night, the plume was only a few suburbs away:

The smell of the smoke is novel for a while, but then makes breathing laboured.  As an asthma sufferer, I couldn't survive it up close.  All asthma sufferers would clearly need to get away early, and stay away until the smoke dies away completely.  Climate change?  Because this happened so far out of season, response was not as good as it could have been.  Some specialist firefighting aircraft could not be used because they had been sent back to the U.S. at the end of the season.

Farewell 2016, Fidel Castro, democracy, and rational polity

Well, it’s been a real car crash of a year.  To anyone who ever says “it can’t get any worse”, this is a wry reminder that it can always get worse.

Electoral outcomes that were all disastrous for the environment, voted for by people who are angry and disenfranchised, and thus fodder for any demagogue that promises a solution without having any real answers, or intention of carrying out what they promise anyway.

Habitat destruction continuing rampant – the single greatest threat to biodiversity, as it has been for a long time.

In fifty years, when too few of those alive will have reliable memory of these times, they will ask “what were they doing in the years 2000 to 2020, when they had a golden opportunity to fix things, with relatively little cost?”  All you can say is that venal, self-interested people persuaded whole electorates that first, there was no problem; then: we don’t know enough about it, or it’s not really a problem, or we can’t do anything about it, or we can live with it.

Vale Fidel Castro, who gave the world a shining example on how to improve health and education outcomes for the whole country (not just an elite) with scant resources.  And to all those who whinged that he was a dictator: look at those outcomes, then look at health, education and poverty in the USA, and how much worse they are and will be.  Then look at the US version of democracy:  with just a small nudge from Russia (with help from their stooge Wikileaks) you get an unethical, dangerous liar as president.

Things can always get worse before they get better.  But as just one person, the very least you can do is vote wisely, act ethically, and do whatever you can locally to help global outcomes.

Jasmine spring: 8-Aug-2016

The jasmine climbing the arch over the front gate has just started to give a heady spring scent today.

Climate variability and garden: Spring 2016

The jasmine started coming out properly yesterday morning, Saturday 6th August 2016.  A lone sprig had turned up eight days previous.  The bees are out and energetic (aggressive) today, whereas they weren't last weekend.

For the last several seasons, the spring flowers started quite early, in mid July.  I'm glad they're holding out this year, even though early August is still too early compared to the early 2000s.

 

In defence of Kevin Rudd on climate change

Listening to ex-PM Kevin Rudd on ABC's Q And A recently, some meaningful insights emerged, on the political process and the sometimes opaque approach governments have to communication.

Yet the subsequent media storm seemed to focus on the more trivial, obvious revelations.

Rudd was talking over the events that lead to his downfall.

His period as Prime Minister, 2007 to 2010, came after 11 years of conservative rule. As PM, he characterised climate change as the greatest moral challenge of our day - yet he apparently fluffed it, and shelved the planned emission trading scheme.

This led in no small part to his drop in popularity, and thence to his being deposed as Prime Minister.

Inter alia, Rudd said:

"we'd already put the emissions trading scheme to the senate twice... the Coalition voted it down twice... Following the next election there was no way the Coalition was going to maintain dominance in the senate, as it's proven. The Greens now control the senate as of 1 July this year. So a basis for delaying the implementation two years was mindful of the fact the senate would change."

He also mentioned some cabinet division on the way forward, but the implication was clear: they simply needed to wait for a change in Senate. [In Australia, senate terms are twice that of the lower house, so only half need to face the voters each electorate. A change in government thus means the first term is often not long enough to get through reformist legislation, particularly after a lengthy reign of a previous government.]

Rudd said that his mistake was not ploughing through. However, there came a cogent response from a member of the audience:

"You've certainly admitted your first mistake on the ETS. Surely now your second mistake is actually not articulating what you've just said to this audience to the Australian people about a year ago. At least we would have had a better handle on what was driving your decision to back flip on an issue that you'd fundamentally been given a mandate to push through. I mean here we are now 12 months later and you're umming and ahing but at least you've engaged us on a fraction of probably what the story is. Isn't your second mistake that you actually didn't tell us - and you didn't give the Australian people the respect to actually articulate the story 12 months ago?"

Rudd: "I think the response to that question is that, guess what, political leaders are not perfect."

Of course, the subsequent media furore focused on the internal cabinet divisions, and the part played by the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

It remains that the current government intends to move forwards on climate change, and should be able to do so, with the impending senate makeup. Instead of an emissions trading scheme, they're now working on a carbon tax. Yet the government's popularity is quite low; again, the media is focusing on the wrong end of the stick: giving vent to those to whom the word 'tax' is ideological anathema. Still, it's the government's fault for not emphasising that households would be sufficiently compensated, and there will be no nett revenue increase.

Full transcript of Q And A available here.

Spring report 2: 1st November 2010

Today was quite rainy.  In fact, mid-spring in Sydney was a wet time, and the coolest October in 18 years (see the full report in the Herald).  We're not doing too badly - Melbourne's been mopping up after a season of floods.

On the other hand, the drought has finally broken.  For the first time in (fifteen?) years, no region of New South Wales is officially in drought.

What has the weather done to the garden?  The wisteria's flowers were very subdued this year, not only brief but a much smaller display than usual.  On the other hand, once the flowers are gone, the leaves burst out in force, and tendrils shoot everywhere.  Post-bloom, it's been lusher than ever.

As usual, the jasmine and wisteria are fighting it out for living space: this photo shows the jasmine poking up through the wisteria, elsewhere the wisteria is likewise battling the jasmine on its home territory.

Out the back, the star jasmine has been out for about a week, a very heady smell when the temperature goes up.  However, it's been pretty mild this year because of the cooler temperatures.  Still, the jasmine is growing, and as you can see, it's been climbing the umbrella tree.  This year, it's particularly dense in the upper reaches.

What does all this mean for climate change?  In the short term, it's hard to tell.  Over the years, this journal can help record the changes in flowering patterns.  Anecdotally, the easiest thing to say is that there's been a marked volatility in the past few years.

Reflections on Australia's election - Part two: result and aftermath

There's finally an outcome to Australia's election of 17 days ago.


The story so far: Australia’s federal election of August 21 returned a hung parliament.  The numbers were: Labor 72; Liberal/National Coalition (conservative): 72; independent National: 1; Green: 1; independent ex-Green: 1; independent rural conservatives: 3.  Number needed to commit to form stable government: 76.

To further complicate, the balance of power in the Senate is due to be in the hands of the Greens – however, the Senate seats are only to change over next July, so the balance of power until then will remain in the hands of a minor-party conservative climate change skeptic.

For the past 17 days, the three rural conservatives – all defectors from the National party with some consequent bad blood – had been locked in negotiation with both sides.  The rest of the small players had by now announced their intentions, resulting in Labor 74, Coalition 73.

Finally today, the three committed: the first, Bob Katter, to the conservative side, as expected.  The other two finally pledged to Labor.

Those three independents had said they intended to vote as a block to ensure stable government.  Rob Oakeshott, the youngest, most articulate and least conservative, emerged as their de facto leader (or spokesperson).  Their strongest stated agenda was a) to aim for stable government; b) to get commitment to some reforms in parliamentary procedure; c) to get a better deal for regional Australia.  They clearly got what they wanted on the latter two; stable government will be quite difficult.  Despite everyone’s stated commitments, the independents seem to be all reserving the right – to varying degrees – to withdraw support on anything bar supply and confidence.

Katter’s move didn't suprise.  Despite some of his mutterings, I don’t think he could ever have supported anyone but the conservatives*.

Oakeshott was the final person in parliament to declare his intentions – and thus the fate of government in Australia.  One could say that at his press conference he drew out his announcement too long, simply for effect. (Nobody – including the parliamentary leaders – knew his intentions before he spoke his most significant word: Gillard - ie Labor.)  On the other hand, he indicated in that press conference that he was aware of the gravitas of his announcement, so he went into some detail about the reasoning behind it.  Not the least of this was: would he be able to sleep at night with his decision?

His announced reasons were, in order: Labor’s Broadband policy, climate change, and regional education.

Broadband: Labor’s policy was for a large-scale fibre rollout as a significant and meaningful investment in infrastructure.  The Coalition’s policy involved a significant reliance on incentives to private enterprise, and for wireless to cover any gaps.  Labor’s was seen to be better than the Coalition’s, except by the Coalition, those in the fibre industry – and Bob Katter, who said he didn’t think there was much between the two policies.

Winner: Australia’s infrastructure.  That is, unless you think like one National PM who claimed that fibre would turn out to be a white elephant (that may possibly be the case in the long run, but as John Maynard Keynes said, “in the long run, we are all dead”).

Climate change: the previous governments – both Liberal and Labor – baulked on this issue; Liberal because they were headed by (and populated by) climate change disbelievers, and the later Labor government because their grip on the Senate was so tenuous that they held no prospect of getting any meaningful action passed (large-scale industrial adjustment is always particularly difficult anyway, because the losing industries are there already to complain loudly, and the winning industries haven’t yet become well established - or cashed up).  In theory at least, this means the prospect of real action of climate change, because a) the government is supported on that basis, and b) the Senate will be in the hands of the Greens – albeit next July.

Winner: Well, everyone, ultimately.  Probably.

Integrity:  Rob Oakeshott stated intentions consistently related to general principles over specific electoral pork barrelling.  Liberal leader – for the moment – Tony Abbott came off rather less well.  In response to a request from the ex-Green independent, he promised a billion-dollar hospital in his electorate.  This was rejected as unfunded and unrealistic.  Then, according to “inside sources”, Abbott last night promised the remaining independents “everything they wanted”.  As one of them subsequently said, though, with 68 years’ experience in public life between the three of them they’d seen every trick in the book.  Which is to say, they couldn't trust anyone who baldly said they’d give them everything they wanted.  In summary, principles were seen to be more important than specific promises, and Abbott lost out.

Winner: Oakeshott.  Probably.

Stable government:  Unless Labor gets written commitment from the Greens, the ex-Green, and the two rural independents, there’s no telling where they’ll get blockage.  And as a National pointed out today, any one of several people could renege, become incapacitated, or die.  Further, Steve Fielding, the Senate’s Quixotic conservative balance of power (for the moment), is so mercurial there’s no telling what he’ll do while he still possesses a modicum of power.  One comment he gave indicated he may well act as complete spoiler to Labor all the way next July.

Winner: not stable government, not proactive government.  Probably.

Ideology: isn’t it all about conservative vs liberal, right vs left?  As the third independent, Tony Windsor, pointed out today he didn’t have much problem supporting the other side, because “philosophy with these parties died a decade ago or longer”.  That is rather a good explanation of the result of the general election.  Yet having said that, it’s worth noting that in the end, all independents fell to their traditional leanings, bar Tony Windsor (although Oakeshott is an ex-National in name, he has consistently espoused progressive views).  I further note a comment I heard a week or so back, that all major English-heritage countries now have hung parliaments – that is, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, USA, and Canada.  This does rather speak to a significant dilution of political principle, on a global scale.

Winner: not principle.

Prime Minister: Did Julia Gillard sound like she was speaking with gritted teeth after the prize was hers?  Did Tony Abbott display any sense of relief amongst his mixed emotion?  Because this is going to be the hardest prime ministership in decades.  Winner: Julia Gillard.  Maybe.

*Katter once notably proclaimed that he’d walk backwards to Canberra if there were any gays in his electorate.  Of course, he never fulfilled that promise.  In mitigation, as a gay man in his electorate pointed out today, you’d be most unwise to come out of the closet anywhere in that diffuse rural electorate.

Issue of the year: intellectual dishonesty and ignorance

Climate change is, of course, the issue of the year. But to say why, it is necessary to look at the reasons for the poor outcomes for the Copenhagen conference.



It is easy to understand why poverty is a significant part of the problem. So easy, in fact, that it loomed large in the conference: even the complacent rich countries could understand this. If I am struggling to survive from day to day, how can I find the luxury to contemplate what the world will look like in fifty years? The necessity to survive can drastically narrow one's focus, as most people throughout history can tell you.



That's the issue writ large. Although it would be dishonest to suggest that it's a life-or-death question for everyone below 'developed nation' status, it remains that the worse off one is, the harder it is to broaden one's focus. Conversely - in theory at least - it is easier to adopt a longer-term perspective where self, heritage, and legacy stand a good chance of persisting.





That's not to say there's no intellectual dishonesty among those who are not so rich, yet have some wiggle room. They will inevitably reach for what they can get. But they do not wield the power of those in rich nations.



But why are the richest nations mired - to a large extent - in inaction? Part of the problem is reflected in what afflicts two of the more recalcitrant (albeit advancing) members of the rich club, Australia and the US. In both countries, it is because the politics of opposition reflects - to far greater an extent than is warranted by the facts - resistance to the very notion of climate change. Ignorance exists, but there is little to comfort such people other than the thought that others are making the decisions, and carrying the debate, for them.



Far greater then, as an issue, is intellectual dishonesty on the part of those whose duty it is to understand better.



I have heard enough recently from such people to make me sick. It is largely political, inasmuch as those who argue the contrarian case are largely politically conservative. And they are doing it wilfully, with no desire to properly understand science, nor how scientific theory and debate works, nor how the massive weight of evidence has accumulated over the past forty years.



It is simply put as follows. Yes, scientific understanding is a matter of constant adaption to changing facts, a revising of theories and, at times, paradigm shifts that are tantamount to revolutionary. But the way this happens is via an accumulation of evidence over time that comes to clearly delineate the new thought. But in this case, the fringe thoughts - and 'evidence' is fragmenting, and slowly dissipating over time, not uniting and increasing in significance. Each piece of 'evidence' on the margins has slowly disintegrated when further evidence arrives.



Why call it intellectual dishonesty? Because these climate change 'sceptics' have usurped the term without reference to how scepticism responds to further evidence. Because these people are mostly of a political bent. Because these people claim the right to deny the substance of the scientific debate, while clinging to the propriety of their own very particular articulation of what constitutes scientific debate. And because these intellectually dishonest people have had an effect on climate change outcomes throughout the world in the past three years that is vastly disproportionate to a) the accumulation of independent evidences; and b) the accumulation of independent analyses and voices.



To them, I ask: what burden do you place on your children and grandchildren with your intellectual dishonesty?

Are you prepared to sign your name to statements of your decisions and their ramifications, so that your descendants will know how to regard their parent and grandparent in years to come? 'Misguided' is one thing, but it is another to wilfully foist such a poor legacy on coming generations. How will your self and heritage be regarded in years to come?



Grow up. Think like an adult.

The world is going to the dogs. Discuss.

Australia's largest carbon polluters are back on comfortable ground, spending big on advertising to persuade enough Australians that "jobs" is a better motherhood concept than "global warming" or "brace yourself for very disruptive changes".

My memory tells me that the last time the coal-based industries stomped in to defend their patch, they focused on their political muscle rather than a public campaign.  Still, they retain that in their arsenal if they aren't already using it.

And Kevin Rudd, as Australia's "more conservative than thou" Prime Minister, is gearing up for the climate change battleground by persistent abrogation of international principles on asylum seekers:
1) Continuance of  the evil John Howard policy of excision of Australia's territory (to whit, Christmas Island) from the geopolitical State;
2) fear-mongering over the Sri Lankan asylum seekers sitting in on the Australian Customs ship Oceanic Viking. -again, attempting to follow Howard's lead.

And not only does Rudd perpetuate another disastrously short-sighted Howard policy of incentives to parents to participate in a renewed population boom; he also claims Australia can fit in many millions more people over the years.  (the unspoken parameters: population is okay if it us, not them; we don't want a great influx of people who are too far removed from our culture; and - purportedly - baby booms protect us from our own ageing population, and provide the economic growth that makes us richer - that, perish the thought - asylum seekers couldn't do.

Which is all a load of alarmist claptrap, of course.

Meanwhile, the Government and Opposition are preventing implementation of any carbon emission policy by both arguing variants of the same weak stance on climate change.

Facing the pressing problems of the world... the wrong way.

This is just Australia.  You can fill in the gaps for the rest of the world.  Despite some valiant policy efforts from the European Union, nobody is going to the Copenhagen climate change talks with anything like the necessary power and will.

Brace yourself for decades of instability.  If the world's governments can't cope with prevention, how will they fare with the effects of rising sea levels?  The least of their worries will be the rich retirees already complaining about their crumbling coastline properties.

World's largest solar power plant - where?

Australian telecommunications analyst Paul Budde noted in a recent newsletter that the Australian government had announced plans to build the world's largest solar power plant, as part of its carbon abatement strategy.  The announcement, actually dated May-09, detailed a $1.4 billion government investment, with tenders to close next year.  The planned size is 1000MW, to be commission in 2015.

Not to be outdone...

The list of "world's largest" announcements on this front actually includes at least three other projects, in California, India and China.

California's announcement: 500MW, with "options" for 900MW more (scheduled for opening 2011).

India's announcement: 500MW, in Gujarat - "may now be increased to 3000MW".

China's announcement: 2000MW by 2019.

Current world's largest solar power station is said to be 354MW - in California's Mojave desert.

All laudible. With two caveats.  First, we know from the I.T. industry that announcements do not amount to actuality (what does not transpire to be 'vapourware' often amounts to 'shrinkware').  Second, the time frame for realisation of such projects is sufficiently long that they may be overtaken by new developments, particularly technological.  Still, more power to them: a race like this can only be good.

Earth as Gaia - or Medusa?

The Gaia hypothesis keeps cropping up in fiction and popular science, doubtless to make a comeback in the context of climate change.

There are various articulations of Gaia, which proposes the Earth constitutes a complex regenerative system that always returns the environment to a life-sustaining equilibrium. One version maintains that Earth and its atmosphere and environments supports life and constantly brings it back into balance; another draws into the equation the Earth's biomass (the totality of life on the planet), to say that the full system constitutes a self-balancing (homeostatic) system.

Gaia was proposed in the 1960s by James Lovelock, with Dian Hitchcock. Working for NASA, they were charged with researching the atmosphere on Mars, for signs of life. Finding the Martian atmosphere to be in a deadly state of equilibrium, they contrasted this with Earth's atmosphere, in a relative state of flux (between oxygen and carbon dioxide in particular). Their Gaia proposal grew out of that.

Yet Lovelock's background was in chemistry and medical research rather than environmental science, and he was employed by NASA to develop equipment to analyse Mars' atmosphere. Hitchcock's background was philosophy, and she was to test his logic.

After the initial formulation, Lovelock's main collaborator has been Lynn Margulis, a biologist who couched the theory in more careful terms: of trends rather definitive equilibrium. (Margulis' reputation, however, is built on much more significant work, on the origin of organelles in eukaryotic cells: that is, that the organs of cells with nuclei emerged through symbiosis of separate entities). Her contribution to Gaia allows that no species has guaranteed passage through the bottlenecks of time.

But a major criticism of Gaia is its teleological nature: that is, that it implies some intention or purpose behind the planet's formation.

Recently, Peter Ward, an American biology professor, wrote a book that proposes the opposite: the Medea hypothesis, which says that life is constantly trying to kill itself and its own environment (The Medea Hypothesis: Is life on Earth ultimately self-destructive?). His overview in New Scientist is worth reading: it contains much background information about Earth's environmental changes.

My concern is that none of this is saying anything in particular. There is no guarantee that life in any form will survive a major disaster such as global nuclear war or a sufficiently large meteor impact. In fact, current projections are that the Earth will become totally lifeless within 500 to 1,000 million years, purely through the expansion of the sun - and that compares to the 3.8 billion years it has taken to develop to this point.

Behind both Lovelock's and Ward's articulation is the fact that Earth's environment and atmosphere has changed quite drastically over its history, causing mass extinction - several times, and life itself is the frequent culprit, due to cumulative changes in chemical composition of atmosphere and oceans. One such event was the evolution of photosynthesis 2.3 billion years ago. This entailed the absorption of carbon dioxide, and the emission of oxygen: a double whammy. On the one hand, oxygen was pure poison to most life at the time. On the other hand, over the course of 200 million years, the sucking out of carbon dioxide froze the oceans: this (first) snowball earth lasted 100 million years.

(although we credit the most well-known extinction event with an external cause - the meteor 65 million years ago that wiped out non-avian dinosaurs - most were due to events of local origin, pointing to imbalances that build up over time, usually from biological causes.)

There is no guarantee that the planet would return to a life-sustaining balance. Nor is there viable evidence that life deliberately tries to kill itself, or will ever succeed. Yet what it does say is that the variety of life is such that it has survived a number of cataclysmic changes. Pretty much all environmental niches that we can identify have corresponding life forms that could survive it (albeit most of the extreme cases are microbial).

On an immediate level, if we make the planet inhospitable for ourselves, other life forms will surely survive. For what it's worth. But human intervention has been nothing like any previous climate change bar the meteor: all others have been far more gradual. In terms of our lifetime, it's slow, but on a less anthropocentric scale, we are inducing a real shock to the planet. Yes, climate change is natural, but not in the framework in which we live. And the ride will be somewhere between bumpy and catastrophic, depending on our capacity to move forward together on the issue quickly enough.

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.

Burning ice: impending danger

Russian permafrost offers up both hope and danger in this warming world.

It is a great preservation medium, not of fossils so much as DNA from unfossilised specimens (with tissue that hasn't degenerated and been replaced by seeping rock). Such finds, unfortunately, would only go back through the last few ice ages, up to about 700,000 years versus 65 million years for the dinosaur extinction.

But there is also a vast store of carbon fuel trapped within the permafrost, in a form known as methane clathrate: molecules of methane trapped within ice crystals. The tone of a recent New Scientist article was thrilled with the possibilities for this potential energy source, but strangely muted about the danger to the planet: it will accelerate global warming on release - methane being far stronger a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Clathrates are a delicate form of methane: if gas is extracted or gets loose, pressure can destabilise neighbouring crystals for a chain reaction: a "methane burp" that in releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gas, can also generate landslides and tsunamis.

There are three possible eventualities: permafrost clethrates are released as the planet warms, the deposits are exploited for fuel, or they stay in the ground. Perversely, if the planet warms and they are to be released anyway, it's better to use the fuel. On the one hand, methane molecules warm the atmosphere at 20 times the rate of carbon dioxide molecules. On the other hand, burning methane generates only half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal.

Therein lies the reason for the article's gleeful tone. We should be restructuring away from fossil fuels, but if the planet warms as expected, the methane gets released anyway.

You can read the full article here. Unfortunately it doesn't include the photos of burning ice from the print version. Spectacular - but deadly.


Whether or not extraction takes place depends on whether our energy and environment plans are fully evolved by the time extraction becomes fully viable. Will the burp happen anyway by now? The odds are not good.

Different weather: is it climate change?

The jasmine started coming out a few days ago, triggered by a bout of warmer weather. Normally, first out is the delectable scent of the daphne in the tailend of winter in August. The daphne's flowers are starting to poke out, but they are beaten by the strong scent of jasmine.


Flowers are a great way to signal the passage of seasons, especially if you have a range of plants that flower at different times.

Last year I noted both flowers were out early - around this time, too. But this year, the order is reversed, and the daphne is slower than the jasmine for the first time.


It's all very well to ascribe changes to global warming (today was the Sydney's hottest July day in 19 years). But there will still be normal seasons and abnormal. And if we take this as a signal, climate change deniers are at liberty to use a hot year like 1998 as their benchmark to justify their position.

(And I say this to climate change deniers. Pin yourself down to a hardline position, if you will. Let's have something clear and unambiguous written down for posterity. Then let's look back in 20 years and see what effect your stance has had by then on your children's world.)

No, one or two anecdotes don't prove a case... but there are already numerous anecdotes the world over (eg, try sheep sizes in Scotland). Yet I'm sure at a local level, if you stay in one place for long enough - and I'd say ten years is enough, at this point in time), you will witness numerous anecdotal changes around you.

So what are you doing about it? Reducing car use? Buying electricity from renewable sources? Voting wisely? Just as there are numerous anecdotes, there are numerous actions.

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.

G8 and the capacity to induce climate change

The G8 meeting has just agreed on a carbon emission reduction of 80% by 2050, and an aim of raising global temperatures by no more than 2%.

That's something, because the G8 represents 80% of (current!) carbon emissions.

But it's not enough.

I heard a bloke from India who, by way of commenting on climate change, asked what good is worrying about climate change if you have enough trouble trying to get enough to eat.

That's a very valid reason for people in underdeveloped nations not according enough urgency to the climate change issue (albeit somewhat less valid a reason for inaction from their leaders). They are too preoccupied with survival in the short term to consider the longer term. It could be said that a medium to longer term perspective is a luxury - if you are at the poverty line.

But what excuse for the rich nations to NOT set a far closer target? An 80% reduction is laudible, but for two things. First, it pushes the issue too far back onto later generations - our problem, maybe, but we'll make the urgency someone else's. Further, that target says nothing in itself of the trajectory of change. It permits a lackidaisical approach at the present.

And we can see why the issue becomes a rich versus poor argument.

The solution lies in the hands of the rich nations of today. But it has become apparent that global politics has not evolved far enough yet, and at this point I cannot see effective action being taken. At the rate they're currently talking, significant climactic change is inevitable this century. Not to mention changes in sea level, which will devastate on a global basis. A metre rise? - or three? So far, it has been too hard to quantify the change. There is a huge store of ice in Greenland waiting to melt, and the Russian permafrost has a vast carbon store just waiting to be released. On the cover of the latest New Scientist: "It's worse than we thought". Greenland already losing enough ice to raise sea levels by .8mm per year; 60 million people currently within one metre of sea level - and projected to double.

Humans will survive, of course, as will the planet. This will have a devastating effect on biodiversity. Human suffering - and dispossession - will skyrocket; that and shrinking land will increase conflict and war.

Adapt to a changing world without an explosion of human misery? If we can't get together to deal with poverty and population, that is just not going to happen.

I had thought that once the issue was properly acknowledged worldwide on a cultural and political level, the requisite action would be axiomatic. I hadn't accounted for the capacity of world leaders (and their voters) to allow the tragedy to proceed.

Wind power alone can do it - but...

A new study demonstrates that it would be possible to generate global energy needs from wind power alone.

This comes from a Harvard study published in PNAS (the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences), and reported in New Scientist. Abstract available here; full study here.

The study collated wind data from the past 30 years, to produce a database of the best available global wind information, to a resolution of six hourly for areas down to 50 x 60 km.

The modelling suggests the top ten carbon polluters (bar Japan) could generate all projected electricity needs onshore, from existing technology.

The example given to fill US needs was two or three turbines per square kilometre over just 13% of the country.


I would, however, reiterate my reservations on the use of wind power, specifically for the effect that large-scale 'harvesting' can have on climate. The one study I found - again in PNAS - that does look at this issue concluded that the large-scale effects would be 'nonnegligible', as expected.

I've been signed up for electricity from 100% renewable sources since it was first offered over ten years ago. My current option is for 100% solar sources: a little more expensive again that general renewables, but this reflects my concern, and in particular that extracting energy from solar sources has the least impact - potentially positive, in fact. This may be rather aspirational if wind harvesting is currently negligible - as it is - but one must look to, and build for, the future.

Damned statistics and climate change

A news item in the local Southern Courier discussed the privately-owned train link to Sydney's airport.

• Botany Bay's Mayor Ron Hoenig: "In reality, it was shown to be cost inefficient, and a disaster."
• In response, "Airport Link chief executive Tim Anderson... said there had been a 27 per cent increase in patronage on the airport line over the past two years."

The context was the exhorbitant charge for that particular stretch of rail ($14.80 from central, one way), and the effect on locals who might otherwise use it.

Put aside other issues, such as whether the patronage increase justifies the usage charge, or whether the increase was from such a low base that any change would look like a win.

The question is over the use of the statistic, and how it can mislead. If Anderson looked at the fluctuating usage figures over the past 9 years since opening, he could pick any two years he liked to make his point. Likewise, Hoenig could pick any other years to justify the opposite perspective. For a reality check, read about Airport Link above.

As with a work of fiction, most people don't stop to question figures presented in a news report. There's just not enough time in the day to analyse everything.


Climate change skeptics are particularly guilty of this. As this article details, Steve Fielding, a key balance-of-power Senator, was persuaded that there is no significant issue because global temperatures are not significantly different from those of ten years ago.

And that is a favourite approach of climate change skeptics - near universally, they use this trick (eg The Great Climate Change Swindle). Pick a year that was slightly out of kilter with its neighbours (in this case, 1998, which had a strong El Nino weather pattern) to prove the case. Take that statistic in isolation, without revealing or analysing the sequence of readings over time. Which in this case show that the past ten years have been the hottest decade on record.

(An extension of this argument is the use of long-range figures to show that Earth's climate has always been changing, and has indeed been hotter. True, but a) significant evolutionary change - including much species extinction - accompanies such changes), and b) we are currently inducing one of the fastest periods of climate change in the planet's history.)


It's devilishly hard to read statistics with a critical eye, if you don't have access to the full data set. The best that can be done is to scan for context. (In the case of Fielding, he's known as a conservative who is not fiercely intelligent, and he went fact-finding to the US, hosted by the Heartland Institute, known as conservative and funded by fossil fuel and tobacco interests, amongst others.) Scanning for context includes a healthy degree of questioning, critical analysis, and absorbing information from a variety of credible sources. But you knew that already, didn't you?

Current effects of climate change

A couple of recent news items reported on some slow but relentless current effects of climate change - let alone future outcomes.

New Scientist mentioned a report released by the Global Humanitarian Forum (led by ex-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan). Inter alia, it concluded that climate change is already causing 300,000 deaths annually. This is due to "gradual environmental degradation", including droughts, floods, and crop failure.

And the Sydney Morning Herald showed that it's not only those situated in low-lying coastal areas that will see their land disappear. The article is illustrated with a picture of someone whose coastal home is perhaps eight metres above sea level, but which is already being eroded. Both rising seas and more extreme weather will hasten that process.

My home is possibly four metres above sea level, and about 1000 metres inland. I would have thought I would be buffered by the intervening hectares of infrastructure that would need protection first, but current government policy suggests socialising the cost of protection would be far too costly, and future governments may opt for slow strategic retreat. I take cold comfort in the thought that the Sydney Opera House is more precariously positioned than me, right now.