Climate Under No Threat, Sceptics

IMPORTANT UPDATE at end

Well at least that's how the cognoscenti funded by the Heart Land Institute in the US would have as believe. Notable among them is Australias own Bob Carter. The Fairfax press reports...

Scientist accepts 'cash for climate'
Ben Cubby
February 16, 2012

A PROMINENT Australian scientist has rejected as offensive any suggestion he is doing the bidding of a US climate sceptic think tank that is paying him a monthly fee.

Confidential documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute, a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington, detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt about climate change science, paid for by companies that have a financial interest in continuing to release greenhouse gases without government interference.

Among the recipients of funding is Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, a geologist and marine researcher...

The documents show Professor Carter receives a ''monthly payment'' of $US1667 ($A1550), as part of a program to pay ''high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist message''.

Professor Carter did not deny being paid by The Heartland Institute, but would not confirm the amount, or why it was paying him.

''Institutions or organisations simply pay for services rendered. In the same way that an architect is paid for their work, so are scientists. What they may make any payment to me for, I'm not discussing with anybody outside of my family.''

More than $US20 million had been spent funding and co-ordinating activities of climate sceptics and bloggers since 2007, the documents suggest.

Other cash recipients include Anthony Watts, a US climate sceptic blogger, who is to receive $US90,000 this year. Programs for funding include school curriculum modules that teach science from a climate sceptic perspective.

The documents discuss strategy to ''keep opposing voices out'' of the media and co-ordinate efforts with other ''groups capable of rapidly mobilising responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavourable blog posts''.

Also at the Sydney Morning Herald and Crikey.

The documents were originally published on DeSmogBlog which has followed up with a post detailing a report by John Mashey titled Fake science, fake experts, funny finances, free of tax. Specifically,

...this new report is painstakingly detailed and carefully referenced throughout. It both corroborates and is corroborated by the leaked Heartland documents, which reinforce Mashey's conclusion that Heartland is a for-profit public relations and lobbying firm that is operating with non-profit status by misrepresenting the nature of its activities in its own tax filings.

In totally unrelated news The Canberra Times reports that SA Senator Corey Bernadi wants the CSIRO to redact some of the information it is handing out to kiddies in its climate change kit.

Climate change kit for kids 'apocalyptic'
Rosslyn Beeby, 15 Feb, 2012

The CSIRO will review its new climate change education program for schools following claims made in Senate estimates today that the material is biased and frightens children by offering ‘‘an apocalyptic scenario.’’

South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi said the CSIRO’s Carbon Kids education kit was ‘‘designed to scare kids’’ about future impacts of climate change.

It painted a frightening picture for children of a world where rising temperatures had created jobs losses and food scarcity, he said. The kit had ‘‘cherry-picked facts’’, offered no discussions of alternative views, and ignored positive steps such as future development of green jobs.

The Good Senator attended the Heart Land Institute sponsored “4th International Conference on Climate Change”. This from Crikey is an interesting read.
News.com also has this story. I liked the question in the poll accompanying the story.

Hot under the collar
Should schools teach the controversy?

What controversy?

Ian Plimer has had his totally unquestionable ethical scientific stance rewarded.

Rinehart appoints daughter, climate sceptic to key board
The Australian
February 16, 2012 12:00AM

AUSTRALIA'S richest person, Gina Rinehart, has continued to reshape the management of her business empire, appointing climate-change sceptic Ian Plimer and favoured daughter Ginia as directors of a company linked to a mine that generates annual revenues of $2 billion.

And even if the climate under no threat sceptics are wrong then there is always clean coal and CCS.

Clean coal 'unviable for two decades'
Michael Atkin, ABC News Online February 15

There will be no business case for developing clean-coal power plants in Australia or overseas in the next 20 years, according to a key Federal Government adviser.

National Low Emissions Coal Council chairman Dick Wells says even the introduction of a carbon price in July will not entice the coal industry to invest the billions required for clean-coal plants because it makes no financial sense and punishes shareholders.

He says carbon capture and storage (CCS) will not play a major role in combating dangerous climate change unless the Gillard Government dramatically increases industry assistance.

"If you want to wait for the carbon price to rise to levels where these will be commercially viable we're probably into the 2030s," Mr Wells said.

The Gillard Government has a $1.68 billion CCS Flagships program to get major projects off the ground and the coal industry's Coal 21 fund has committed $289 million to projects so far.

But the potential of CCS remains largely unfulfilled.

"We're a long way off it (the 2050 targets)," Mr Wells said.

The National Low Emissions Coal Council estimates $10 billion to $17 billion is required to have one industrial-scale, clean-coal power station and a portfolio of smaller projects operating commercially by 2020.

The CCS Flagships program originally had deeper pockets, with $2 billion pledged. However, its funding was reduced to $1.68 billion last year.

Just $57.26 million has been spent so far but Mr Wells defends the need to move slowly.

"I don't think there is any embarrassment about not spending the money too fast," he said.

No. Probably just as well, because the super tax that so enraged the mining industry last year may not return much to the real owners of the resource anyway.

Mining's small change
Peter Carey and Neil Fargher
February 16

Flaws in the mineral tax mean Australia may profit little from its resource wealth.

COULD Australia end up with little to show for its mining boom - as an echo of what happened to Nauru once its considerable phosphate wealth was exhausted?

Close examination of the proposed minerals resource rent tax reveals serious flaws that could leave the federal government well short of the forecast revenue. It is conceivable that some large and highly profitable mining companies could reorganise their affairs to pay little or none of the tax.

The first and most obvious shortcoming of the MRRT, in terms of its revenue potential, is that it applies only to coal and iron ore. All other minerals are exempt.

The main problem is that the tax is based not on an objective measure such as tonnes of material mined, but on ''super profit'' (mining profit less allowances). Profit at the best of times is a highly flexible concept that can allow accountants to apply creative techniques to minimise a company's tax obligations. With the MRRT, the incentives and opportunities for creative avoidance appear even greater than those applying to company tax.

The minerals tax is not based on audited company profits from statutory accounts, but on a narrow portion of profits from particular mining activities. It requires the taxpayers (that is, the mining companies) to determine the amount of proceeds and costs that relate to these activities.

This reliance on the miners themselves to determine the appropriate proceeds and costs creates a significant incentive to estimate profit from taxable activities in the most tax-efficient manner.

UPDATE to main story.

Scientist Peter Gleick has publicly stated that he obtained the documents from The Heartland Institute by impersonating a board member (presumably over the phone). He regrets taking this unethical step but states he was driven by frustration over the constant barrage of disinformation from such outfits as The Heartland Institute. Since the documents released were instantly denied (it's a reflex action) it probably became necessary to take this action if only to prove that the documents did in fact originate from The Heartland Institutes own email server. While this damages Peter Gleicks credibility, his simple deception is a different class of unethical breach from the hacking theft perpetrated at CRU. Climate denialists baying over ethical breaches need chew on that before publicly exposing themselves as hypocrites. Not that it will stop them as a brief survey of blogs and newspapers (also just blogs) will reveal.

The Origin of the Heartland Documents
Peter H. Gleick 20/2/12

...in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name.

I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public.

Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents
DeSmogBlog

Climate scientist Peter Gleick has acknowledged that he was the person who convinced the Heartland Institute to hand over the contents of its January Board package, authenticating the documents beyond a doubt and further exposing the disinformation campaign Heartland has pursued in the last week, trying to discredit the information.

Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it's fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk - and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price.


Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland Institute documents
The Guardian, 21/2/12 (<- yesterdays word was palindrome)

Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst, says he was blinded by his frustrations with ongoing attacks on climate science.

A leading defender of climate change admitted tricking the libertarian Heartland Institute into turning over confidential documents detailing its plans to discredit the teaching of science to school children in last week's sensational expose.

The admission – nearly a week after Heartland's financial plans and donors' list was put online – looked set to further inflame the climate wars, in which a network of fossil fuel interests, rightwing think tanks and politicians have been working to block action on climate change.

Hope spins eternal

It's well past time to start the New Years posts...
The Australian had to mine through several issues of Nature Climate Change to find a "feel good" climate change story.

Coral breakthrough offers climate hope
CORAL reefs may be much better able to adapt to rising sea temperatures due to climate change than previously thought, according to a breakthrough Australian discovery revealed yesterday.
According to PhD student Emily Howells, the findings demonstrate the potential for corals to adapt is more widespread than previously thought.

Further research is under way to establish the speed at which coral can adapt to rising water temperatures, and whether it will be fast enough to survive the impact of climate change.

However, a few paragraphs into the story...

"The algae we are working on occurs up and down the Great Barrier Reef and we are finding that even though it is the same type of algae, those in warm locations have adapted to warm water temperatures and those that are in cooler places, over many years, have adapted to cooler temperatures," Ms Howells said.

"We really don't know about their rate of adaptation to temperature change."

The title of the paper in the December issue of Nature Climate Change is far less dramatic.

Coral thermal tolerance shaped by local adaptation of photosymbionts
(Published online 18 December 2011)
...
Here we demonstrate divergent thermal tolerance in a generalist Symbiodinium type from two different thermal environments.
...
Juvenile corals associated with Symbiodinium from the warmer reef grew rapidly when exposed to 32 °C, yet underwent bleaching and tissue death when associated with Symbiodinium from the cooler reef. These results demonstrate that Symbiodinium types can adapt to local differences in thermal climate and that this adaptation shapes the fitness of coral hosts. If Symbiodinium populations are able to further adapt to increases in temperature at the pace at which ocean climates warm, they may assist corals to increase their thermal tolerance and persist into the future.

Emphasis mine.

It's great that this fundamental biophysical research demonstrates that a generalist Symbiodinium has developed tolerance to raised water temperatures, and that it might therefore be possible for coldwater corals to adapt to these conditions. But the abstract has the usual cautious caveats: might, if, could, may.

Will they also be able to do so under the combined stress of acidification?

Of course even a cursory look at the tables of contents from the surrounding issues shows that this "breakthrough" is just one very small glimmer of "hope" in the, most probably, damaging changes projected for the future.

Base Motives

The Age has an interesting piece of pop psychology about why 'sceptics', in the face of all argument to the contrary, continue to follow the road paved with gold, arguing that...

Climate sceptics might just be captive to basic emotions

Paul Biegler
December 20, 2011

Instant gratification is a powerful, but flawed, human motivator.

If you are down a blind alley searching for that perfect Christmas gift for your climate sceptic friend, you could do worse than slinging them a book on Emotional Intelligence. Why? Research is mounting that your friend is the victim of one of the brain's many computing glitches. More particularly, [they have] been derailed by an emotional response that is at best unhelpful and at worst catastrophic. [They have] capitulated to the pleasure of the here and now.

In his recent book Brain Bugs, psychology professor Dean Buonomano summarises a wealth of evidence that when it comes to putting off rewards, many of us suck. In the most famous study, back in the 1960s, Walter Mischel sat unsuspecting toddlers at tables laid with a single marshmallow. They could eat it now or receive an extra one if they waited a short time. Some rug rats unceremoniously demolished the treat without delay, while others exercised supreme self-control and resisted temptation until the appointed moment. Follow-up of the youngsters two decades later found those who showed restraint had better college admission scores. Other studies have linked weakness of will with obesity and addiction.

This is an example of temporal discounting, where greater rewards in the future are tagged with lesser value in virtue of their temporal distance.

Adults remain prone to temporal discounting. Given the choice of $100 now or $120 in a month, most take the money and run, sacrificing what amounts to an annual return on their one-month investment of 240 per cent. How could we be so dumb?

Climate scepticism is a strong candidate example of temporal discounting. A truckload of science supports global warming and its attendant perils. Yet, addressing this temporally far-flung threat, while generating distant benefit for our planet's inheritors, will cost us real pleasure now.

The task is difficult, not least because many of our emotional decisions are backed by post hoc - but aberrant - rationalisation.

In the climate realm, fabrication is also rife. Enthralled by their emotional biases, sceptics mouth desperate appeals to the corruptibility of scientists, or to the fallibility of climate prediction models.

It's one thing to claim that the work of an individual scientist or even a team is wrong. But so called sceptics essentially make the amazing claim that ALL climate scientists are wrong.

Comment section after comment section of newspapers and blogs are filled with poorly researched (I'm being generous) claims asserting that this or that aspect of climate change has been overlooked.

Are all scientists so dumb? Not in my personal experience.

To cover this obvious rebuttal, 'sceptics' make a further assertion - climate scientists have become trapped in so called 'group think'. No evidence for this is provided other than the fact that climate science (and science in general) disagrees with the sceptic position.

Imagine the accused standing up in court and stating "Obviously, Your Honour, the verdict of the Jury can not be trusted as they have become trapped by group think".

Pop psychology is perhaps just slightly more informative than pop stupidity - as de-constructed here.

Asian alternatives

A longish compilation of recent news from around Asia with a focus on SE Asia. Topics covered are climate change and renewable energy.

Climate change to bring more floods: World Bank
AFP (via Google) 11/11

HANOI — Climate change will bring more floods and extreme weather to Southeast Asia, a World Bank official said Thursday on a visit to the region, where hundreds have died in severe inundation.

"What we are seeing is there are more floods, more extreme weather events, higher temperature, more variable rainfalls and we believe that is caused by climate change. And we should expect this to increase, sadly," Andrew Steer, the World Bank's special envoy for climate change, told reporters in the Vietnamese capital Hanoi.

Thailand's worst floods in half a century have killed 533 people and damaged the homes and livelihoods of millions around the country.

In neighbouring Cambodia, the deadliest floods since 2000 have killed at least 247 people while more than 100 have died in Vietnam, mostly in the southern Mekong Delta.

Steer, who cancelled plans to visit Thailand on his regional tour because of the disaster, said the floods there were "consistent with what we know to be true about climate change."

UN chief hails poor nations over climate change
AFP via Google 14/11

"Some of the countries most affected by climate change should be an "inspiration" to rich nations on reducing their emissions, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said on Monday.

"In this time of global economic uncertainty, let (these countries') commitment to green growth be an inspiration to more developed countries -- the major emitters," he said.

He said it was unfair to "ask the poorest and most vulnerable to bear the brunt of the impact of climate change alone" and called for the release of agreed funds to help poor countries to adapt to global warming.

The meeting in Dhaka of 18 countries most affected by climate change hopes to agree on a united front ahead of UN talks in Durban, South Africa, in December, where a "Green Climate Fund" will be negotiated.

The forum reflected the fact that the pace of international climate negotiations was "very slow and inadequate" said Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, speaking at the opening on Monday.

"We are bearing the brunt of the damage though we made negligible or no contribution to the menace. This constitutes a serious injustice... and demands immediate rectification and remedy," she said.

China

China registers sharp drop in carbon intensity
China Daily 11/11

BEIJING - China has become the top emitter of carbon in the world after its emissions of greenhouse gases increased by 33.6 percent from 2006 to 2010, according to a report released by Tsinghua University on Wednesday.

At the same time, China's carbon intensity - a measure of a country's emissions compared with each unit of its economic growth - dropped by 20.8 percent, partly because of the country's work to become more energy efficient and rely more on renewable sources of energy.

Conservative Behaviour

Two articles from The Conversation. The first looks at recent trends in Australian power consumption, admittedly from a small sample of years, suggesting that consumers are using less electricity and exploring some of the likely causes.

The second, is a damming dissection of climate change denial in The Australians ongoing campaign against reality.

Powering down – has Australian electricity consumption hit its peak?
A number of recent reports have documented an unprecedented decline in electricity consumption. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Research Economics, in its 2011 Energy Update, shows a decline of 5.4% in 2008-09, followed by a 1.2% decline in 2009-10.

Event horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage
The problem is that on one side of the debate you have 97% of the world’s published climate scientists and the world’s major scientific organisations, and on the other side you have fools.

Excuse my bluntness, but it is past time to acknowledge that the science underpinning anthropogenic climate change is rock solid. The sceptics have had the time and opportunity to come with up a convincing case, but their best efforts read like arguments that NASA faked the moon landing.

The Australian’s anti-science campaign takes many forms. One is the inflation of the credentials of their fake experts. For example, OpEd writer and member of the Outdoor Recreation Party Jon Jenkins was referred to as an “Adjunct Professor”. Bond University wrote to The Australian informing them that this was not true.

Howard Brady was called a “climate change researcher from Macquarie University”; in fact, Brady is a 70 year-old retiree who has published just seven scientific papers (on Antarctic sediments, not climate), the most recent one in 1983, following which he worked for 17 years in the oil industry. Macquarie University contacted The Australian to set the record straight.

In neither of these cases did The Australian publish a retraction or clarification.

One feature I really like at The Conversation site is the ability to vote down comments as unconstructive. For some trivial childish reason I take great pleasure in voting obvious stooges down - and take heart that all is not lost when others appear to share this sentiment.

Climate for Corruption

No this is not a post about those fiendishly clever climate change conspirators pulling a fast one on Claude or Ligna Coal Magnate.

The small Maldivan Newspaper Haveeru caught my eye, or rather my Google news feed, with the following interesting article about the potential for corruption in carbon markets and climate mitigation schemes.

Transparency Maldives launches Global Corruption Report on climate change

Haveeru Online, June 26.

MALE, June 28 (HNS) – Transparency Maldives Sunday launched the Global Corruption Report: Climate Change compiled by Transparency International.

Transparency International officially inaugurated the report, first of its kind to comprehensively explore major climate-related corruption risks, in April of this year at Dhaka, Bangladesh.

International watchdogs identify that improper or poor governance paves the way to corruption especially in the area of climate change governance, as huge amounts of money flow through new and untested financial markets and mechanisms.
The Global Corruption Report: Climate Change focuses on this issue along with making climate governance work, strategies for reducing carbon emissions, building effective adaptation to climate change, actions for sustainable climate governance and recommended actions for governments, businesses and civil societies.
The report stresses the importance of protecting from corruption the estimated US$700 billion budget allocated for mitigation efforts by 2020. It also highlights the inequality of the current processes for individuals and groups most directly affected by climate change.

Well not nearly as much as the US spends on oil wars but more than the ADF wastes (ie a lot).

“The quality of climate governance – the degree to which policy development and decisions are participatory, accountable, transparent, inclusive and responsive, and respect the rule of law – will determine how well it addresses inherent corruption risks,”

However, it is noted that organisations and personnel in developing countries most affected by climate change lack the skills and expertise needed to observe and track the projects undertaken.

By 2009, the registered number of observer organisations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States reached more than 400 while from the developing countries, India, China and Brazil were only able to recruit just more than 10 organisations.

“According to a recent study in the North Africa region, however, almost 70 percent of the potential investors interviewed considered regulatory risk, including corruption, to be likely – and a serious impediment to investment,” it says.
“As a critical mechanism for mitigation, carbon markets need safeguards to reduce the risk of corruption, as well as to ensure their sustainability and capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Transparency International notes that adaptation to climate change requires large-scale infrastructure development like flood control systems in Bangladesh, which received a 2.4 score on the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of 2010.
“None of the 20 countries most affected by climate change scored higher than 3.6 on the Corruption Perception Index,” the report stresses.

From the introductory page at Transparency International

Carbon markets: Managing public assets transparently In international carbon trading schemes, individual governments can sell carbon credits when a country’s emissions are below their pollution targets. In an opaque market, the government mismanagement of credits can go unnoticed. Media investigations in Slovakia revealed that the government sold carbon credits at half their value to a company with links to officials in the ministry that made the sale. They made neither the contract nor the price public. The sale represented an estimated €75 million in lost revenue for the people of Slovakia.

What needs to be done

If climate governance is not prepared for corruption, corruption will undermine climate governance. The GCR does not just raise the alarm, it provides a risk map of ways to make climate change measures more effective.

Recommendations include:

• All conferences and meetings where climate change targets are set should be open to the people they impact and transparent at the international and local levels
• Experts monitoring and verifying projects must be independent and not paid from the budget of the project they are overseeing
• All climate measures should have strong, well-resourced oversight bodies
• Civil society must monitor government commitments to reduce emissions and be involved in development and oversight of national plans for mitigation and adaptation.

Downloads

Global Corruption Report: Climate Change (full download)

Parts 2 & 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

This report appears to have been released earlier and may be having regional releases.

Green schemes are 'wide open to major corruption'

The Independent, Sunday, 1 May 2011

Corruption is threatening global steps to combat climate change, a new report from Transparency International (TI) warned yesterday. Billions of pounds will be plundered and wasted, it says, unless stronger measures are introduced against embezzlement and misappropriation.

The organisation warns that 20 nations most vulnerable to climate change – where millions in grants and aid will be targeted – are judged to be among the most corrupt in the world – and stronger oversight is needed to ensure the funds are properly spent.

"Corruption holds nothing sacred, not even our planet's future," said Huguette Labelle

Although you don’t have to be corrupt to perceive the world through a cash register – greed will suffice.

"Failure to properly govern climate change measures now will not only lead to misallocated resources and fraudulent projects today, but also hurts future generations," …

"Where huge amounts of money flow through new and untested financial markets and mechanisms, there is a risk of corruption," [the report] says.

Carbon markets, the main financial tool for combating climate change, have already been hit by fraud, the report points out. In January, the European Union's carbon market was shut down after it was attacked by cyber-hackers. More than three million carbon credits were stolen from government and private company accounts.

The system has also been hit by repeated tax frauds. One scheme to meet all of Europe's power needs from concentrated solar power plants covering 1 per cent of the Sahara desert was undermined after experts said bureaucratic complexity and corruption in north Africa raised the risks and costs of investment there. After an investigation by Spanish officials, it was discovered that more than one in 10 of its solar parks was falsely registered as operational, despite making no contribution to the energy grid.

Illegal logging, an industry estimated to be worth more than $10bn a year, is fuelled by corrupted customs and other officials, the report says. Some countries have already claimed carbon credits for fictitious forest plantation projects. In Kenya, deforestation is exacerbated by corruption among under-resourced forest guards. TI estimates that in 1963 Kenya had about 10 per cent forest cover; by 2006, it was less than 2 per cent.

But its not just developing nations.

All countries are vulnerable: Britain is criticised for its failure to deal with so-called "greenwashing" marketing techniques used by companies to misrepresent how environmentally friendly their products are.

Also highlighted is America's failure to curb the influence of the "brown lobby" – the 2,000 registered oil, gas, coal and electricity lobbyists who spent an estimated $400m in 2009 compared with the green lobby's $22m.

And from Reuters – Africa,

Corruption must be cut to protect climate –report

Reuters, April 30 2011

MARKETS

Carbon markets, the main financial tool for combating climate change, continue to be shaken by fraudulent activity.

Over the past couple of years, the European Union's $134 billion emissions trading scheme has been blighted by the re-sale of used carbon offsets, hacking, theft and continuing value-added tax fraud. [ID:nLDE70J1KT]

The integrity of the U.N.'s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which encourages emissions cutting schemes in poor nations, was dented after some project developers were accused of exploiting the system. [ID:nLDE6AI1A3]

"Creative accounting can lead to the double counting of emissions by companies of their own reported mitigation efforts, (...), thus nullifying the environmental integrity of the emissions reductions," the report said.

Corruption risks also exist in political decision-making and climate financing and through the mismanagement of public funds, the report said.

We need only remember this fiasco…

                                                            … in a supposedly well regulated economy to see what flies are attracted to a shit load of money.

[UPDATE]

In a good move to avoid political interference in clean energy decisions in Australia,

New body to control clean energy grants

The Age, July 5, 2011

RESPONSIBILITY for handing out about $1 billion in clean energy grants will be taken out of government hands under a compromise with the Greens as part of a carbon price deal to be announced on Sunday.

The Age has learned that clean energy programs such as the $1.5 billion solar flagships program - designed to help build Australia's first large solar plants - will be removed from Energy Minister Martin Ferguson's control and run by an independent statutory body.

The new statutory body running clean energy grants is expected to take over responsibility for some of the $5 billion clean energy initiative announced in 2009, including the remaining $730 million in solar flagship funding.

And the West Australian also reports,

Rules to rein in carbon cowboys

July 2, 2011

Trade in international pollution permits will be strictly limited under the Gillard Government's climate change package to prevent so-called "carbon cowboys" from scamming the multibillion-dollar scheme.

In a significant departure from Labor's abandoned carbon pollution reduction scheme, international permit purchases are likely to be restricted to high quality sellers such as the European Union and the US State of California. The concern under the CPRS was that low-quality carbon abatement could be bought by Australian polluters from places such as equatorial Africa and South-East Asia through hard-to-verify and dubious projects such as tree plantations.

It is understood the Government agreed to "qualitative and quantitative controls" under its emissions trading scheme at the insistence of the Greens who opposed unlimited access to international permits under the CPRS.

Although Tony Abbott sounds increasingly like he is running for the Republican nomination in the US rather than as opposition leader of Australia, viz;

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, who yesterday blasted the Government's planned carbon tax as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism"…

Dear Vice-Chancellor

Academic enrollments are falling, placing some universities and departments under some stress. If you want to focus your displeasure at continued deliberate obfuscation (there can be no other term) then a letter to the VC of Charles Cook or Adelaide Uni might have a small influence. Target the bottom line – enrolments. Draft letters and contact details are provided below.

There are two prominent academic “skeptics” in Australia,  Dr Ian Plimer and Dr Bob Carter. Interestingly both from the fields of geology, both highly praised and both at the ends of their respective careers. Dr Plimer is not a disinterested party personally when it comes to climate change as he is in fact on the boards of several mining companies.

Both are also members or affiliates of that well known defender of the public good the IPA (Plimer, Carter).

Dr Carter recently had another opinion piece in The Age. It’s a sadly amusing read.

While both are free to express “their” opinion as they wish, so to are you. Should you need an avenue to do so I suggest the Vice Chancellors of the venerable institutes at whose publicly funded teat they are still attached – kind of hypocritical given the views of IPA.

Neither of these gentlemen need necessarily be “muzzled” from voicing their opinion, but on every such occasion that they do speak a disclaimer should be attached. They should be required to state publicly that their opinions are not supported by the universities that they represent nor the overwhelming majority of research on the issue. My thinking follows from Milgrams classic experiment on the acceptance of “authorities”.

Carters views were rebuffed later in the same paper.

The unbearable crisis of being comfortably well off

Micheal Pascoe (below) covers a report from The Economist about Australia - specifically how despite the past ~20 years of good economic performance - the Australian political class has become a degenerate pack of populist petty crisis merchants. While there are problems (potentially crises) that do need addressing, supreme populists like Tony Abbott prefer to focus on their own self imagined crises for which they are ready to regurgitate there own predigested ideologically laced solution. Bending over for the big end of town is also a popular hobby.

This reminds me of the Adam Cutis film The Power of Nightmares¹. One of the central themes in the film is that the goal of the modern politicrat is not to provide true leadership; articulating and enabling the hopes and dreams of citizens - rather it is to protect us from the dark (imagined?) forces out to destroy "us".

In the Australian context Tony Abbotts dark imagined dangers include such terrible foes as The Greens.

Lucky country out of luck with its leaders
Sydney Morning Herald, May 30th.

The cover story for this week's Economist magazine is a special report on Australia, The Next Golden State. It's a folly of cultural cringe to take too much notice of what some foreigner might think of us, but it also can be instructive to view ourselves through the considered opinion of an outsider's fresh eyes. And it's not hard to take when it's basically a rave review by a prestigious publication.

According to The Economist, about the only major negative, the only threat to realising our even greater potential, is our politics. This from the magazine's editorial:

“Many Australians do not seem to appreciate that they live in an unusually successful country. Accustomed to unbroken economic expansion - many are too young to remember recession - they are inclined to complain about house prices, 5 per cent unemployment or the problems that a high exchange rate causes manufacturing and several other industries. Some Australians talk big but actually think small, and politicians may be the worst offenders.

“Its current political leaders, with notable exceptions, are perhaps the least impressive feature of today's Australia. Just when their country has the chance to become influential in the world, they appear introverted and unable to see the big picture. ..."

The section of the report specifically on politics finds plenty to criticise on both sides, plus some of the usual bipartisan problems about the brevity of our electoral cycle, the rise of poll-driven political henchmen and our inconstancy.

Unlike the days of Menzies and Howard, Abbott's party “seems to have no philosophical principles at all” ...

“In any event, the level of political discourse is not high. That is partly the fault of the media, but also the fault of the politicians, some of whom at least are happy to join battle, mouthing jibes and slogans (Let's move Australia forward, Stand up for Australia, The real Julia, Stop the boats, End the waste), seldom bothering to explain a policy or answer a question without short-term political gain being uppermost in their minds.”

Carbon pollution

The scare campaign over pricing carbon is hurting more. The point nobody seems to get – and that Abbott discourages anyone getting and Gillard is apparently incapable of selling – is that pricing carbon in Australia really isn't about saving the planet, but is all about saving Australian industry.

If we have not already begun the process when the emerging nations and the US join Europe in taking it seriously, we'll be in very serious danger of being hung out to dry.

Keep shouting that the Government is taking Australia down the drain, that our macro economic policy is a total failure, and some people will be silly enough to believe it. The mindless simplification of budget policy into “surplus good, deficit bad” has been effectively debunked by Ross Gittins but don't expect most of the media to understand it.

The Adam Curtis blog above provides a link to an interesting interview with Errol Morris - discussing such things as the fallacy of the balanced viewpoint;

People criticized my film by saying things like, “Why aren’t you balanced? What aren’t you putting in the other views?” And my response was, “What if the other view is wrong?” That’s the real problem of the balanced view - what's called ‘perceived wisdom.’

and notional moles;

EM: Ron Rosenbaum, a friend of mine, has written a number of articles on James Jesus Angleton and the CIA. [Angleton was the head of counter-intelligence during the height of the Cold War.]

EM: He talked about “notional moles” in the article. And the notional mole – according to Rosenbaum – is that you make the other side believe that you’ve planted a mole in their midst without ever having actually planted a mole. ... You drive them insane.

AC: Because they're looking for something that doesn’t actually exist.

1. Interestingly, the film either has not been shown or had great difficulty in being shown in the US.

Garnauts Gambit

In late February Ross Garnaut began to release his update papers. At the time The Age reviewed the history of his previous gig under Kevin Rudds leadership. The contentious issue was (and remains) the level of compensation paid to fossil fuel generators. Garnaut's favoured position was… none. First the history.

Taxing subsidised fossil fuels

John Watson at The Age (with help from the Australian Conservation Foundation) points out the meaninglessness of applying a carbon tax to a commodity produced by a heavily subsidised industry. See the original for the final details.

Twelve billion holes in plan to cut carbon
John Watson, March 10, 2011

[Given the current orthodoxy of fee market everything often espoused by Govt and others], why does Australia's government effectively promote fossil fuel use at a cost of about $12 billion a year?

A carbon price, in effect, would already be operating if only government did not feel the political need to insulate energy and road users from demand-driven prices.

Tax incentives to use fossil fuels are so great that their value exceeds forecast revenue from the Rudd government's rejected emissions scheme for years to come. The Gillard government has yet to finalise its resurrected carbon price, but it is unlikely to outweigh the entrenched carbon bias. The $12.2 billion in fossil fuel incentives dwarfs the $1.1 billion for climate policy in 2010-11, and the gap has grown by $1 billion since 2007-08.

The opposition is making wild claims about future power bills based on carbon price guesstimates of $26 a tonne. If all emissions were priced equally - they won't be - the total cost impact would be about $14 billion a year. That's little more than existing tax incentives for fossil fuel use.

It is not carbon pricing but the strain of soaring demand on ageing power infrastructure that has driven up Victorians' electricity bills by almost 60 per cent in five years, even with government price controls and subsidies.

One of the worst [political fixes ever] was driven by political panic in 2001, when John Howard ended indexation of the petrol excise. The bowser price fell all of 2¢ to 89¢ a litre, but the hit to the budget was enormous. Revenue losses have mounted to at least $3 billion and, by some estimates, as much as $6 billion this financial year. In 2001, the oil price had "soared" to $US29 a barrel. It's now above $US100. The near-doubling in the Australian dollar's value from US50¢ to parity has softened the blow, but finite supplies are driving up prices. No political fix can reverse that.

[Politicians] are suckers for compensatory fixes. The biggest is almost $5 billion a year in fuel tax rebates to producers. Much of this goes to the same miners who resisted a fair return to taxpayers on the soaring value of publicly owned mineral resources. How do they justify keeping fuel rebates as well?

Condensate exemptions will still cost the budget $580 million this year, while $1 billion is lost to aviation fuel excise exemptions. Fringe benefits tax concessions for company cars, which create an incentive to drive more, cost $1.1 billion a year. There's no tax incentive to use efficient, low-emissions public transport.

Where is the outrage at industry protection and price distortion? The principle of consumption taxes is the more you consume, the more you pay. Instead, the heaviest users feel less pressure to develop greater energy efficiency or more sustainable sources. The longer we put off this inevitable adjustment, the harder it becomes.

The Australian Conservation Foundation has a pdf with some figures and an interview with ACF Executive Director Don Henry;

Australia spends $11 billion more encouraging pollution than cleaning it up

New analysis shows the Australian Government spends $11 billion more on subsidies that encourage greenhouse pollution than it does on programs to tackle climate change.

Our analysis shows funding for programs to address climate change has increased by about $500 million since 2007-08, but incentives that encourage pollution have ballooned by more than $1.5 billion.

“There has been a lot of good talk about addressing climate change, but unfortunately the numbers tell a different story,” said ACF Executive Director Don Henry.

“In 2007-08 our government spent $480 million on programs to tackle climate change, but then it spent $10.6 billion on subsidies that promoted fossil fuel use.

“This financial year the spending on climate programs is up to around $1 billion, but the fossil fuel subsidies are up too, to a massive $12 billion, meaning the Australian Government is spending $11 billion more encouraging pollution than on cleaning it up.

“The Fringe Benefits Tax concession for company cars is like a virtual pollution factory, invisibly chugging out just as much greenhouse pollution every year as a medium-sized coal-fired power plant – only the fringe benefits tax break doesn’t produce any energy – it’s just a dead weight on the economy, the Budget and the environment.

“We need to stop putting taxpayers’ money into pollution promotion and start investing in clean energy, like wind and solar,” Mr Henry said.

How high's the water Papa?

OzCoasts is a new Federal Government site with some simple and heavily qualified projections of the possible effects of increased sea levels at several locations around Australia.

The maps have been prepared by combining a sea level rise value with a high tide value. They illustrate an event that could be expected to occur at least once a year, but possibly more frequently, around the year 2100.
Maps are available to show three sea level rise scenarios: low sea level rise (0.5m), medium sea level rise (0.8m) and high sea level rise (1.1m). These sea level rise scenarios are for a 2100 period, relative to 1990. The sea level rise values are based on IPCC projections (B1 and A1FI scenarios) and more recent science.

Before you view each high resolution image you are required to agree to a disclaimer that states in part:

These images have been developed to help communicate the risks of sea-level rise.
The images are not provided as professional advice, and should not be relied upon for site-specific decision-making or for making financial or any other commitments.
The images use a 'bucket fill' method to determine the extent of inundation and should be considered as approximate only.
The actual impacts may vary as this model does not take account of existing sea walls, storm surge, erosion or other local factors.
The model does not include the dynamic response of unconsolidated shorelines (eg. sand, mud and shell) or the increase in tidal flows in coastal waterways that will result from different coastal configurations in some locations. Nor does the model take account of the effects of catchment flooding from coincident extreme rainfall events.

Despite the heavy qualification of the data, Gold Coast Councillor Peter Young was adament that the Federal Government's data was flawed.