(no subject)
This 'Keep Warming the Globe' movement is possibly one of the most moronic response to climate change yet, and that's coming from someone who's lived in Andrew Bolt & John Howard's Australia in the 1990s. Guys. Stop whinging about the fact that political activism uses some forms of electricity in order to get the message across. Not only does it look like a knee-jerk reaction, it looks like a knee-jerk reaction which is total ignorance of the facts of the situation. Yes, using domestic energy -lights, phones, electric hot water systems, computers, refrigerators - pretty much universally contributes to the burning of fossil fuels and thus carbon emissions into the atmosphere. To say then that people worried about global warming should stop advocating their message over the internet seems to have a form of logic to it. Until we look at some central facts to the issue, that is.
Firstly, energy itself is not the problem, but rather the fossil fuels which are used to provide certain kinds of electricity. Possibly the only way to begin to affect larger scale change is not to turn into a luddite, but to choose alternative energy providers - the 'green' option on your power bill, which funds the introduction/increase of supply to the power grid of alternative energies (wind, solar, etc). If the national grid were to be fuelled more by wind/solar energy, people could pretty much use all the electricity they wanted without it having a warming effect.
Secondly, if you look at the comparative difference of industrial versus domestic power usage, people using computers and telephones to spread the word about global warming, you'd notice that the industrial levels are way higher, and subject to fewer restrictions, particularly under Howard's new ideas on internal carbon trading. Yes, it's nice to use energy saving bulbs, and it makes a difference. But without industry coming to the party and being prepared to make some big changes in order to become more efficient, it's pretty much feel-good educative changes which have as much effect as dropping a bucketful of water into Melbourne's emptying reservoirs - a change, but comparatively, a barely measurable one. Further, the sort of changes we're basically being asked to make in our households - turn off lights when you're not in the room, water saving showerheads (which reduce emissions by using less hot water per shower, hence, if you've got an electric hot water heater, less energy), more efficient light globes, insulation - all pretty much things which in terms of climate change, we ought already be doing, as they really don't cost us much in the way of lifestyle sacrifice, and therefore it's somewhat politically mischevious to attempt to trade off 'carbon credits' generated in this way -rather like saying “Hey, I won't piss in your water suppply, but that means I have a unit of 'clean water credibility' to sell to you'” - great, but there wasn't really a need to pee into the water supply anyway, so it's essentially an empty credit.
In short, you want to disbelieve, in the face of all the evidence, that climate change is happening, feel free. People have had whackier beliefs in the past- Elvis' Second Coming, fairies at the bottom of the garden, John Howard's inherent honesty and decency. But I know I'd probably listen to your arguments a bit less dismissively if even one of you 'climate sceptics' showed me that it's not just a rebellion against the mainstream view. Read some of the science - read the IPCC reports. Read RealClimate.org.
I'm seriously affronted by these sort of crazy right-wing theories about it all being a climatologist conspiracy. I spoke to one senior meteorologist at the Bureau of Meteorology about allegations that someone was paying our scientists to be green. He pointed to Australia's number one export, coal. He pointed to the government subsidies to that industry, and the fact that large chunks of the money Howard's government has spent on 'climate change research' has gone on the junk science of geosequestration. As a government employee, like many of the senior climatologists in this country, he said: “Paid to be green? Certainly not. In fact, they'd love to pay me to be black.” He gestured once more to the coal export figures, and explained that as a scientist, he has no agenda other than providing his government with the best possible information he can provide, so that they can set the agenda. But as a person, he's rather going to miss citrus fruit and skiing in the Victorian alps when those things become less and less possible.
Firstly, energy itself is not the problem, but rather the fossil fuels which are used to provide certain kinds of electricity. Possibly the only way to begin to affect larger scale change is not to turn into a luddite, but to choose alternative energy providers - the 'green' option on your power bill, which funds the introduction/increase of supply to the power grid of alternative energies (wind, solar, etc). If the national grid were to be fuelled more by wind/solar energy, people could pretty much use all the electricity they wanted without it having a warming effect.
Secondly, if you look at the comparative difference of industrial versus domestic power usage, people using computers and telephones to spread the word about global warming, you'd notice that the industrial levels are way higher, and subject to fewer restrictions, particularly under Howard's new ideas on internal carbon trading. Yes, it's nice to use energy saving bulbs, and it makes a difference. But without industry coming to the party and being prepared to make some big changes in order to become more efficient, it's pretty much feel-good educative changes which have as much effect as dropping a bucketful of water into Melbourne's emptying reservoirs - a change, but comparatively, a barely measurable one. Further, the sort of changes we're basically being asked to make in our households - turn off lights when you're not in the room, water saving showerheads (which reduce emissions by using less hot water per shower, hence, if you've got an electric hot water heater, less energy), more efficient light globes, insulation - all pretty much things which in terms of climate change, we ought already be doing, as they really don't cost us much in the way of lifestyle sacrifice, and therefore it's somewhat politically mischevious to attempt to trade off 'carbon credits' generated in this way -rather like saying “Hey, I won't piss in your water suppply, but that means I have a unit of 'clean water credibility' to sell to you'” - great, but there wasn't really a need to pee into the water supply anyway, so it's essentially an empty credit.
In short, you want to disbelieve, in the face of all the evidence, that climate change is happening, feel free. People have had whackier beliefs in the past- Elvis' Second Coming, fairies at the bottom of the garden, John Howard's inherent honesty and decency. But I know I'd probably listen to your arguments a bit less dismissively if even one of you 'climate sceptics' showed me that it's not just a rebellion against the mainstream view. Read some of the science - read the IPCC reports. Read RealClimate.org.
I'm seriously affronted by these sort of crazy right-wing theories about it all being a climatologist conspiracy. I spoke to one senior meteorologist at the Bureau of Meteorology about allegations that someone was paying our scientists to be green. He pointed to Australia's number one export, coal. He pointed to the government subsidies to that industry, and the fact that large chunks of the money Howard's government has spent on 'climate change research' has gone on the junk science of geosequestration. As a government employee, like many of the senior climatologists in this country, he said: “Paid to be green? Certainly not. In fact, they'd love to pay me to be black.” He gestured once more to the coal export figures, and explained that as a scientist, he has no agenda other than providing his government with the best possible information he can provide, so that they can set the agenda. But as a person, he's rather going to miss citrus fruit and skiing in the Victorian alps when those things become less and less possible.