Will the UK pick up on Obama’s lead in climate policy?

In Wednesday’s state of the union address, US President Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet to Congress on climate change action – and in the process, cemented the re-prioritisation of the issue which began in the final weeks of his re-election campaign. After two years of virtual silence, Hurricane…

95547bpw-1360898432 — David Cameron’s 2006 campaign to “vote blue, go green” was discarded under a double dip recession – but could he now pick up on Obama’s State of the Union lead?

After two years of virtual silence, Hurricane Sandy brought climate change hurtling back onto the US press agenda, and that of the Obama Administration.

In the UK the silence has been not been so deafening, but British environmentalists have similarly had their hopes dashed over the last couple of years – as the pledge made by the coalition on its formation in 2010 to make the “greenest government ever” has been swept aside by a short-sighted austerity agenda and internal squabbling over the UK’s energy future.

But where America leads, the UK tends to follow – and just in the last few weeks, there is a hint that things might be changing. It’s early days but some bold rhetoric from the Prime Minister suggests that climate change and the green economy may be back – and that the naysayers in government, including Chancellor George Osborne, could have a reinforced battle on their hands.

‘Vote blue, go green’

In 2006, David Cameron, then leader of the opposition, posed with a pack of huskies in a bid to promote his party’s eco-credentials summed up in the slogan ‘vote blue, go green’. At that point, the environmental commitment was at the heart of the rebranding of the Conservative party as modern and compassionate – reflecting the public appetite for a progressive green agenda.

But the outbreak of the global recession in 2007 changed all that – and, ever since, the economy has taken precedence over everything else for governments in the West. While still officially promoting their green vows on taking office, since 2010 the coalition government has doggedly reasserted that the urgent priority is tackling the UK’s deficit whilst promoting economic recovery.

On the question of where environmental action and carbon reduction strategies sit in relation to this aim, at the Conservative Party Conference in 2011 Chancellor George Osborne put the country straight; “We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business”. Cameron meanwhile stayed largely silent on the issue, refusing to make any major speech on environmentalism in his first two years in office.

It’s no secret that during the preparation of 2012 Energy Bill, the government was overwhelmed with internal squabbling over its content – with a group of conservatives led by the Treasury battling to undermine efforts to secure long-term investment in renewables and meet the decarbonisation targets set out in the ambitious Climate Change Act of 2008.

What the bill didn’t say was more of a talking point than the range of initiatives to reduce dependence on fossil fuels included. With no word on the all-important emissions reduction targets for 2030 or – more controversially – a ruling out of “fracking” for shale gas, the bill held a mirror up to the power battles in the government – and the sceptics seemed to be winning.

On the other side of the Atlantic however, the rhetoric was changing. In the last week of a presidential election campaign in which neither candidate had mentioned climate change, Hurricane Sandy hit the US. A surprise – and very public – endorsement of Obama from former Republican New York mayor Michael Bloomberg in response to the disaster moved the issue back onto his agenda – culminating in this week’s address.

While Cameron’s much anticipated speech on Britain’s EU membership in January continued to send out mixed messages – citing climate change as a key joint commitment and at the same time questioning European legislation on the environment – finally this month there have been signs of a genuine shift in tone.

At an understated launch of the government’s new energy efficiency mission Cameron gave arguably his boldest green speech since coming into power. In a restating of his green vows, he set out a powerful strategy for the future of the green economy and de-carbonisation, with a pointed assurance: “To those who say we just can’t afford to prioritise green energy right now, my view is we can’t afford not to”. Just days later the climate and energy minister underlined this sentiment with a speech attacking the “dogmatic” and “blinkered” climate sceptics undermining action to reduce emissions.

It’s small steps, but the “special relationship” with the US is one that the UK covets. David Cameron has an internal fight on his hands, but he and his advisers must see an opportunity for Britain to play a leading role in the US-declared mission to act on climate change – and with an election only two years away – a chance for the party to re-ingratiate itself to those drawn to the progressive version of Conservatism they once promoted.

Articles also by This Author

17 May 2013 Deep-fried independence debate is backdrop to Farage furore

23 March 2013 Dinner party politics: Murdoch courts Farage as UKIP’s star rises

28 January 2013 Google Glass: augmenting minds or helping us sleepwalk?

18 December 2012 Scientists, this is a call to arms over energy policy

30 November 2012 Leveson too quiet on relationship between politicians and press

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

36 Comments sorted by

John Newlands

tree changer

The irony is that the UK once had abundant gas from the North Sea and the US used to import LNG. Now those roles are to be reversed. As part of the EU ETS Britain has explicit CO2 pricing albeit too low. The US has so far relied on cheap gas replacing coal assisted by tough EPA rules on coal derived soot and mercury but so far not CO2. Both countries are heavily reliant on nuclear power. A new US reactor may efficiently utilise the UK's 120 tonne stockpile of plutonium, a huge untapped resource…
Read more

The irony is that the UK once had abundant gas from the North Sea and the US used to import LNG. Now those roles are to be reversed. As part of the EU ETS Britain has explicit CO2 pricing albeit too low. The US has so far relied on cheap gas replacing coal assisted by tough EPA rules on coal derived soot and mercury but so far not CO2. Both countries are heavily reliant on nuclear power. A new US reactor may efficiently utilise the UK's 120 tonne stockpile of plutonium, a huge untapped resource. The US is starting to build offshore wind farms but is behind the UK.

The UK seems more comfortable in its thinking about carbon taxing goods made in China, an idea proposed by Oxford University academic Dieter Helm.. The US west coast is increasingly exporting rather than burning coal due to the low gas price. That could easily go into reverse if the fracking bubble bursts. I think a decade from now the developed countries will have similar energy policies based around nuclear, renewables, reduced coal use and alternatives to oil. Australia will get its cues from the US and UK more so than green-or-bust Germany.

3 months ago report
Gerard Dean

Managing Director

What lead does the UK have to pick up from Obama?

The 7 lane interstates with 7 litre SUV's carrying mom and the kids to Walmart to buy cheap Chinese plastic junk and super processed, high energy food. That isn't a lead, it is a warning.

I have spent much time in both great countries, and the Brits win hands down when it comes to all things energy and resource management. The USA is still sucking the earth dry while the Brits make do.

Obama knows he doesn't have a chance of bringing in…
Read more

What lead does the UK have to pick up from Obama?

The 7 lane interstates with 7 litre SUV's carrying mom and the kids to Walmart to buy cheap Chinese plastic junk and super processed, high energy food. That isn't a lead, it is a warning.

I have spent much time in both great countries, and the Brits win hands down when it comes to all things energy and resource management. The USA is still sucking the earth dry while the Brits make do.

Obama knows he doesn't have a chance of bringing in a US wide Cap and Trade Bill on emissions. Once the Australian Carbon Tax is dismantled later this year, the charade is over.

The president is really speaking for the history books and Spielberg's upcoming movie - St Obama. Like Spielberg's other films, Saving Private Ryan and Lincoln, the truth will come off second best.

In fact, Obama is just like most climate change adherents - big on rhetoric - cut fossil fuel usage, but small on action - choose to burn JetA1 fuel to fly for personal pleasure on holidays.

Next time JetA1 pushes you back in your seat, think of me.

Gerard JetA1 Dean

3 months ago report
1. Mike Hansen
  
  Mr
  
  In reply to Gerard Dean
  
  Gerard has a special seat when he flies. It is facing towards the rear of the plane.
  It is not Gerard "JetA1" Dean but rather Gerard "looking backwards" Dean.
  Like all climate science deniers, Gerard believes that the future must look exactly like the past.
  Sorry Gerard - that possibility is long gone - it is now decarbonise or fry.
  
  3 months ago report
2. Mike Hansen
  
  Mr
  
  In reply to Gerard Dean
  
  Slightly off topic but Gerard is an acolyte of Murdoch journo and climate science denier Andrew Bolt.
  
  Bolt has been making much of the fact that the two la Nina years "filled" Victoria's dams. There is no doubt that Bolt's climate crank views are also commonly held in the Victorian LNP government which "eased water restrictions on the first day of summer, allowing residents to use sprinklers on any day of the week between 6pm and 10am. Water use has since surged."
  http://www.theage.com.au/victoria…
  Read more
  
  Slightly off topic but Gerard is an acolyte of Murdoch journo and climate science denier Andrew Bolt.
  
  Bolt has been making much of the fact that the two la Nina years "filled" Victoria's dams. There is no doubt that Bolt's climate crank views are also commonly held in the Victorian LNP government which "eased water restrictions on the first day of summer, allowing residents to use sprinklers on any day of the week between 6pm and 10am. Water use has since surged."
  http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/calls-from-deputy-premiers-electorate-for-21m-desal-link-20130217-2eldy.html
  
  We have now had 2 months of no rain - an event that would come as no surprise to readers of The Conversation.
  https://theconversation.edu.au/a-land-of-more-extreme-droughts-and-flooding-rains-5184
  
  So the inevitable is starting to happen - parts of Victoria are starting to run out of water.
  "South Gippsland Water wants $21 million from the Baillieu government for a pipe connecting the towns to the Melbourne water grid, which was built for the desalination plant"
  
  Here in lies the lesson - if you take advice from cranks, you will get crank outcomes.
  
  A Tony Abbott led Liberal-National Party federal government full to the brim with climate science deniers is going to be a very interesting experience for Australia.
  
  3 months ago report
3. Chris Reynolds
  
  Education Consultant
  
  In reply to Gerard Dean
  
  what happens now is not what drives share,markets, bond rates or environmental policies; it's what will happen in future that counts. no one says that change is easy. They just point out in Cameron's words that it is inevitable. And he as we all know is a Conservative. Wonder what Tony would say Liberal Blue going Green? Smart move but too jaw-dropping to be believable i think.
  
  3 months ago report
4. Chris O'Neill
  
  Telecommunications Engineer
  
  In reply to Gerard Dean
  
  "a US wide Cap and Trade Bill on emissions. Once the Australian Carbon Tax is dismantled later this year, the charade is over."
  
  I see now. When Australia tries to reduce its Carbon emissions, no-one takes any notice (according to denialists). When Australia gives up trying to reduce its Carbon emissions, everyone takes notice.
  
  It's all so obvious now.
  
  3 months ago report
5. Chris O'Neill
  
  Telecommunications Engineer
  
  In reply to Mike Hansen
  
  "Bolt has been making much of the fact that the two la Nina years "filled" Victoria's dams."
  
  "filled" as in 82% of Melbourne's dams.
  
  It's interesting that Melbourne Water no longer shows the water level curve for 1997 on its graph: http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_storages/water_report/zoom_graph.asp
  
  Pity because then we could see a curve that was much closer to full than the one in the last year.
  
  3 months ago report
Peter Lang

Retired geologist and engineer

There are major issues Obama has not addressed, that do need to be addressed before the world embarks on pricing carbon.

What I would most like to see is an objective analysis of the probability that a legally binding international agreement (Treaty, Protocol, whatever) can be agreed, implemented, maintained (ramped up across all 195 countries in unison) for 100 years or until greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to a sustainable level?

If the world does not implement an international agreement…
Read more

There are major issues Obama has not addressed, that do need to be addressed before the world embarks on pricing carbon.

What I would most like to see is an objective analysis of the probability that a legally binding international agreement (Treaty, Protocol, whatever) can be agreed, implemented, maintained (ramped up across all 195 countries in unison) for 100 years or until greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to a sustainable level?

If the world does not implement an international agreement that causes the world to act in unison to price carbon, maintain the system for all of this century and beyond, and increase the price in unison throughout the world, emissions pricing will not succeed (reasons explained on a page here: http://skepticalscience.com//news.php?f=nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money#82373).

The assumptions [that underpin the economic analyses that justify carbon pricing] are academic but they are totally impracticable to achieve in the real world. Here are some of the assumptions.

• Negligible leakage (of emissions between countries)

• All GHG emission sources are included (all countries and all GHG emissions in each country)

• Negligible compliance cost

• Negligible fraud

• An optimal carbon price

• The whole world implements the optimal carbon price in unison

• The whole world acts in unison to increase the optimal carbon price periodically

• The whole world continues to maintain the carbon price at the optimal level for all of this century (and thereafter).

If these assumptions are not met, the net benefits estimated by Nordhaus cannot be achieved. As Nordhaus says, p198 http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf:

>“Moreover, the results here incorporate an estimate of the importance of participation for economic efficiency. Complete participation is important because the cost function for abatement appears to be highly convex. We preliminarily estimate that a participation rate of 50 percent instead of 100 percent will impose a cost penalty on abatement of 250 percent.”

In other words, if only 50% of emissions are captured in the carbon pricing scheme, the cost penalty for the participants would be 250%. The 50% participation could be achieved by, for example, 100% of countries participating in the scheme but only 50% of the emissions in total from within the countries are caught, or 50% of countries participate and 100% of the emissions within those countries are caught in the scheme (i.e. taxed or traded).

Given the above, we can see that the assumptions are theoretical and impracticable in the real world. To recognize this point, try to envisage how we could capture 100% of emissions from 100% of emitters in Australia (every cow, sheep, goat) in the CO2 pricing scheme, let alone expecting the same to be done across the whole world; e.g. China, India, Eretria, Ethiopia, Mogadishu and Somalia.

As the world tries to increase the participation rate, as would inevitably happen over time, to try to include more and more of the twenty-three Kyoto greenhouse gasses, and more and more of the emitting sources in the pricing scheme, and do so in all 195 countries, the compliance cost will skyrocket. Australia has started with including only the largest 400 emitting businesses. Emissions from agriculture and road transport are excluded. EU excludes even more emitters from the EU ETS. Eventually everything will have to be included. And, importantly, the emissions from all sources must be measured. Just imagine what the cost would be, eventually, for international trading.

It seems no one is thinking ahead to where carbon pricing would lead. However, it will be come apparent.

For the reasons stated above, it is clear that an international treaty cannot work. It is the wrong approach. There is a much better way to cut global GHG emissions sustainably and in an economically rational way. If we take the economically rational approach, the vast majority of people will support it. Opposition will become negligible.

3 months ago report
Mark Lawson

senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

Like many other articles along this line, the author is confusing rhetoric with reality and media stories with actual action. There is no question that, as far as actual action is concerned, the UK is streets ahead of the US. The US isn't in Kyoto and is not part of an emissions trading scheme (Britain is part of the EU ETS). The US doesn't have a national target for green electricity or any real hope of meeting whatever national targets it has set for limiting emissions. Its national system is simply too diverse for such matters.

Obama's statements on climate meant very little as he's just not in a position to do much about it. The fact that the UK is backing away from earlier commitments is hardly surprising given the enormous expense and that no other countries are going to such trouble. Yes I am a skeptic as will soon be pointed out - thank you Mike - but that is not relevant to any of the above points.

3 months ago report
1. Felix MacNeill
  
  Environmental Manager
  
  In reply to Mark Lawson
  
  Mark your 'skepticism' absolutely IS relevant to the points you make.
  
  When you comment that the UK's 'backing away from earlier commitments is hardly surprising given the enormous expense...' the whole notion of whether the expense involved is disproportionate to the benefits to be gained or losses to be avoided - which is surely the implication of your choice of the words 'enormous expense' - depends entirely on your judgement about what is at stake. If the danger is trivial-to-non-existent as…
  Read more
  
  Mark your 'skepticism' absolutely IS relevant to the points you make.
  
  When you comment that the UK's 'backing away from earlier commitments is hardly surprising given the enormous expense...' the whole notion of whether the expense involved is disproportionate to the benefits to be gained or losses to be avoided - which is surely the implication of your choice of the words 'enormous expense' - depends entirely on your judgement about what is at stake. If the danger is trivial-to-non-existent as, I think, you would claim, then any serious expenditure would inded be, in context, 'enormous'; if, however the danger is serious (as all but a small rump of scientists and economists suggest it is) then what constitutes and 'enormous' and therefore irrational cost is completely different.
  Otherwise you're just sticking your thumb in the air and saying 'that's a lot of money so it must be too high to be rational'.
  
  And, finally, while a fair degree of cynicism about political statements is obviously wise, the fact that, historically, the US has higher emissions levels than the UK and weaker action-to-date doesn't PROVE that they won't take action in future. I agree that the current political situation isn't favourable and Obama's record to date is disappointing, but American history tends to suggest that the US can change quite quickly in their views and, when they set their minds to a particular goal, can achieve remarkable results remarkably quickly.
  
  3 months ago report
2. Mark Lawson
  
  senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
  
  In reply to Felix MacNeill
  
  No skepticism is completely irrelevant. I'm not talking at all about climate. This is commonsense action-effect stuff.
  
  The UK's effort to combat emissions have often and widely been acknowledged as very expensive (one comment I saw when the green bills past a few years back claimed that it was the most expensive piece of legislation in UK's history). But the problem is not so much the expense, but the fact that the UK is so far out in front of other countries. Without international action most…
  Read more
  
  No skepticism is completely irrelevant. I'm not talking at all about climate. This is commonsense action-effect stuff.
  
  The UK's effort to combat emissions have often and widely been acknowledged as very expensive (one comment I saw when the green bills past a few years back claimed that it was the most expensive piece of legislation in UK's history). But the problem is not so much the expense, but the fact that the UK is so far out in front of other countries. Without international action most of the country's expenditure will make little difference to emissions and is therefore a waste..
  
  If you want to limit emissions then international action is your only real option.. otherwise you're better off putting the money into a fund for adaptation when (and if) changes do actually occur.
  
  The main thrust of the article, that the UK is behind the UK in these matters is 180 degrees wrong, and there is no hope that Obama will be able to affect any change in the two-three years he has left (the last six months don't count)..
  
  3 months ago report
3. Felix MacNeill
  
  Environmental Manager
  
  In reply to Mark Lawson
  
  Mark, it's not axiomatically true that 'If you want to limit emissions then international action is your only real option' - not if you mean that you don't take any local action unless and until the whole international community acts together. That is an ultimate requirement, I suppose, but if everyone waits until everyone else acts we'll be in a classic Mexican stand-off situation.
  
  Perhaps this may be 'the most expensive piece of legislation in UK's history'; perhaps it's the most sewrious threat…
  Read more
  
  Mark, it's not axiomatically true that 'If you want to limit emissions then international action is your only real option' - not if you mean that you don't take any local action unless and until the whole international community acts together. That is an ultimate requirement, I suppose, but if everyone waits until everyone else acts we'll be in a classic Mexican stand-off situation.
  
  Perhaps this may be 'the most expensive piece of legislation in UK's history'; perhaps it's the most sewrious threat the UK has had to face. It's still a matter of proportion.
  
  I think this is the same furphy as your argument against renewable energy because all the technological solutions aren't yet 100% ready. Just because you can't get to the end of the process with the first step doesn't mean you shouldn't take that first step.
  
  It's fair to debate ROI and relative effectiveness of different possible processes but madness to advocate inaction merely because perfect and perfectly fair an efficient action isn't possible.
  
  By the way, apropos of your idea of putting money into an adaptation fund, would you also put money into an adaptation fund if you found you had terminal cancer?
  
  3 months ago report
4. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Mark Lawson
  
  Mark, what do you mean "when and if" changes occur? The changes are already prevalent. Have you not noticed all the changes as reported by CSIRO, BoM https://theconversation.edu.au/state-of-the-climate-2012-5831 https://theconversation.edu.au/droughts-and-flooding-rains-climate-change-models-predict-increases-in-both-5470 https://theconversation.edu.au/increases-in-rainfall-extremes-linked-to-global-warming-11933 https://theconversation.edu.au/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628
  
  Your denial…
  Read more
  
  Mark, what do you mean "when and if" changes occur? The changes are already prevalent. Have you not noticed all the changes as reported by CSIRO, BoM https://theconversation.edu.au/state-of-the-climate-2012-5831 https://theconversation.edu.au/droughts-and-flooding-rains-climate-change-models-predict-increases-in-both-5470 https://theconversation.edu.au/increases-in-rainfall-extremes-linked-to-global-warming-11933 https://theconversation.edu.au/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628
  
  Your denial of climate science means that rather than promoting new technologies and investment in the future, you are degrading the market and the planet. This means that the costs associated with change are magnified as the extremes will need to be dealt with and the costs of change will have risen dramatically.
  
  But your statements also are wrong. While all the world does need to be doing something about climate change, smart investors and promotion of such will drive the economies of those who embrace the needs of the future, the future that requires a change away from fossil fuels. Thus those economies will be the ones that will spark the change with investors. This is where people like yourself come in. You should be on board with the science of climate change and doing something about it, not sitting on the fence trying to beat a (fossil fuel) dead horse.
  
  3 months ago report
5. Mark Lawson
  
  senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
  
  In reply to Felix MacNeill
  
  Ah now you're beginning to get the idea - the point I was making was that of the UK acting so far out in front of all other countries.. if you actually want to limit emissions - and that seems to be the aim - then go a little way, build a bit more of a consensus and then shift a bit more.. it will take a long time but short of adaptation I really don't see any other way..otherwise by going out so far and fast you get a backlash.. mind you, any action that would seriously limit emissions on an international level is nearly impossible but its not my choice..
  
  3 months ago report
6. Mark Lawson
  
  senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  Tim
  I was talking about changes in climate that would make an economic difference..and, no, even if everything in the link is absolutely right then its still not happening yet.. Trying to identify a climate signal from, say, agricultural output would be nearly impossible I'd say, considering all the other things that are happening in that sector. Increases in storm damage? This has undoubtedly be going up, but that's mainly because there are many more valuable homes near the coast.. and then there…
  Read more
  
  Tim
  I was talking about changes in climate that would make an economic difference..and, no, even if everything in the link is absolutely right then its still not happening yet.. Trying to identify a climate signal from, say, agricultural output would be nearly impossible I'd say, considering all the other things that are happening in that sector. Increases in storm damage? This has undoubtedly be going up, but that's mainly because there are many more valuable homes near the coast.. and then there is the complication of changes in building codes. Changes in storms are is just one factor in the mix.. More deaths due to extreme heat?.. increased use of air conditioners and generally improved care of elderly people would mean the death rate would go down rather than up, even if the factors you say are happening, are actually happening.
  
  As I said, when you can identify some economic damage then its time to get to work.
  
  Never said the green energy stuff had to be perfect.. but except for wind none of it is in a fit state to go beyond pilot plant stage.. we're stuck with fossil fuels and there's no use complaining to me about it.
  
  3 months ago report
7. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Mark Lawson
  
  What a load of nonsense. My own agency has figures on lost revenue from agriculture, we have figures on farms that have closed due to increased dry years, we have plenty of examples of economic damage from fires, floods and droughts (all increased in severity by climate change). The World Bank and the Insurance industry seem to have plenty of economic figures of current economic damage.
  
  To say that these things are not happening, are not economic impacts and are not as a direct result of climate…
  Read more
  
  What a load of nonsense. My own agency has figures on lost revenue from agriculture, we have figures on farms that have closed due to increased dry years, we have plenty of examples of economic damage from fires, floods and droughts (all increased in severity by climate change). The World Bank and the Insurance industry seem to have plenty of economic figures of current economic damage.
  
  To say that these things are not happening, are not economic impacts and are not as a direct result of climate change, is to deny reality.
  
  To then talk about "not fit beyond pilot stage" is also an egregiously incorrect statement and you should be aware of this. But not only are you incorrect, you are also dampening investment in new technology by pretending that these new industries aren't ready or won't make a mark. If you were even remotely serious then you would be pushing for Thorium reactors, because you would see fossil fuels as a bad investment and new technologies as needing a stepping stone to fill the gap, hence thorium nuclear.
  
  Mark, you are part of the problem. It is time you acknowledged the reality of climate science and started making a positive difference.
  
  3 months ago report
8. Chris O'Neill
  
  Telecommunications Engineer
  
  In reply to Mark Lawson
  
  "if everything in the link is absolutely right then its still not happening yet"
  
  Disproof of that proposition by counterexample is trivial. Bushfires in Australia have a long term increasing trend. Bushfires have a substantial economic cost.
  
  3 months ago report
9. Mark Lawson
  
  senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  Tim - I regret that while you can claim to have a consensus on the cause of climate change (which we will leave to one side for the moment) or whatever, you cannot claim any such consensus on economic damage. I am aware of the figures on trends in storm damage and I repeat trying to disentangle climate factors from the others is very difficult.
  
  Take your statement economic damage from droughts.. okay, you do realise that farm closure from drought - in fact, farm closures period - is a long term…
  Read more
  
  Tim - I regret that while you can claim to have a consensus on the cause of climate change (which we will leave to one side for the moment) or whatever, you cannot claim any such consensus on economic damage. I am aware of the figures on trends in storm damage and I repeat trying to disentangle climate factors from the others is very difficult.
  
  Take your statement economic damage from droughts.. okay, you do realise that farm closure from drought - in fact, farm closures period - is a long term trend in Aus. Then you have the complicating factors of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (and the AMO), the existence and effect of which is heavily debated, affecting rainfall patterns over decades, on top of any greenhouse effect.
  
  Also, remember that in fact it is possible to point to cases of agricultural systems going through major changes in temperatures.. Britain going through the little ice age, American farmers learning to grow crops in Southern US where they coped with much larger changes in temperatures - and they came out better than before..
  
  Sorry but your position is an extreme one. I think if you looked back at your agency's figure you'll find that they simply assumed all farm closures counted as economic damage (they aren't necessarily) or some such.. all fire damage must be due to global warming and so on.. long term trends only please.. but do drop us the name of your agency I'll make an effort to look at the web site..
  
  3 months ago report
10. Mark Lawson
  
  senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
  
  In reply to Chris O'Neill
  
  Re bushfires - oh sure, but you have to be able to point to a long term trend, where you can disentangle the effect of climate and point to it - there an example of cost.. the trouble is that all the other factors are so much larger and more important.. and are bushfires becoming more intense and numerous? Again you have to present a long term trend and even then you can point to the trend being the result of improved recording systems or some such.. working this stuff out is much, much harder than activists can imagine. Even trying to get the data right in the first place is a nightmare, particularly given it would be a comparatively small factor. So it still isn't possible to point to any overall economic cost due to climate change - at least as far as I know.. sorry..
  
  3 months ago report
11. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Mark Lawson
  
  Mark, I work in agricultural research, I'm more than aware of the drivers behind farm closures. I'm also more than well aware of the fact that climate change is one of those drivers, as observed from the increased proliferation of dry years and below average rainfall years. That is a fact. So please don't try and insinuate that this isn't the case.
  
  I'd also point out that your reference to localised changes and times that didn't not have the level of production and development, thus your examples…
  Read more
  
  Mark, I work in agricultural research, I'm more than aware of the drivers behind farm closures. I'm also more than well aware of the fact that climate change is one of those drivers, as observed from the increased proliferation of dry years and below average rainfall years. That is a fact. So please don't try and insinuate that this isn't the case.
  
  I'd also point out that your reference to localised changes and times that didn't not have the level of production and development, thus your examples are not only irrelevant but completely miss the difference to current climate stressors. For example, we have developed cultivars of crops that have been highly bred to deal with climate conditions, we have pushed the envelope for water use efficiency, productivity, etc, as a way of dealing with economic and production pressures. We cannot adapt at the rate that climate is changing. We are losing rainfall at a rate that is far in excess of gains available and possible with water use efficiency of plants.
  
  My position is not extreme, your position is the one that is unfounded by science and data. I could show you this year's farm closures in the Eastern Wheatbelt directly due to 3 of the last 6 growing seasons being decile 1 or below (one median - decile 5 - year in that period was the wettest). So how about you join reality land and start using your influence in the financial sector to stop climate change.
  
  3 months ago report
12. Mark Lawson
  
  senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
  
  In reply to Tim Scanlon
  
  Tim - again you're almost entirely missing the point. It is not enough to cite farm closures.. You have to point to the long term trends and then adjust for all the other factors, and then you can say climate change is doing this amount of damage.. no-one has done this.
  
  I note your example extends into the mega-drought. That drought is known to be at least partially cyclical. Droughts have happened before in Aus. Okay, so if you claim part of it was due to climate change, what part, and how much…
  Read more
  
  Tim - again you're almost entirely missing the point. It is not enough to cite farm closures.. You have to point to the long term trends and then adjust for all the other factors, and then you can say climate change is doing this amount of damage.. no-one has done this.
  
  I note your example extends into the mega-drought. That drought is known to be at least partially cyclical. Droughts have happened before in Aus. Okay, so if you claim part of it was due to climate change, what part, and how much of that part can be attributed to farm closures? Most of teh claims about drought and floods beign associated with climate change are just claims as far as I know..
  
  also, as you know there is a long term shift towards larger area farms.. at least out beyond the model farm area around the capital cities.. and a shift away from marginal land.. Its an international, long-term trend.
  
  Oh yes, and salinity.. self-inflicted soil damage, versus changes in farming techniques. The range of factors is literally endless. If you look at the stats collected (use to be by ABARE, but the name has changed) you'll see that the rate of increase in farming productivity has declined in recent decades. Climate change? Other factors?
  
  Sorry but your position is extreme. Note you didn't specify your agency but no matter. Leave it with you.
  
  3 months ago report
13. Felix MacNeill
  
  Environmental Manager
  
  In reply to Mark Lawson
  
  Funny that the UK Government don't quite see it that way, Mark:
  https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/edward-davey-speech-to-the-avoid-symposium-at-the-royal-society
  
  3 months ago report
14. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Felix MacNeill
  
  Hear! Hear! Felix.
  
  3 months ago report
15. Chris O'Neill
  
  Telecommunications Engineer
  
  In reply to Mark Lawson
  
  "the trouble is that all the other factors are so much larger and more important"
  
  What other factors?
  
  "and are bushfires becoming more intense and numerous?"
  
  Absolutely. You made the claim that such changes are not happening without any evidence to support your claim.
  
  3 months ago report
16. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Mark Lawson
  
  Mark, your claims are uninformed, incorrect and presumptive.
  
  I have personally looked at the long term trends. I have personally looked at the covariates. Many people have also done similar work on a broader scale, including published works in the Australian Journal of Economics and Aust J of Ag Resource Economics. So to claim this work hasn't been done is to fly in the face of reality. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results
  
  Also, I love the fact that I specifically reference…
  Read more
  
  Mark, your claims are uninformed, incorrect and presumptive.
  
  I have personally looked at the long term trends. I have personally looked at the covariates. Many people have also done similar work on a broader scale, including published works in the Australian Journal of Economics and Aust J of Ag Resource Economics. So to claim this work hasn't been done is to fly in the face of reality. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results
  
  Also, I love the fact that I specifically reference the WA wheatbelt, yet you presume that there is nothing outside of NSW/Vic and that I am somehow referring to the drought there, rather than a proven case of climate change with decreased frontal systems. http://www.ioci.org.au/publications.html
  
  Now you talk about salinity and changes in farming techniques as though people in agriculture are not aware of these things and haven't taken them into account. To do so is rather pathetically insulting. To not accept that people in this field are fully aware of the constraints and thus the compounding factor of climate change is well understood by the scientists in the field.
  
  So once again, your position is the one that is extreme, because you continue to deny the reality of climate science. About time you got on board and started doing your bit to secure our future rather than fucking it up like you are now.
  
  3 months ago report
Dianna Arthur

Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

Environmentalist

Meanwhile, the world fiddles away burning, polluting, looking in any direction but what is clearly in front of our own eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm2PM33w23Q&feature

3 months ago report
Ian L. McQueen

Retired

Such a shame that "Honorary Research Associate" Happer throws the "Hurricane Sandy" story into the same paragraph as a mention of "climate change". The storm was not a hurricane when it made land, and it would have passed virtually unnoticed if it had not been driven westward by high-pressure areas to its N and E instead of turning east, the direction that most hurricanes and tropical storms follow. (Hurricane Hazel of 1954 also behaved in a somewhat similar manner and proceeded north instead of east.)
The fact that Sandy coincided with a high tide caused by the moon provided the water that got pushed inland to do so much damage.
Sandy had nothing to do with climate change / global warming and should not have been mentioned.

As for the rest of the article, there is no valid proof that adding CO2 to the air will have any appreciable (if any) effect on climate, so a talk of measures to cut "emissions" has no merit.

Best regards.

IanM

3 months ago report
1. Felix MacNeill
  
  Environmental Manager
  
  In reply to Ian L. McQueen
  
  Ian, do you really believe that endlessly repeating the same PRATT is actually going to achieve anything?
  
  3 months ago report
2. Mike Hansen
  
  Mr
  
  In reply to Ian L. McQueen
  
  As an indicator of where McQueen sits on the "scientific crank" scale, here is an amusing Skeptical Science post where all the leading climate cranks concede in their own words that there is a greenhouse effect.
  
  So when McQueen claims "there is no valid proof that adding CO2 to the air will have any appreciable (if any) effect on climate", he needs to be arguing with the climate cranks.
  
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/The_Greenhouse_Gas_Effect_All-Star_Fan_Club.html
  
  McQueen claims he can provide evidence for all his claims - when I challenged him to do exactly that on the previous thread he ran away.
  
  3 months ago report
3. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Ian L. McQueen
  
  Ian, science disagrees with you. Unless you have evidence for any of your claims, then your comments lack any value.
  
  In the meantime, read this and learn: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
  
  3 months ago report
Ivan Quail

maverick

To Ian Mc Queen and Mark Lawson.

It is a fundamental, cold hard peer reviewed scientific fact that Co2 is 62% better as a thermal insulator than air is. Therefore 390ppm +62% =631 effective =2.25 times greater than 280ppm.
As Dr Bindschadler (NASA) pointed out we know how many million tons of coal, oil and gas are burnt each year. We know fairly accurately how much additional Co2 is released into the atmosphere each year on top of the Co2 emissions from nature. Dr Bindschadler states 1 Gton…
Read more

To Ian Mc Queen and Mark Lawson.

It is a fundamental, cold hard peer reviewed scientific fact that Co2 is 62% better as a thermal insulator than air is. Therefore 390ppm +62% =631 effective =2.25 times greater than 280ppm.
As Dr Bindschadler (NASA) pointed out we know how many million tons of coal, oil and gas are burnt each year. We know fairly accurately how much additional Co2 is released into the atmosphere each year on top of the Co2 emissions from nature. Dr Bindschadler states 1 Gton from nature and 7 Gtons from fossil fuel.
Could anyone put 7 times more salt or sugar on their food without risk to their health and wellbeing?
Just old fashioned logic. That upon which all science and physics is based.
We burn 86 million barrels of oil a day; 21 million tonne of coal a day and 9 billion cubic metres of gas every day. Plus fugitive gasses caused by mining, CSG, shale gas etc. ... all contributing to the C02e plus Methane emissions which as a greenhouse gas is 20 times worse than Co2.

3 months ago report
Ivan Quail

maverick

To Mark Lawson, Tim Scanlon & JohnNewland

The Tides of the Kimberly can generate 10 times more electricity than we currently generate in the whole of Australia. Installed National generating capacity is about 60Gwatts

Too far away you think. A 6G/watt (6,000Mw) bulk HVDC power line can transmit the power to Sydney for a cost of 1c per Kw hr. It is cheaper to build and operate a bulk HVDC transmission line than a natural gas pipeline which carries the same amount of usable energy.

In Brazil…
Read more

To Mark Lawson, Tim Scanlon & JohnNewland

The Tides of the Kimberly can generate 10 times more electricity than we currently generate in the whole of Australia. Installed National generating capacity is about 60Gwatts

Too far away you think. A 6G/watt (6,000Mw) bulk HVDC power line can transmit the power to Sydney for a cost of 1c per Kw hr. It is cheaper to build and operate a bulk HVDC transmission line than a natural gas pipeline which carries the same amount of usable energy.

In Brazil 15% of their power is transmitted by HVDC. Power from the 3 gorges dam in China 5Gw is transmitted by HVDC over 1500 Km.

This power can be supplied 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

The tides of the Kimberly can supply 80% of our electricity and 80% of our transport energy needs. All clean green renewable energy which would make a huge dent in our Co2 emissions without any nuclear risks.

The Australian Institute of Energy’s Fact sheet 10 under Tidal Power quotes a figure of 3,000 Mw in the Kimberly’s. This is factually incorrect. 300,000Mw was identified by Mr John Lewis (100 times more) in 1962 from 25 potential sites on the West Australian part of the Kimberly coast alone.
Why would we want to take a lead from the UK or US?

The UK has much more Tidal energy resources than it knows it has.

3 months ago report
1. Albert Rogers
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Ivan Quail
  
  "The Tides of the Kimberly can generate 10 times more electricity than we currently generate in the whole of Australia."
  That seems remarkable. Lord Kelvin did a rough calculation of the expense of harnessing tidal power in Britain, and concluded that it was ridiculously more expensive than was reasonable. How high an enclosure of what area would it take, to generate power 24 hours a day? Does the tide go in or out there? How high do the tides rise? Also, did you know that the daily emissions from…
  Read more
  
  "The Tides of the Kimberly can generate 10 times more electricity than we currently generate in the whole of Australia."
  That seems remarkable. Lord Kelvin did a rough calculation of the expense of harnessing tidal power in Britain, and concluded that it was ridiculously more expensive than was reasonable. How high an enclosure of what area would it take, to generate power 24 hours a day? Does the tide go in or out there? How high do the tides rise? Also, did you know that the daily emissions from coal far outweigh in toxicity the total quantity of radioactivity released at Fukushima? So the first thing your tidal generators must do, is to shut down the coal burners.
  
  A GW is a unit of power. You will need a total capacity of 3000 MW of solar, for instance, in the outback where the sky is cloudless all day, to give you an average of 1000 MW counting the hours of darkness and the fact that the fixed arrays are not always head-on to the Sun's rays, you will need a capacity of 3000 MW.
  
  As for wind turbines, unless you use them to pump water uphill, and then let the water drive real turbines, the wind is hopelessly unresponsive to demand when you need it.
  
  28 days ago report
Albert Rogers

logged in via Facebook

As yet, President Obama, whom I support in most things, is in danger over energy because although he and Al Gore are right about the menace of global warming, they still seem not to realise that the solar-sourced resources which fossil carbon (fossil solar energy, in fact) ousted are not adequate to make a comeback. Britain and the USA will regret their investments in wind turbines, whether from the expense or the slaughter of big offshore birds.

As John Newlands points out, the USA developed…
Read more

As yet, President Obama, whom I support in most things, is in danger over energy because although he and Al Gore are right about the menace of global warming, they still seem not to realise that the solar-sourced resources which fossil carbon (fossil solar energy, in fact) ousted are not adequate to make a comeback. Britain and the USA will regret their investments in wind turbines, whether from the expense or the slaughter of big offshore birds.

As John Newlands points out, the USA developed a reactor that could very well consume the embarrassing plutonium stockpile., and an equivalent amount of depleted uranium, and continue doing so. The coolant is liquid sodium, in a steel tank under an atmosphere of nitrogen and argon.
It's not exactly a new reactor, it was already in operation and immune to meltdown, by design, in April 1986, a week before the Chernobyl meltdown.
It was then deliberately tested, by shutting off the primary coolant pumps, and did exactly as it should. Without power, but with a pool of liquid sodium to cool it convection was quite sufficient. So the second test was stopping the power output, secondary cooling circuit, as if a fault developed there. Again the reactor shut down, as required and designed.
The depleted uranium is converted to plutonium, and consumed.
A kilogram of plutonium can give you 10 million kilowatt-hours of energy. Better call that ten gigawatt-hours, GWh.
A typical base load coal power plant delivers 1000 MW, a gigawatt.
A tonne is 1000 kg. so just the plutonium will get you 1,200,000 GWh, and there are 8766 hours in an average year, so that's 136 gigawatt-years. People who consider themselves environmentalists have been duped, by people who know that wind, solar, and biofuels are no threat to the hegemony of gas, oil, and coal.

28 days ago report
1. Albert Rogers
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Albert Rogers
  
  Oh, I failed to mention, the IFR was shut down in 1994 by the Clinton administration, at the behest of the Sierra Club and others, citing the danger of plutonium bomb proliferation. The reactor can be made to consume surplus plutonium. It is designed to consume all that it makes. It is very dangerous for miscreants to attempt to interfere with this.
  The other option, of breeding fillise uranium 233 from thorium 232, was shut down by the Nixon administration, because it wasn't very useful for making bombs.
  
  28 days ago report
2. Chris O'Neill
  
  Telecommunications Engineer
  
  In reply to Albert Rogers
  
  "the IFR was shut down in 1994 by the Clinton administration, at the behest of the Sierra Club and others, citing the danger of plutonium bomb proliferation."
  
  That Plutonium was, or could easily have been kept in a state where it was quite unsuitable for making fission bombs. Even with weapons grade Plutonium, it is very technical to make a fission bomb that will work and gets rapidly more difficult the lower the grade of Plutonium. The Plutonium in the IFR could easily have been kept at a lower grade than in any successful bomb test.
  
  Politics doesn't care about technical impossibility, of course.
  
  28 days ago report

‘Vote blue, go green’

Articles also by This Author

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter