Author: Neville

  • EDITORIAL: Planning for rising sea levels

    EDITORIAL: Planning for rising sea levels

    April 28, 2013, 11 p.m.

    FOR residents who live on the shore of Lake Macquarie, the spectre of climate change has created a brave new world.

    See your ad here

    Lakefront land has long been regarded as hot property.

    More recently though, such land has been caught in controversial planning rules aimed at tackling the threat of rising sea levels.

    Lake Macquarie City Council produced a sea level rise policy five years ago, which had significant implications for new developments in low-lying and flood-prone areas.

    People faced extra costs with demands that floor levels for new buildings be raised. The council faced criticism for not committing to lift surrounding roads and infrastructure at the same time.

    Some residents, who accept the general premise of rising sea levels, say the main game plan should be holding back the waters by building the likes of a levee.

    Others say the council’s policy is an over-reaction and a result of climate-change fanaticism.

    The council insists it is acting prudently and managing risk in response to hard science.

    In a prominent case last year, councillors approved 22 dwellings at a Marks Point site on condition the buildings be ‘‘relocatable’’. Council staff had recommended refusal.

    Also controversial was the council placing ‘‘sea level rise’’ notations on section 149 certificates of about 10,000 properties.

    Some claimed this caused property prices to fall, but the council – fearful of a lawsuit – denied that.

    Before he became Newcastle lord mayor, Belmont resident Jeff McCloy threatened legal action against Lake Macquarie council for devaluing and restricting waterfront properties with its sea level rise policy.

    Around that time, sea level rise planning became a political flashpoint in several coastal areas in NSW. The O’Farrell government responded by dumping the former Labor government’s sea level rise planning standards.

    That led Gosford and Wyong councils on the Central Coast to drop sea level rise planning requirements.

    See your ad here

    Lake Macquarie, though, stuck to its guns and is pushing ahead with the next phase of planning.

    It is developing an ‘‘adaptation plan’’ in the low-lying suburbs of Marks Point and Belmont South, with plans to follow in other areas.

    Options to be considered include demolishing houses, building retaining walls on private property, levees, landfill and setting buildings back on longer blocks.

    The cost to residents, both financial and emotional, will be at the forefront of debate.

  • Christian groups welcome gay marriage referendum

    Christian groups welcome gay marriage referendum

    DateApril 29, 2013 – 1:28PM 55 reading now

    Read later

    Heath Aston and Dan Harrison

    Zoom in on this story. Explore all there is to know.
    Australians
    Fred Nile
    Tony Abbott
    Fairfax Media
    .

    inShare.
    Pin It
    submit to reddit
    Email article
    Print
    Reprints & permissions

    .

    Independent MP Tony Windsor has flagged a referendum on gay marriage.
    Independent MP Tony Windsor has flagged a referendum on gay marriage. Photo: Andrew Meares
    Why a referendum is a bad idea

    Christian groups want a referendum on gay marriage, saying Australians will reject any change to the status quo if the question posed was a ”black and white” choice on whether to allow ”homosexuals to marry”.

    As divisions emerged among the Greens and same-sex marriage advocates over a referendum, Reverend Fred Nile joined the Australian Christian lobby in calling for the matter to be decided on election day.

    Legendary morals crusader: Fred Nile.
    Fred Nile: thinks the people should decide. Photo: Jon Reid

    The government is set to announce a referendum will be held on September 14 on constitutional recognition for local government but key independents led by Tony Windsor have called for a second question to be attached to the paper on recognition for same-sex marriage.

    Advertisement

    Rev Nile said his Christian Democratic Party had been ”pipped at the post” by Mr Windsor and had planned to publicly call for a referendum next week.

    He told Fairfax Media: ”I think people should decide the issue.

    ”But the question has to be clear. A question like ‘are you in favour of marriage equality?’ will confuse some people. I’m in favour of marriage equality – between a husband and a wife.

    ”The question has to be black and white: Do you agree that homosexuals should be legally married?
    ”I think the majority of people would vote no if the question was clear.”

    Rev Nile said the Christian Democratic Party would man every booth and hand out how-to-vote cards to help those voting no on the issue.

    He called on the Catholic and Anglican churches to come in opposition to gay marriage.

    Australian Christian Lobby spokesman Lyle Shelton said his organisation would make the case for preserving the traditional definition of marriage. ”This is something that people are very passionate about,” he said.

    In the lead-up to the Labor Party’s 2011 national conference, the group collected more than 100,000 signatures on a petition against gay marriage.

    He predicted there would be ”every chance” that a public vote to allow same-sex marriage would be defeated.

    ”I would think that if the arguments were presented in a balanced way without the accusations of homophobia or bigotry that are often put towards those who support marriage, I think there would be every chance that people would stick with what has been the status quo for millennia,” he said.

    The push for a referendum has split pro gay marriage supporters.

    Fairfax understands senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who has portfolio responsibility for marriage equality, lobbied leader Christine Milne to reverse her support for a referendum.

    In comments that appeared to confirm she was backtracking, Ms Milne told reporters on Monday that a referendum would be a ”distraction” and the issue should be decided before election day in Parliament. ”The only impediment is that the Coalition won’t provide a conscience vote,” she said.

    Marriage equality campaigners fear the financial might and organisational infrastructure of the churches could mean a referendum fails despite recent polls that put support for same sex marriage at more than 70 per cent

    Australian Marriage Equality national convener Rodney Croome said: ”We fear cashed-up opponents of marriage equality would exploit a referendum to polarise the electorate and demonise gay and lesbian people in a way that will impact badly, particularly on young gay people.”

    Senator Penny Wong compared the referendum push to the 1999 republic referendum, which failed across all states despite having strong public support.

    ”John Howard and Tony Abbott ran a very good fear campaign and we lost that referendum,” she said.

    Mr Abbott said the independents and the government were seeking to ”muddy the waters” of the election that, he said, should be ”uncomplicated by other matters” other than the carbon tax and the performance of the Labor government.

    But Democratic Labor Party Senator John Madigan, an opponent of same-sex marriage said he had ”no problem with giving the people the opportunity to express their views” in a referendum

    Senator Madigan has introduced a bill that would allow citizens to initiate referenda. He predicted if a public vote were held on same sex marriage, it would be defeated.

    ”I believe that the majority of Australians believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

    Follow the National Times on Twitter

    Poll: Should there be a referendum on same-sex marriage?

    Yes
    69%
    No
    31%

    Total votes: 11492.

    Poll closed 29 Apr, 2013

    Disclaimer:

    These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/christian-groups-welcome-gay-marriage-referendum-20130429-2io0q.html#ixzz2RqMAz06G

  • Australian minister: I never saw advice against coal port at Great Barrier Reef

    Australian minister: I never saw advice against coal port at Great Barrier Reef

    Campaigners say Tony Burke should have ruled out Fitzroy Terminal as soon as government received warnings
    Share 208

    inShare.4
    Email

    Lenore Taylor, political editor, Guardian Australia

    guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 April 2013 13.08 BST

    A green sea turtle swimming above Australia’s Great Barrier Reef
    A green sea turtle swimming above Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Photograph: Bruce Miller/Alamy

    Australia’s environment minister said he never saw advice that a proposed coal port posed “extreme” risks – including threats to endangered turtles and a species of dolphin – at the Great Barrier Reef.

    Campaigners said Tony Burke should have ruled out the Fitzroy Terminal as soon as the government received the strongly worded warnings, rather than allow the company to undertake a lengthy environmental impact statement.

    But a spokeswoman said the minister had not seen the 2011 advice and the decision that the $1.2bn project should proceed to assessment was made by a delegate.

    Burke recently described the region where the proposed terminal would operate as “the front lawn of the Great Barrier Reef”.

    The warning about the potential impact of the proposed project in the Fitzroy River delta south of Rockhampton was delivered to the federal environment department by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GRMPA), the body responsible for protecting and managing the world heritage-listed reef.

    In its August 2011 advice – released publicly after a freedom of information request by the GetUp! advocacy group – GRMPA said its preliminary risk assessment “has identified seven risks with an extreme consequence rating” due to the proposed project, including extreme consequences “on threatened and migratory species including three species of vulnerable and endangered turtles and the Australian snubfin dolphin.”

    GRMPA concluded that the port had “the potential to have unacceptable and high risk impacts on the [Great Barrier Reef] and in particular the flatback turtle and snubfin dolphin populations”.

    Burke told Guardian Australia recently that the Fitzroy Terminal, proposed by The Mitchell Group, and a second nearby terminal proposed by mining giant Xstrata, were both in the kind of “relatively untouched and pristine” areas that Unesco’s world heritage committee has said should not be subject to further development.
    australia map Australia’s eastern coastline, where a mining boom is under way
    “The minister has the legal power to say a project is inconsistent with Australian environmental laws, and reject it, at the time it is first referred to him, and in this case he had clear advice that it was completely inappropriate for a world heritage area,” said GetUp! campaign director Paul Oosting.

    A spokesman for the Fitzroy Terminal Project said the company had worked with “environmental and world heritage specialists” to make sure its plan – to barge coal into deeper water where it will be loaded on to transport vessels – had “minimal impact” and addressed all environmental concerns.

    “Mitchell Ports’ team recognised the critical need to find a low impact export solution for projects along the Queensland coast years before the interest expressed by Unesco and green groups regarding port developments,” the spokesman said.

    The environmental impact statement (EIS) would be submitted later in 2013.

    “We believe from the scientific reports presented to us to date that the EIS will demonstrate that our proposed barging and transhipping operation offers a far smaller impact than traditional port developments, due largely to the vast reduction in dredging requirements. The EIS will demonstrate that the impacts associated with the project can be successfully managed, and we are confident that the project will be approved by both levels of government,” he said.

    Last year the world heritage committee warned it was considering putting the reef on its list of world heritage sites “in danger” and said Australian governments should “not permit any new port development or associated infrastructure outside of the existing and long-established major port areas within or adjoining the (world heritage) property, and to ensure that development is not permitted if it would impact individually or cumulatively on the outstanding universal value of the property”.

    The Fitzroy Terminal is technically in an existing port area, but in the recent interview with Guardian Australia Burke said: “The area around Balaclava Island is in my view and based on the environmental evidence, relatively untouched and pristine. There are large and important areas of seagrass … it is effectively the front lawn of the Great Barrier Reef.”

  • Pakula wins Lyndhurst despite swing against Labor

    Pakula wins Lyndhurst despite swing against Labor

    Updated Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:03am AEST

    Martin Pakula addresses media in Lyndhurst Photo: Victorian opposition leader Daniel Andrews and Labor candidate Martin Pakula (right) speak to the media (AAP: Joe Castro)

    External Link: ABC elections: Lyndhurst by-election

    Related Story: Labor hopeful of retaining Lyndhurst

    Map: Lyndhurst 3975
    Labor has claimed victory at a by-election in the Victorian state seat of Lyndhurst, despite taking a significant hit to its primary vote.

    The by-election was triggered by the February retirement of former minister Tim Holding.

    With more than half the eligible votes counted, Labor’s Martin Pakula had about 40 per cent of the primary vote.

    That represents an anti-Labor swing of more than 15 per cent, but is still enough to hand victory to Labor.

    There were seven other candidates including Family First and the Greens, but the Liberal Party did not contest the seat.

    State Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews thanked voters via Twitter.

    Very pleased and honoured that #Lyndhurst voters have stuck with Labor. We won’t let them down. Congrats to @martinppakula #springst

    — Daniel Andrews (@DanielAndrewsMP) April 27, 2013

    The Labor victory means the Opposition and the Coalition Government each has 43 seats in the Lower House of Parliament, plus the Liberal speaker.

    Former Liberal turned independent MP Geoff Shaw will hold the balance of power.

    Mr Shaw is under investigation by police, and parliament’s privileges committee, for the alleged misuse of his taxpayer funded car and fuel card for his personal hardware business.

    Read the latest results on the ABC’s election website.

    Topics: states-and-territories, government-and-politics, state-parliament, lyndhurst-3975, vic, australia

    First posted Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:01pm AEST

  • Methane Outbreak Alert!

    Methane Outbreak Alert!

    by Robert Hunziker / April 27th, 2013

    A cadre of the world’s top climate scientists have seen enough evidence of prospective runaway climate change that they are now sounding the alarm, putting the world on notice that an extinction event may be in the cards. The principal actor in this macabre tragedy: Methane.

    The following is a quote from the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (“AMEG”), which is the organization created by these high level climate scientists.

    An Assessment by AMEG:

    Could the World be in Imminent Danger and Nobody is Telling?

    Uniquely and fearlessly AMEG has studied key non-linear trends in the Earth-human System and reached the stunning conclusion that the planet stands at the edge of abrupt and catastrophic climate change as a result of an unprecedented rate of change in the Arctic.

    Methane (CH4) is over twenty times more powerful, over a 100-year period, per molecule, than is carbon dioxide (CO2). Or, put another way, methane is more effectual than carbon dioxide at absorbing infrared radiation emitted from the earth’s surface and preventing it from escaping into space. Methane, during its first few years upon entering the atmosphere, is 100 times as powerful as an equal weight of CO2.

    As it happens, it appears excessive levels of methane are just now starting to seriously impact the Earth’s atmosphere… in a big way!

    According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, as of February 2013, methane levels in the atmosphere are measured at 1,874 ppb (parts per billion.) This level, in an historical context, is more than twice as high as any time since 400,000 years before the industrial revolution. In the past, methane has ranged between 300-400 ppb during glacial periods and 600-700 ppb during warm interglacial periods.

    Newly Identified Sources of Methane Emissions in Deep Arctic Seas

    In 2012, expeditionary teams in the Arctic were shocked, and dismayed, to find methane bubbling up from deep ocean sites. “Previous observations have pointed to large methane plumes being released from the seabed in the relatively shallow sea off the northern coast of Siberia, but the latest findings were made far away from land in the deep, open ocean where the surface is usually capped by ice.”1

    Physicist Eric Kort (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University) of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Pasadena, California was surprised to see methane levels rise so convincingly each time their research aircraft flew over cracks in the sea ice. These methane measurements come from Hiaper Pole-to-Pole Observations, which uses aircraft loaded with scientific instruments flying long distances at varying altitudes. The study, covering numerous flights into the Arctic at different times of the year, was published in Nature Geoscience. The study covered an area about 950 miles north of the coast of Alaska and 350 miles south of the North Pole.

    Moreover, as if discovering methane emissions from the deep seas of the Arctic isn’t already of major concern, a recent study discovered immense amounts of methane locked under Antarctic ice: “They… calculated that the potential amount of methane hydrate and free methane gas beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet could be up to 4 billion metric tons, a similar order of magnitude to some estimates made for Arctic permafrost. The predicted shallow depth of these potential reserves also makes them more susceptible to climate forcing than other methane hydrate reserves on Earth.”2

    The Arctic is in Meltdown: At the same time, Methane Gushes into the Atmosphere

    According to the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG), the “Arctic is in meltdown.” As such, AMEG has declared: “An extremely high international security risk of acute climate disruption followed by runaway global warming.”

    Likewise, Russian scientists have spotted methane plumes/bubbles that are more than a kilometer in diameter coming to surface along the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which is the largest continental shelf in the world. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the sea over the shelf is shallow water, less than 50 metres deep, and consequently more immediately exposed to warming trends.

    “The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.”3

    “We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before. Some of the plumes were a kilometer or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal,” says Dr. Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who led the 8th joint US-Russia cruise of the East Siberian Arctic seas.3

    Regarding the amounts of methane released into the atmosphere, according to Dr. Natalia Shakhova of the International Arctic Research Centre: “The concentration of atmospheric methane increased unto three times in the past two centuries… That’s a huge increase, between two and three times, and this has never happened in the history of the planet.”3

    The cause of this emerging outbreak of methane, as explained by AMEG, is a horrendous cycle that started 20-30 years ago when Atlantic and Pacific Ocean currents, warmed by greenhouse gases, flowed into the Arctic Ocean. This extra heat into the Arctic Ocean causes declines in the sea ice, and it increases temperatures. As it happens, the extra heat travels into shallow seas along the continental shelf and, over time, the warming also spreads to the deep seabed, destabilizing methane hydrates and free gas trapped over millennia in the permafrost cap. As follows, methane that has been trapped for millions upon millions of years is released into the atmosphere.

    The quantities of methane in the continental shelf are so huge and overwhelming that only 1% or 2% of the methane released could lead to an unstoppable chain reaction of runaway overheating of the planet. This is why some of the world’s most renowned climate scientists formed AMEG, because they were prompted by indisputable signals of the beginning stages of massive releases of methane, thus, threatening an extinction event on planet Earth.

    Historical Methane Mass Extinction Event: “The Great Dying”

    Approximately two hundred million years ago methane was involved in a mass extinction event, referred to as “The Great Dying.” The outcome was the extinction of over half of all life forms. Some studies suggests a volcanic eruption started the warming cycle, triggering positive feedback by causing underwater permafrost to melt and release methane gas to the atmosphere (similar to today, except humans are the trigger rather than a volcano) which further amplified warming even more, releasing more methane, and the feedback grew, and grew, until conditions became so inhospitable that mass extinction occurred.4

    Arctic Methane Emergency Group

    According to an Arctic Methane Emergency Group Press Release d/d November 11, 2012: “Abrupt climate change is upon us… Food prices will go through the roof. The government’s climate change policy is in tatters. The government should have acted years ago. Now it may be too late… There has been an elephant in the room, and it has been totally ignored. It’s all about Arctic sea ice….”

    AMEG recently completed a new film: Arctic Methane – Why the Sea Ice Matters.5 The following excerpts are taken from this film:

    Peter Wadhams, President of the International Association on Sea Ice and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group/Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, says: “It is quite urgent that we recognize what is going on… the ice has been getting thinner over the last 40 years since I have been measuring it, and it has lost about one-half of its thickness… five years ago the shrinkage started to accelerate. Now, melting in summer is greater than freezing in winter.”

    James Hansen, adjunct professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University and former Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies claims the melting ice could lead to the point where ocean floor warming triggers massive release of methane hydrate, i.e., methane molecules trapped in ice crystals, which would become a “tipping point.” As well, methane is already being released from thawing tundra on land, and it is bubbling up in the Arctic Ocean, which is clear evidence of the warming of the Arctic Ocean waters. Thus and so, there is evidence that the warming ocean floor is already beginning to release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere, with dire consequences to follow.

    According to David Wasdell, International Coordinator, Meridian Programme: “A runaway climate change is now clear and beginning to be quantified for the first time… the greatest threat we face as a planet… The rate of change we’re generating in the current situation is between 200-300 times faster than that experience of any extinction event apart from the asteroidal impact. If you look at the general background change, for instance, it takes about 10,000 years to change the concentration of carbon dioxide by 100 ppm — we’re doing it in 30 years at this year’s rate… so, the rate of change in the climate is phenomenal compared to previous extinction events.”

    Wasdell continues, “We’re already in a mass extinction event. We’re losing species and losing populations, partly by climate change and partly by habitat change, partly by overexploitation of habitat like fisheries… We’ve lost about 40% of the phytoplankton in the oceans which is the basis of the food chain.”

    Imagine 40% of land crops disappearing, the world would be in a state of chaos involving hordes of desperate people invading other countries for their food and water. In contrast, what can marine life do upon losing 40% of its primary food source as a result of human-induced climate change?

    Jet Stream Impact Threatens World Food Supply

    The warming Arctic impacts the entire Northern Hemisphere in a negative fashion, threatening humankind’s food supply. As the Arctic warms, the jet streams change, and the jet streams drive weather systems, most prominently in the Northern Hemisphere. As a result of the warming Arctic, the jet streams become wavier and slower, causing freakish weather all across the Northern Hemisphere.

    As an example: A couple of years ago the jet streams were locked and the trough of the wave was over Pakistan; the crest was over Russia. The jet stream did not move for 35 days. The trough was low pressure with lots of rain, and as a result, Pakistan flooded, beyond one month. At the time, worldwide television networks sent broadcasts of groups of Pakistanis huddled together on small landmasses surrounded by water. Simultaneously, Moscow was under a high-pressure ridge, experiencing a powerful 35-day heat wave. An estimated 50,000 Russians, over and above the normal mortality rate, died (not mentioned on TV), and the country lost 40% of its wheat crop. Russia halted wheat exports.

    In 2012 the United States’ drought was the worst since 1950. Syria, part of the Fertile Crescent breadbasket of the Middle East, had a 6-year drought only recently, and India has had two droughts the past four years. And, the list does not end here….

    Radical Climate Change in Arctic

    According to AMEG, here’s how climate change in the Arctic has changed weather patterns: Over the past three decades, snow cover has been reduced by 17-18% per decade and sea ice is declining fast because of human-induced global warming. Consequently, the albedo effect is collapsing in the Arctic. Albedo is the reflection of Sun’s radiation off the white ice and white snow surfaces. Unfortunately, when the albedo effect collapses, the dark sea and dark land mass absorb most of the Sun’s radiation. A collapsing albedo effect is ominously apocalyptic for the Arctic, and for the world. And, disturbingly, Arctic albedo is already in the collapsing stage. This will inevitably lead to ever more methane emissions and a vicious cycle of feedbacks leading to an extinction event, probably unstoppable.

    According to physicist Paul Beckwith, University of Ottawa, since 2007, there has been a sharp increase in methane release, and he says methane is the key now to a ‘tipping point’ in the climate. He believes it is entirely possible that before 2020 the Arctic will be clear of sea ice with open waters three months of the year, as a minimum, and without sea ice, and with the loss of the reflective albedo, all the feedbacks will kick into gear. This will, in turn, trigger runaway warming of the planet and fractured weather patterns like extra-prolonged droughts or sudden, torrential rains as the entire world begins to sizzle!

    Solution?

    Beckwith believes geo-engineering is the only salvation for the Arctic. This involves injecting sulfur dioxide into the Arctic atmosphere, which acts like a large erupting volcano, blocking out sunlight, allowing the Arctic to cool. Be that as it may, there are serious scientists and legal scholars, e.g., experts at both Harvard and UCLA, who question the value of geo-engineering without first taking the time to establishing very tight international protocols. On the other hand, and controversially, some scientists fear potential consequences of a ‘Frankenstein atmosphere’ once humans begin tampering with nature.

    The problem: There are no good solutions absent question marks.

    In that respect, this begs the question of why the governments of the world have not been, as rapidly as humanly possible, promoting renewables as a replacement for fossil fuels. Renewable energy technology is proven, and for the uninitiated, renewables have been around for decades. And, renewables are climate friendly.

    At the end of the day, runaway climate change may be the result of the greatest failure of political leadership in recorded history… assuming recordkeeping is still maintained within the context of an extinction event.

    All of which goes to prove, humans and asteroids are on the same level.

    Postscript: A quote from Astronaut Ulf Merbold (71), Federal Republic of Germany, who participated in three space flights for a total of 49 days, 21 hours, and 38 minutes:

    For the first time in my life I saw the horizon as a curved line. It was accentuated by a thin seam of dark blue light – our atmosphere. Obviously this was not the ocean of air I had been told it was so many times in my life. I was terrified by its fragile appearance.
    1.Steve Connor, Danger from the Deep: New Climate Threat as Methane Rises from Cracks in Arctic Ice, The Independent (UK), April 23, 2012. [↩]
    2.EcoAlert: New Climate-Change Threat? Immense Amounts of Methane Locked Under Antarctic Ice, The Daily Galaxy (University of California/Santa Cruz), Aug. 29, 2012. [↩]
    3.Steve Connor, Vast Methane ‘Plumes’ Seen in Arctic Ocean as Sea Ice Retreats, The Independent (UK), Dec. 13, 2011. [↩] [↩] [↩]
    4.George Papadakis, UK, Methane Gas Hydrates: A Potential Threat to Climate Stability, Climate Emergency Institute, Dec. 22, 2011. [↩]
    5.Envisionation, Producer: Nick Breeze, Spring 2012. [↩]

    Robert Hunziker (MA in economic history at DePaul University, Chicago) is a former hedge fund manager and now a professional independent negotiator for worldwide commodity actual transactions and a freelance writer for progressive publications as well as business journals. He can be contacted at: rlhunziker@gmail.com. Read other articles by Robert.

    This article was posted on Saturday, April 27th, 2013 at 8:01am and is filed under Climate Change, Environment.

  • Your MP doesn’t ‘believe’ in climate change? Ask the tough questions

    myths
    Fact check
    Federal election 2013

    22 April 2013, 6.33am AEST
    Your MP doesn’t ‘believe’ in climate change? Ask the tough questions

    As we head into an election, you’d be justified in asking what your local member is basing their climate change decisions on. If your MP says “I don’t support policies to prevent dangerous climate change” because “I don’t believe climate change is occurring” or “I’m not sure climate change is human…

    Authors

    Brad Farrant

    Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
    .

    Fiona Armstrong

    Sessional Lecturer, School of Public Health and Human Biosciences at La Trobe University
    .

    Karen Kiang

    International Child Health Fellow, Centre for International Child Health at University of Melbourne
    .

    Mark G Edwards

    Assistant Professor at University of Western Australia
    .

    Disclosure Statement

    Karen Kiang is affiliated with Royal Children’s Hospital and the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute.

    Brad Farrant, Fiona Armstrong, and Mark G Edwards do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

    The University of Western Australia Provides funding as a Founding Partner of The Conversation.
    uwa.edu.au

    La Trobe University Provides funding as a Member of The Conversation.
    latrobe.edu.au

    The University of Melbourne Provides funding as a Founding Partner of The Conversation.
    unimelb.edu.au

    T449zy8f-1366008399Believing climate change isn’t happening won’t make it go away. Image from www.shutterstock.com .

    As we head into an election, you’d be justified in asking what your local member is basing their climate change decisions on.

    If your MP says “I don’t support policies to prevent dangerous climate change” because “I don’t believe climate change is occurring” or “I’m not sure climate change is human caused” is this position justifiable simply because it’s his or her personal opinion?

    While everyone may be entitled to their own opinion, are our elected leaders being ethically responsible when they justify inaction on climate change based on personal opinions? Sustainability ethicist Donald A. Brown, from Widener University School of Law, emphatically argues, “no” – they are not.

    In a recent widely republished blog post on ethicsandclimate.org, Brown argues government officials have an ethical responsibility to understand the state of climate change science. Politicians hold crucial leadership positions where they can enact policies that can prevent or minimise great harm. These policies, to put it bluntly, affect millions, if not billions, of people around the world.

    Governments and elected officials cannot ethically choose to rely on their own uninformed opinion or ideology instead of the scientific consensus.

    The long-standing consensus of climate scientists and the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence warn us that constituents and governments are causing great harm through greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, Brown says, politicians may not appeal to their personal opinions on climate science. They are not justification for not taking action.

    Brown refers to a number of US politicians who hold the position that they don’t support climate policies because they are not convinced by the science. Brown argues that the media has largely failed to hold them accountable.

    The same issue afflicts many Australian politicians – and the Australian media. Very rarely have politicians who reject climate science in Australia been asked to explain their justifications on scientific grounds.

    According to the Political Leaders and Climate Change Index (PLCCI) published in 2010 by the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, the number of politicians in the parliament who either don’t or won’t accept the science of climate change in Australia is significant.

    Of course, this can change over time. Recently the new Federal Minister for Resources and Energy Gary Gray renounced his previous position that climate science was “pop science” and a “middle-class conspiracy to frighten schoolchildren”.

    However, there are many other politicians who have not changed their opinions as Gray has done. In 2010 around 40% of Liberal/National politicians held the view the world could warm by 3-4 degrees Celsius before the situation became dangerous. The actual scientific consensus is a mere 2 degrees. Another 40% professed not to know what a safe global average temperature increase might be.

    The likelihood of a Coalition government winning in 2013 makes the public statement of personal opinions on human induced climate change an issue of national and global importance.

    The risks posed to the Australian and international communities by the uninformed opinions of our national leaders are significant. They cannot ethically choose to rely on their own uniformed opinion or ideology instead of science. Because of those risks, the role of responsible and well-informed media is crucial. The media has the civic and moral obligation to be a watchdog on society and its institutions.

    Journalists have a duty to question politicians who oppose action based on uninformed opinions. The public has a right to be informed, and to question, a politician’s justification for putting current and future generations at risk.

    Following Brown, we propose a series of questions that journalists (and the public) should be asking politicians on global warming, and how governments should respond to it.
    1.
    Are you aware that over 97% of climate scientists globally, the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science and every major national science academy in the industrialised world (whose membership includes climate scientists) agree that the planet is warming, that the observed climate change is mostly human caused, and that if we continue with business as usual, harsh impacts and irreversible changes to the climate system will occur?

    2.
    Do you accept that climate change is occurring? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify rejecting the scientific consensus?

    3.
    Do you accept that the human population is making a substantial contribution to climate change via our greenhouse gas emissions? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify going against the scientific consensus?

    4.
    Is it your position that Australia and the rest of the world need to urgently adopt policies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in line with scientific recommendations? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify rejecting the scientific consensus?

    5.
    Are you aware that the impacts of climate change in terms of increased risks to human health and climate change related deaths is already being measured by medical and public health professionals worldwide?

    6.
    Do you accept that anyone who argues that we continue with business as usual and emit greenhouse gases beyond levels that the consensus of climate scientists says is dangerous for humanity (and the ecological system on which humans depend) should bear the burden of proof to show that this is safe?

    7.
    Do you accept that, in light of the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the long-standing consensus of climate scientists, politicians have a responsibility to immediately implement strategies to prevent dangerous climate change?

    8.
    Given that climate scientists have been advising the urgent reduction of greenhouse gases for decades, do you accept that politicians who fail to implement policies to prevent dangerous climate change should be held responsible for harm that results from this inaction?

    We might ask politicians a few of these ourselves. Have a go yourself – and let us know how you get on. We’d be pleased to write about it.