According to science writer, Julian Cribb, “climate change has unleashed the biggest academic gold rush in recent history, with state and federal governments splashing tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars around almost weekly on new projects and research centres – a classic Australian response to decades of indolence, neglect and bad planning.”
In the article entitled ‘When drought spells cash’ he lists the following recent projects
• the Federal and Victorian governments have poured $100 million into a clean brown coal project;
• the New South Wales Government announced it would spend $22 million on two pilot clean coal projects;
• Victoria has begun work on a $30 million underground carbon storage project;
• SA is spending $800,000 on a wind tunnel to improve wind turbine performance and a further $200,000 on various clean energy projects;
• Queensland has put $9 million into a Climate Centre of Excellence;
• the University of NSW has announced a new $6 million national climate change research centre;
• the Australian National University has created the Fenner School for Environment & Society for research into areas including climate change and water;
• Adelaide University has launched a Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability;
• Griffith University has signed an agreement with the Government of Indonesia to study the regional impact of climate change; and
• the University of Ballarat has launched a project in community-owned renewable energy.
The article goes on to suggest that agriculture has missed out, “In all the excitement the area most affected by climate change – agriculture, and the science that backs it – has largely remained like Cinderella.”
I’m not so sure. Isn’t there a pile of money for agriculture in the $10 billion plan for water security, including money for research?
And I image the above list for Australia is incomplete?
And how much is spent worldwide on climate change research?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Carter (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_carter.pdf) has estimated $50 billion has been spent globally over the past 15 years in climate research. What important new evidence for AGW has come from all this is unclear. I have asked this question on the Real Climate blog with no response. I suspect that in actually trying to list the 5 or 10 most important new findings their certainty and significance is a bit too underwhelming. Perhaps some of the convinced AGW supporters on this list might like to give it a try. Surely if there is the overwhelming scientific consensus claimed it must be supported by overwhelming new evidence discovered since the rather cautious First IPCC Report in 1990. For so many to have now become so deeply convinced there must be compelling new evidence. What is it?
“• the Federal and Victorian governments have poured $100 million into a clean brown coal project;
• the New South Wales Government announced it would spend $22 million on two pilot clean coal projects;
• Victoria has begun work on a $30 million underground carbon storage project;”
shouldnt that be money poured “down the drain”?
i read recently that even an international coal lobby group predicted that there would be only about 10-15 active CCS power stations active by 2020. and of course we know that for CCS to be viable, the local geography needs to be suitable stable – and the vasy majority of existing plants are not sited as such.
so much money being wasted for so little real impact on reducing CO2 emissions… zzzzzz
$50 Billion??
Fortunately , unlike individuals associated with private enterprise , scientists are not venal enough to be affected by this.
They will only report what they genuinely find not what their funders want to hear!
Perhaps we are still in the denial stage, and think we can yet do something to prevent AGW, when that is, (practically speaking), not going to happen, due to the spoiling tactics of some sections of society.
Julian
didn’t you hear. According to Bill Heffernan, you can fit a clean coal station on the back of a truck these days. Problem solved.
SJT,
Some are in the denial camp,
some are in the exaggeration for political ideology camp
some are in the self-righteous ” unbelievers will not be tolerated” camp
some are in the conspiracy theory camp
some are in the let’s find sensible and rational solutions camp
Humanity has it all and would be less inventive and imaginative if it didn’t IMO.
With a few of those you’d have to check how much was serious new money or rebadging of existing efforts. (I’m asking).
Also some will look at seasonal climate variation (El Nino) which has high rural interest. And Queensland has succumbed to pressure and is looking at cloud seeding so not all may be pure “climate change” per se.
You also need to check out what is for climate change research and what is for greenhouse gas mitigation (e.g. clean coal). Clean coal research has nothing to do with cliamte modelling. How much is for adaptation research on existing climate change scenarios. i.e. putting a crop model on a climate scenario.
The reason I mention the latter is that climate change climate modelling itself has been woefully underfunded and underpins all the applied work.
How good is the land use and forestry part of the national greenhouse inventory. Soil carbon, woodland thickening etc?
So some critical analysis and dissection of this large portfolio of funds are required. Have we got the priorities in the right place?
I’m not sure we have.
Luke: A possible TV news item tonight mentioned by Virginia Haussegger on ABC 666 this arvo –
From CSIRO? A new report on a 2 C temp rise in Tasmanian waters over the past decade and an expected 5 more ie changing all our costal & reef fish habitat.
The IPCC’s stated range of predicted temperature increase by 2100 has widened by 20% in the latest report compared to their previous report. (Now 1.1 to 6.4 degrees compared to 1.4 to 5.8 previously). Seems like the massively expensive research is showing only more uncertainty. Many of us could have told them that for free. Bob Carter is right – spent it on adaptation, not on research full of assumptions and overwhelming uncertainty.
“Bob Carter is right – spent it on adaptation, not on research full of assumptions and overwhelming uncertainty.”
How certain are we that the cost of adaptation will be reasonable? Any level of certainty?
Of course it’s easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. How much improvement in the climate modelling also improves seasonal climate forecasting e.g. El Nino/ La Nina; Madden Julian Oscillation (40-60 day wave); Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation; Southern Annular Mode; Indian Ocean dipole
Lots of farming interest in climate tools. Also the mantra from the early 1990s was about making farmers become more self sufficient in drought.
But the fundamental issue of the model quality still exists – how can you do good adaptation research on the back of not-so-good regional climate change models. How well do climate change models represent El Nino which is around half of our Australian rainfall variation.
Whoooaa!
Malcolm; what exactly has your Bob proposed??
Simple equation:
alarmism = cash
Claiming that we can manipulate atmospheric CO2 and therefore micromanage the climate system is disingenuous.
Jim
history is full of examples of the calm, rational and reasonable being thwarted by the ignorant extremist.
yeah,
and history is full of….opinion
Once upon a time in about 1985 the mandarins of Australian government and the CSIRO were convinced that the weather division of CSIRO and the MET Office were in need of staff reductions (we knew enogh about weather!). It came to pass that within 12 months of the staff reductions the warming of the planet was reported and the mad scramble to prove that the planet is warming and the oceans are failing and in general the sky is falling in.
Interestingly there has been lots of empirical evidence,localised reports and so much reporting that the population is convinced that all of the above is actually happening.
In truth the reports, meetings and surveys of literature have all agreed. The sky is falling in. But does it refer to a biased outlook from people afraid of losing their jobs or is it fact?
Sid: rational thinking from the late 80’s gave us policy development without technical experience when all things Canberra fed were right sized
PS I’m waiting on the edge of my chair for the all nuc power we gotta have built soon with the current skills base we had to have
Yes Sid – brilliant logic – the small but powerful Australian effort mobilised the entire US and UK science effort to fabricate hundreds of papers. By cripes we’re good aren’t we !?
Yes Luke, we’ll have string theory solved next. Unless Ian does it first.
Give me only half as much money and I’ll accomplish as much as has been done by the rest.
There has been a lot of interesting up front discussion in the media over the past 24 hrs over the issue of Federal Government research funding and last minute efforts to control our rocky climb into new levels of global warming. It all emanates from that powerful lab called the PM’ dept.
That CSIRO report on waters warming off SE Oz was low key in the end. But it seems the Howard/ Turnbull charge down the Murray/ Darling was not.
According to an item in CT today our treasury head is no fool himself when it comes to knowing environmental matters.
I make this observation, since Ken Henry is a local resident he knows first hand about living in a region that lost 90% of its normal river inflow from a catchment we both depend on most. The other pair?
Well er they both prefer living full time in Sydney don’t they?
Our R n D and remedies across the board depend most on people actually in the swim.
You said it SJT!!!!
Walter
“Surely if there is the overwhelming scientific consensus claimed it must be supported by overwhelming new evidence discovered since the rather cautious First IPCC Report in 1990. For so many to have now become so deeply convinced there must be compelling new evidence. What is it?”
The deniers didn’t believe them back then, and they keep on trying to convince you them with more evidence. It doesn’t matter how much they produce they still call for more.
Let’s play loopy logic
So if the USA alone spends $70B PER ANNUM in defence reserach why hasn’t it won in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are Somalia and Zimbabwe the way they are. Why are any terrorists at large?
Surely that’s a lot more than climate research at $3B per annum.
How much is spent globally on medical research -so why does malaria and cancer still exist?
How much is spent on paleogeology each year? Surely not necessary – what’s that going to do for me?
How much is spent on the Melbourne Cup each year and silly hats?
I think we waste too much money on funding welfare artists.
Jennifer,
Your list of money spent in the name of “climate change” is woefully incomplete.
Virtually any research done lately that has anything whatsoever to do with the release or capture of a carbon molecule–or even several of them at a time–is claimed to be part of an effort “to combat the pernicious onslaught of deadly global warming.”
If you watch the continual flood of press releases from university research departments, you can see that they’re all trying to jump on the $multi-billion global-warming gravy train.
Hey, it’s good money and spends just as well as honest money, but a decade from now, there’s going to be some researchers who won’t want to talk about their prostitution to global warming.
The smart ones plan to be retired by then.
Just like the gravy trains full of ho ho ho-s that Schiller loves on GM and defence. Not to mention your ultra right wing CEI type think tanks and other nefarious crowds that youself and Woody hang with. Pull the other leg Schiller (but keep on message – someone might be listening – hellooo .. ..)
Carter (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_carter.pdf) has estimated $50 billion has been spent globally over the past 15 years in climate research. What important new evidence for AGW has come from all this is unclear.
===
I suspect no new evidence for AGW has come from the expenditure, rather the established scientific consensus has become clearer and now we have a “90% certainty” of what we already knew to be true in 1988 at the Rio Earth Summit.
It’s like spending $50billion to further prove the theory of gravity after dropping two different weighted balls from the leaning Tower of Pisa to determine that gravitation accelerates all objects at the same rate.
Don’t forget that a lot of that money was spent because the ‘skeptics’ required more and more proof – yet have never been satisfied. And never will be – because they are nought but ideologues.
How much better off now would we be now if all that money had been spent on mitigating global warming.
Wadard
funny you should mention gravity.
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html
They are spending 3 billion euro on the CERN particle accelerator alone in their quest to discover the Graviton, the theoretical particle that enable the gravitational force to exist. Much more will be spent on using and staffing the CERN centre of research.
So science research is an inherently expensive business, as we get into more and more complex science. The amount spent on something as old as gravity indicates that the amount spent on AGW research is not ridiculous. I think it is still money well spent, even now, as we need the most precise information we can get, so we know as well as we can what we are in for.
Money spent on R&D usually has a $ return, it is an investment.
Money spent on military R&D has two returns, national and international stability (eg the US base in Berlin secured Europe) and secondary inventions, like the internet, GPS and the P-38 can opener
Why havent TM, Malaria etc been eradicated? there is no return on investment as they are essentially restricted to poorer countries. Step in Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who have volunteered money. Cancer still exists – and they are still working on it, you can now be vaccinated against some types of cancer. There is not much cancer R&D in developing countries, the bulk of it done by the US, the EU is falling way behind.
R&D into climate has had only marginal, if any, return
But Rog I want Iraq and Afghanistan solved – and they have not. So the research investment is not worth it. The world is not stable so military research has failed. You can’t demonstrate a cost benefit for the latest jet fighter. It’s simply all or nothing.
Cancer still exists in the main so research not worth it.
But OK let’s scrap all climate research, dispense with new satellite technology, ocean buoy networks etc. Because we had a tsunami warning the other day and there was no major Australian impact. So that has to go.
Given climate R&D has no return might as well close down the Weather Bureau. Tough that the odd plane or ship runs into a cyclone. It will be cost effective to lose a few.
And given African lives aren’t worth anything might as well close down malaria research and all aid. It’s cost effective.
And let’s get rid of all drought aid – $100Ms of dollars. Get rid of a few thousand farmers and leave their properties to the weeds and ferals. All cost effective.
It’s all just ruthlessly logical I’m afraid.
Luke, if you bring this sort of logic to everything, how do you manage to get out of bed in the morning?
And most of the “failures” you mention are government enterprises, so the ones that you shut down will be replaced by private enterprise doing it much more effectively and cheaply, albeit with greater risk (and reward) to the operators.
All this money and all you need do is utilize trees … We have a carbon constrained global economy with these constraints likely to continue to worsen. The future face of the globe will always come back to magic of plants and millions of years of natural selection breeding mother nature gifted us with to learn from … are we reading from the right textbook? The fact I am part of a small group of broadacre landholders actively changing land uses for a future energy deficient landscape is extremely concerning. We are running out of time ….
Quiet easily Paul – coz it’s tongue in cheek. I’m simply pointing out the stupidity of consistent one size fits all logic.
The whole environment issue here is about private vs public good. Externalities not internalised. Tragedy of the commons etc. There are no easy answers. Capitalists of course think that the market answers everything. Some things it does well – others it does not.
Frankly for the money been spent on the core climate science our state of knowledge is hugely greater than 20 years ago. So given weather and climate influence agricultural enterprises so heavily and are key issues to human health – I think we’ve been well served by progress made.
But it’s an easy contrarian ruse is it not to protest the funding. Kill off all the science so we can’t be informed we have a problem. Thank heavens for some separation of powers in our western democracies.
And how efficient is private entrprise really. It’s more about what the market can bear. See monopolies. See uncontrolled growth in executive salaries. This is justifiable to shareholders? Crap.
On trees Aaron – there’s not enough in it to satisfy our energy hungry requirements. Unless of course – shock horror – you want to lower your standard of living. But keep going for heavens sake as you are part of the solution.
Luke,
You need to hire a fact-checker. The US won militarily in both Afghanistan and Iraq–right off the bat. The US sticking around trying to make soldiers be cops is another thing entirely.
Cancer? Perhaps you haven’t noticed, cancer rates are down and the rate of those saved from cancer is up.
Except in the developing world, where so many die young the don’t have a real chance at getting cancer.
It’s interesting that you say, “given African lives aren’t worth anything might as well close down malaria research and all aid.” Isn’t that what the greenies wanted, and got, already 20 years ago? And hasn’t the world given up on the greenie genocide campaign to ‘save the eggshells’?
R&D into climate has only paid off for R&D into climate. But, R&D in climatology has proved that we need more investment in climate R&D. Which, given the track record, proves we need more investment in climate R&D.
When that investment puts food in the mouths of those who aren’t in the climate R&D cabal, ring me up.
Luke, you’re embattled and embittered, we can see that. But there’s a time when you can depart from the party line and give in to reason and facts.
How ’bout now?
No you have won the initial battle sure but not the war – FAILED. Why is Osama still at large – FAILED. Why did 15 Brits get abducted by Iranians – FAILED.
If the military research as any good you’d have disarmed the place by now. So FAIL is the mark.
Cancer still exists – some small progress perhaps but overall – FAILED
GM industry a vast bloated waste of money that has hardly delivered on the huge amounts invested surely. Just a few multinationals ripping off farmers.
Sorry Schillsy just applying the climate R&D is a waste logic to everything else in research.
As for green genocide – what a load of crap. All rampant bulldust spread by anti-environment lobby on vast fat salaries and contracts.
Schiller keep on message. Keep shelling every day. Someone might be listening.
Luke,
Iraq and Afghanistan wont be solved if you cant make a commitment and then sustain that commitment with sufficient resources. Rudd wants to pull out of Iraq despite his earlier admission of a threat, he only sees political gain.
http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2004/fa0109a_04.html
The Dems under Pelosi are doing their best to undo that commitment and her trip to Syria has played into the enemies hands. The only thing holding up the mad mullahs in Iran is the support given by those in the west who want power at any cost.
Rog – irrelevant – given the military research budget dwarfs climate change budget I want to know why this simple problem of a few rogue states hasn’t been solved by now under Howard and Bush – ergo military research has failed to deliver the goods. Let’s can it then.
Just logic I’m afraid. Have to be consistent don’t we. No point in complaining now.
Any stuff ups by Rudd or the Dems are yet to come – let’s stay focussed on the messes the current administrations have made. BLOODY HUGE festering messes.
Rog
pure research has always been done just because it’s interesting. It’s always been funded by governments and universities. Take the laser for example. It was little more than a novelty when first invented, and it would have cost a fortune to develop. The modern world couldn’t work without it now.
To say that research is only of value for a dollar return is short sighted, blinkered thinking.
Luke when the oil runs out trust me you’ll be looking at trees with a different level of respect. And yes we are facing a reduced standard of living and not by choice. More of you will be farming in the future and there will be little choice in this fact (the ‘Special Period’ in Cuba is testament to this) … Preparing for expensive oil should be the reason for planning to reduce your reliance on fossil fuels not because you wish to reduce carbon emissions. Forced emission reductions are coming with expensive energy and will be far more significant than any of the current planning out there … simple. We will have no say in the matter and it is futile to pretend so.
Aaron – but plenty of coal to liquefy into oil?
And plenty of oil in sand, as well as shale. It will be more expensive, there’s a lot of it.
But luke, using the same analogy military R&D has been very successful, it knocked out Hitler and Mussolini, thwarted Stalin and later bankrupted USSR, busted the Ottoman and turned Japan into a trading partner.
As for rogue states, that is all that remains after a century of imperialist genocide, they are remnants of a bygone era. And like the dinosaur, their days are numbered.
Just stay out of the way , wont you?
Crude Awakening – watch it when it hits the distribution channels. Tar sands, coal to liquids, shales will never replace what we are currently running. The fact we have a war in Iraq, talk of attacks on Iran, 60 million tonnes of corn to ethanol (in the US alone) and investment in unconventional oil sources is evidence we have no real plan B.
At what expense ?
But then again since the satellite era, ships and planes don’t need to fly or steam into hurricanes anymore. Communities can evacuate before cyclones come ashore and have days to prepare.
Weather forecasts have moderate skill and now go out to 7 days.
Farmers running their properties and punters on the Chicago futures exchange all enjoy El Nino forecasts.
So using the same analogy meterological research has a track record of useful delivery.
So if rogue states days are numbered someone better tell them quick. They seem to have kept on going since the Korean War.
And be assured I’m trying my best to keep way out of the way. Don’t want to be jihaded up the jacksie due to adventurous pollies.
At what expense?
At enormous expense, unbeleivable expense, spend a day at the War Memorial Canberra. Farm boys, off to adventure, off to the slaughter. We all benefit from their sacrifice.
I have spent days there Rog – and war has touched my family so no lectures pls. Sacrifice often for crap generals and for naught. Don’t get too romantic about war. Sacrifice = blood and guts in reality.
So what was VietNam about then? A total waste of time like Iraq.
I’d be a bit happier about my share of tax going to the Australian Greenhouse Office (sounds like they already made their minds up) or whatever for climate change research if there was a critical review process in place to check the research for rigour and look for possible alternative explainations. Peer review has become group think, and refusal to release data for independent review is suspiscious.
What refusal to release data?
Way up at the second comment above Julian argued that spending on sequestration is not worth it because we won’t see any results for a couple of decades.
If we want to cut back on CO2 emissions as energy consumption increases (possibly six fold) over the next century to meet the needs of 9 billion, we will have to rely on more than what is immediately on offer. (I am thinking here of such things as increased energy efficiency, greater use of public transport rather than cars and high cost solar and wind power.) We need longer term R&D efforts into a range of technologies to make them them feasible and cheap. These include not only CO2 capture but also advances in solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal and fusion. The sooner we put effort into these the sooner they will be available.
Vietnam was about betrayal and survival.
At the end of the day one nation survived better than the other – happily it was the nation that protected the rights and freedom of the individual.
Well there you go, dig deep chaps when its your turn to contribute to R+D
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4017784a13.html
They are spending 3 billion euro on the CERN particle accelerator alone…
SJT – in this unique case I concede your point. You got me there. I had read about it in the context of recreating the first moments after the big bang, though, not gravity.
Well… from the same people who brought us the Internet, it should be fascinating.
But nevertheless, at least you get clarity for your $50 billion.
Rog – all VietNam and Iraq prove is that a first world nation can bomb a lesser power into the stone age. Well done. Hearts and minds lost forever on both sides. No rights, no real freedom and no peace for those involved and affected.
How about a little capital to be spent on “sustainable populations” research as well? All effort and money seems to be spent on “accommodating” population growth. Overcrowding is known to be a source for stress and stress is known to be a cause for illness that may lead to untimely death. Why not be rational about population growth and let mother nature do the cleaning job for free! The science needed is already available(ecology).
haldun’s “How about a little capital to be spent on “sustainable populations” and “Overcrowding is known to be a source for stress and stress is known to be a cause for illness” reminds us all? of a recent international media flurry over a US report on honey bees with “AIDS” whatever –
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/27/business/bees.php
system breakdown is triggered by what??? folks,
anyone?
R & D downunder hey
Where’s Pinxi?
Dave: I blame a certain rotten lot.
Let’s have a roundup hey. We have so few gals on here at the best of times
“Way up at the second comment above Julian argued that spending on sequestration is not worth it because we won’t see any results for a couple of decades.
If we want to cut back on CO2 emissions as energy consumption increases (possibly six fold) over the next century to meet the needs of 9 billion, we will have to rely on more than what is immediately on offer.”
or perhaps more correctly – begin to use these technologies that exist right here and now, rather than pinning all of your hopes onto the likes of clean coal (which is likely to have minimal impact at all) or fusion – which has always been ‘a couple of decades away’. CCS is still largely untested and economically unproven for its ability to remove large enough volumes of CO2 to make any real difference.