A hat-tip to Walter Starck for alerting us to this article from The Australian
“THE head of the world’s leading climate change organisation has backed the Howard Government’s decision to defer setting a long-term target for reducing greenhouse emissions until the full facts are known.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Bit of a disingenuous lead from The Australian though – “the full facts” reference relates to CO2 reduction strategies but the proximity of the terms ‘ full facts ” and ” climate change” would appear to the casual reader to suggest that he’s urging caution in relation to AGW.
Which is clearly not the case.
Otherwise – it’s what the media needs more of ; rational , dispassionate and self-evidently correct expert comment.
Of course we should carefully consider the economic and environmental cost/benefit of any CO2 reduction policies at our disposal.
And there’s no point setting targets unless we know they’re achievable.
Contrast this with A Current Affair last week ( I think it was ) showing maps of Australia 50% underwater not far in the future and telling us earnestly that this was real science or words to that effect.
Maybe some light emerging to replace the heat?
What does the “full facts are known” mean? I assume it doesn’t refer to the climate science itself; no scientist ever claims the “full facts are known” about anything. I can only assume it refers to the “full facts” regarding the likely economic consequences of particular targets.
Hats off though to Turnbull: “I don’t criticise Labor for saying there has to be a big cut in emissions. The big question is how do you get there?”. Extremely refreshing to hear politicians ostensibly refraining from knee-jerk criticism of the opposition.
Perhaps he was being diplomatic in avoiding commenting on Australian Govt policy just prior to a Federal election, and the Australian interpreted that as ‘support’ for not setting targets?
See here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/rajendra_pachauri_verballed_by.php
The simple facts are that all governments have a statutory duty to take all relevant considerations into account. This is not simply a case of compliance with this requirement under the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. It also goes to the very heart of the “proper exercise of power” under judicial review.
It is only our neanderthal mates in the green movement who appear to have trouble understanding that this is the very essence of good government, duty of care, and best practice.
Thanks for stating the obvious about govt obligations Ian.
It is more on economic grounds than environmental grounds that the govt should set a long term target and articulate a long term strategy.
On economic grounds, it would demonstrate that they are taking the problem seriously and calm everyone down a bit, and would reduce uncertainty about future regulation, which is what many businesses – particularly energy supply businesses – are saying is a problem for them at the moment. Read a few press releases from the Energy Supply Association and you will get the picture*.
The Howard govt talks out both sides of its mouth on climate change, and shies away from the most mainstream approaches to climate change. Instead they come up with their own pathetic policy offerings, which are more about short term populism than robust, systematic policy on climate change.
This weak approach creates uncertainty and is bad news for everyone.
Here’s one of several examples where the ESAA calls for a target for 2050 (and for emissions trading):
http://www.esaa.com.au/media_releases/2006_media_releases/esaa_calls_for_national_emissions_trading_scheme.html
*
Here’s where the ESAA argues against the scale of the target set by environmental groups:
http://www.esaa.com.au/media_releases/2006_media_releases/reality_check_needed_on_emissions_targets.html
So you can argue on the size of the target, fine, but its hard to argue that procrastinating in the setting of =any= target is a good thing for business.
How typical of you, Steve, to dismiss the statutory obligations of government to consider all relevent matters as “the obvious” when they so conspicuously fail to do so on ecological issues. More importantly, the climate creeps continue to insist that any reluctance on the part of sceptics to accept their leap of faith is some sort of intellectual failure.
We have, for example, recently been advised of modelling that indicated that even under a sustained trebling of CO2 levels it would take 3000 years for Greenland to melt. But meanwhile we are told that we need to take immediate action to prevent innundation in our own lifetime.
We could all have genetically engineered gills by year 5007.