Shat on by Tories, shovelled up by Labour…Part I

RANT WARNING: I’ve been trying to make sense of where the climate change debate in Australia has suddenly got to.  Frankly I’m a but baffled at how we went from “the world’s going to end unless we do something now” to “its all fine, climate change is crap, we can carry on as before as long as we plant a few trees;” which is frankly where we were in the mid-eighties.

In my view, Abbot is being outrageously cynical and is, in the old cliché, “playing politics with our future” just in order to get elected; as his old mentor and Dr-Frankenstein-to-his-monster was always so adept at.

The right the world over have exacted a crime in political reasoning in recent months.  They’ve taken a few dodgy email s from the University of East Anglia and a typo from the IPCC – amid the zillions of words in research and mountains of data all pointing to certain doom if mankind doesn’t take drastic action to make our existence on this planet sustainable – and used it to give people exactly what they want: a way out.  An excuse to bury their head in the sand.  Sure, Copenhagen didn’t help.  It was mankind’s chance to save itself and in reality all it really seemed to achieve was produce more carbon and other forms of hot air.  All in all, the failure of those agreed on the need for change to reach consensus on what that change should look like (and more importantly on what their respective electorates could wear) has let the right in.  Suddenly we have lunatics like Monkton and Fielding feeling quite unreserved and bold about spouting their various forms of reality-denial and conspiracy rubbish and, what’s worse, are getting column inches and air time from the media.

Lyndsay Tanner the other night on Lateline came up with a very useful analogy for what climate change demands of us – its like smoking, he said.  You come to the conclusion that the science is proven and that it will kill you and so you have to stop.  Its hard, and involves considerable self-sacrifice and avoiding immediate self-gratification in return for a long term reward – but you do it because you want to stay alive.  In the role of Tobacco companies, what the right is trying to do the world over suddenly – and Abbot in particular – is to give people that very delusion they crave.  To make people believe that if they just smoke “Light” cigarettes, or they only smoke in the evenings, or if they only inhale every other drag then they can carry on regardless and be fine.  Go back 12 months and there’s no way anyone in their right mind would have worn that – but right now it’s got political capital and its affecting a polls bounce for The Coalition.  And what’s worse, perfectly sane Liberals like Joe Hockey - who 6 months ago lobbied for action on climate change as vehemently as everyone else - is supporting this insanity.  I never thought I’d say this but: I think Malcolm Turnbull has proven himself to be one of the most respectable politicians of his generation. 

Rudd has failed to communicate an overly complex ETS scheme and has been outflanked by some simplistic messaging and spin around a “great big tax” (which as someone said “debases environmental debate in this country) – but everyone knows unless you put a price or a cap on carbon, our existence will remain unsustainable and self-destructive.

All this reminded me of a line in “Withnail and I” where over a long and obviously boozy lunch, Monty laments: “we are shat on by Tories, shovelled up by Labour” (Page 30)…  <To be Continued>

3 responses
Nicely put. A good case for doing something, rather than doing nothing because of a few suspect activities by a handful of climate change scientists. These have really wounded the climate change movement by revealing to the public that it has shot itself in the collective foot and the public is now collectively a bit cross about that.

Science is really about thesis, proof and counter thesis, a system based on scepticism. The public has been, frankly, brainwashed (often by passionate climate change believers) into believing that scientists have answers, which, as far as climate change is concerned, is bollocks. Scientists only ever have guesses which haven't been disproved yet, and much progress of the human race has hitherto benefited from this rational approach.

Climate change has been elevated by the passionate into a topic which you're not allowed to disagree on, otherwise people shout at you in pubs. Scientific debate is dependent upon being able to disagree, which up to now has resulted in flame wars, hate campaigns and death threats to anyone who expresses just the teensiest whisper that maybe we're being railroaded into pointless, expensive and unsustainable actions. The failure of Copenhagen is a vindication of doubters and self-interested nations, and demonstrates as elegantly as anyone could ever wish that the various suggestions to address greenhouse gases will never work because, mainly, human nature will out and nations are largely self-serving, as are people.

I am particularly captivated by James Lovelock's assertions, as articulated rather well in The Times recently: http://bit.ly/9MW8BO.

If you believe, and I do, that (to quote Lovelock) "the exhalations of breath and other gaseous emissions by the nearly seven billion people on Earth, their pets and livestock are responsible for 23% of all greenhouse gas emissions. If you add on the fossil fuel burnt in the total activity of growing, gathering, selling and serving food, all this adds up to about half of all carbon dioxide emissions." then you see that humans are the problem by their physical characteristics (i.e. breathing, eating) as well as by their nasty self-serving natures.

So, basically, we're doomed. Not the planet - the human race. However, this is not an excuse for doing nothing, and it is entirely possible that some brilliant technological advancements might enable us to survive (pity about the other poor species on the planet, which are dying off in unprecedented numbers). I worry that, if we do survive, we'll end up in a "Caves of Steel" environment (go read your Asimov) rather than an Arcadian paradise.

Lovelock believes that the planet can sustain around one billion people, which seems a reasonable assertion to me. So, if we don't find a way to use technology to address this fundamental dichotomy, or work out a way to dispose of six out of seven people ourselves, then our planet will do it for us.

Steve you make several excellent points...but I wonder if its poor blogosphere etiquette to write more, and better, than the original blog?;-)

You are right that the debate had got perverse. It had transcended science and become pseudo-religious. Another analogy is communism - what both had in common is that the position had become so entrenched and obsessive that it could not tolerate a different view. Everyone 'had' to agree - or they were heretics. Its important to differ and test the view and exercise the reasoning, I just take issue with people who are doing not to ensure that we are on the right path, but to score short term political advantage. The other problem is those who are insane. What we have in Australia is people like Minchin, Fielding and Abbot who are from the first group who are busy quoting Monkton as an authority, who I believe to be from the second group.

The other problem of course is the media - which you and I both have tremendous affection for of course. They are not interested in the right or the wrong answer; but instead climate change fanatics paint emotive pictures of Armageddon, while sceptics can be lambasted as lunatics - all of which makes for great copy!

Some of this of course is like the Multhusian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus who I have always understood to have said the population of the earth was unsustainable because we couldn't feed them all...then we invented refrigeration. So I inherently believe that we will get through this, and whatever is happening, we will survive - because we are good at it!

I also think that *even if* climate change is NOT happening, we should change our ways. As you say, we certainly seem doomed, and with Peak Oil already passed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg) - our lifestyle is unsustainable on that fact alone...so we are going to have to find new ways to get about, cook things, etc etc...

So I worry about politicians who are scoring polling capital on what is - all ways round - a very irresponsible line. People want to stick their heads in the sand, and neither opportunistic politicians on one side nor fanatical climate change zealots on the other should let a sensible debate get out of control.

Besides, I suspect that if we don;t all do something, Bangladesh is fcuked!

Nice blog and good information shared here.