- Proportion of Australians who think climate change is happening, and humans bear at least some responsibility: 57%
- Proportion of people who think Australia should be a leader in finding solutions to climate change: 58%
- Proportion of Australians who are concerned climate change may destroy the Great Barrier Reef: 75%
That’s what the Climate Institute found in a survey released today. It reveals we’re still confused by the issue, and don’t like policies from Labor or the Liberals. But it also shows that despite Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s three-year crusade against carbon pricing — yesterday he described emissions trading as “a so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one” — people do want action and effective policy on climate change.
The sceptics’ campaign has failed.
Today, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd explained the ALP’s latest climate policy. The carbon tax will switch to an emissions trading scheme in July, slashing the carbon price. This is not without problems; we are tying our carbon scheme to troubled markets (European Union carbon permits are trading today at A$5.70; UN permits at about 43 cents), and Rudd is bribing households with systematic, widespread overcompensation.
The choice voters now have is between Labor’s ETS and the Coalition’s vow to have no price on carbon pollution, rather the government picks winners, buying emissions reductions directly. Good luck finding economists and public policy experts who think the latter is a good idea.
Climate policy in Australia has been a stellar example of how not to draft public policy. It’s time for continuity, expertise and a dose of pragmatism. Neither party’s policy is ideal, but Labor’s plan to join a global ETS does have some merit from an economic and public policy standpoint.
Abbott has made his mark as a populist and a pragmatist. As the Climate Institute found, people want climate change addressed. Isn’t it time Abbott the populist smelt the winds of change and signed up to a reasonably effective policy?
Even John Howard believed in implementing a “so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one”.
And yet there has been no global warming for at least 15 years, a point now conceeded by The Economist, NASA, Hadley CRU, the IPCC and many more – but not Crikey.
And it’s funny how the Climate Institute survey says people DO want action, yet they obviously didn’t want the carbon tax. Interesting, no?
Yes, the climate is constantly changing, infinitely variable pahaps even; and the fact is that carbon really has stuff-all to do with it relative to the major factors.
Anyone notice how Australia’s fervour for climate change solutions dropped off a cliff when the economy got some bad news ie GFC. We are nothing if not sensitive to our hip pockets.
Mind you for all that and the incessant negative campaign – 58% is still a solid “yes”.
“Major factors” Ramble? What would they be, pray tell?
There are many out there that accept that climate change may be happening, but dismiss as nonsense the majority of Scientific opinion that it is caused by human activity. They also claim that instituting programs such as carbon taxes etc. won’t have any impact, man didn’t cause it therefore man can’t fix it, ergo carbon taxes are a pointless waste of money.
Remember acid rain? Acid rain occurs when sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides—gases released by the burning of fossil fuel—form acidic compounds in the atmosphere. These fall back to earth in rain, snow, or sleet or as dry particles or gases.
This is an article that I edited slightly for brevity, it’s worth a read, and note the outcomes. No human impact? Really?
“Back in acid rain’s heyday as a public menace, scientists focused on how it wrecked lakes and streams, making the water toxic to fish and other organisms and threatening sensitive tree populations In later years, they began to understand how acidification can also cause imbalances in soil chemistry, exacerbating problems for watersheds and plant life.
The U.S. Clean Air Act amendments required that power plants make significant cuts on sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions, which they did by installing “scrubbers” in their smokestacks and switching to low-sulphur coal. Cap-and-trade programs—like the ones that we may soon institute for carbon—came online in 1995 for sulphur dioxide and 2003 for nitrogen oxides. Vehicles, which emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides, were also becoming cleaner thanks to the introduction of catalytic convertors in the mid-1970s.
The results of these efforts were dramatic: According to the National Emissions Inventory, sulphur dioxide emissions from all sources fell from nearly 26 million tons in 1980 to 11.4 million tons in 2008. Nitrogen oxides decreased from 27 million tons to 16.3 million tons in the same time frame.”
And bear in mind, world population has risen from 4.4 billion people in 1980 to nearly 7 billion today so that makes that reduction even more dramatic! WE CAUSED IT AND NOW WE’RE FIXING IT! We do impact the environment and we can change it!
“…..a point now conceeded (sic) by The Economist, NASA, Hadley CRU, the IPCC . . .” etc. Bollocks Tamas. They publish the temperature data, everyone can read it, except you apparently. People want action because they can see with their own eyes the effects of global warming. They can see that sea levels are rising, they can see the coast being eroded away and they have made the connection between human emissions and rising atmospheric CO2. Why do you make stuff up?