Readers have raised their voices about the IPCC report on averting catastrophic climate change, and Australia’s response to it — particularly its lack thereof, as Bernard Keane writes. There was debate about whether the blame of climate policy gridlock is due to Coalition governments or to our flawed political system itself, though one thing was clear: readers want change.
Klewso writes: How can we possibly hope to compete, against these big donor patrons and their vested interests, for the attention of our elected representatives, when all we do is pay our taxes, their wages and vote for them to be “our” representatives?
Arky writes: The political system responded under the previous government with a system that was demonstrably reducing emissions. The Coalition is incapable of responding to the need to reduce emissions. A Coalition most of your colleagues not only backed into government but backed for reelection in the massively mistaken belief that Turnbull would turn into prince charming if only he won an election in his own right.
Nonetheless, they can be defeated at the ballot box, within the system, at which point a Labor government will take action on emissions. This is the kind of thing the Coalition loves — if both sides get the blame for the Coalition’s crap actions, they suffer no penalty for doing them relative to Labor. This encourages them to do it more.
Zut alors writes: Federal Environment Minister Melissa Price claims we will have technology by 2050 which will enable “good, clean… coal”. One of her flunkeys should apprise her we currently have technology which provides good clean power from renewables. It’s already here and doesn’t involve digging up and befouling Australia.
Dog’s Breakfast writes: Of course the politics is broken. How can anyone argue otherwise. “Oh Labor will get in and fix the mess”. Spare me. That is predicated on Labor winning and staying in power long enough to see off the last coal mine and coal powered generation, all while taking donations from fossil fuel companies.
FFS, get a grip. Our response to an existential threat (to our children) will be decided by a bunch of rusted on nongs, people who only vote one way because that’s what dad told them to, people so stupid they think Pauline Hanson is the answer (Christ knows what the question was) and a large portion of the population so burdened by debt and labour that they don’t care any more. And some on here think the politics isn’t broken! Really? Is that your line?
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name.
In relation to the role of Avesta in the 1MDB scandal, one might ask why the “punishment” was simply a 10 year ban on holding a directorship. In the US jail sentences are a regular feature for transgressors. In Australia toothless tigers abound where white collar crime is concerned. Hopefully Commissioner Hayne has some suggestions here as well.
Decades of misinformation put forward by major Australian newspapers (notable examples are the Australian and Sydney Daily Telegraph), and amplified by radio and TV shock jocks, have left the public confused or disheartened on climate change. Yet a scientific consensus has emerged in recent decades and the facts are now clear. The world’s leading scientific journal, Nature, has presented a helpful summary of the consensus in this article on the latest IPCC assessment:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06952-7?utm_source=twt_nnc&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=naturenews&sf199656546=1
Major points from this article are:
“1.5 °C is troubling enough — but there is a world of difference between 1.5 and 2 °C. Yes, 1.5 °C would bring increases in troublesome weather, such as the heatwaves, droughts, storms and flooding. Deeper issues lurk: the planet is undergoing rapid changes in how it looks and functions … permanent damage (is looming).”
Many of today’s ecosystems will shift or disappear: many species of insects, plants and animals will lose their territory with even 1.5 degrees of warming; those numbers increase by two or three times in the case of 2 degrees. Coral reefs disappear entirely at 2 °C, ..when.. the risk of irreversible loss of marine ecosystems increases dramatically.”
“Modelled scenarios that maintain warming at 1.5 °C assume that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar must account for 70–85% of global electricity production by 2050.”
“Projections based on current emissions commitments suggest that the world is on track for around 3 °C of warming by the end of the century. …that is a frightening prospect indeed. If those days of the 1960s and 1970s seem as if they are from a different world, it’s because they are.”
Incredibly even with the new IPCC assessment out the Australian has doubled down on its climate change denial and continues to mislead its readers.
Neither the Government or the Labor party appear to comprehend the situation. They don’t appear capable of seeking expert advice, (who needs it?) and behave as though they would be happy to fly in a plane with their cook or hairdresser in the pilots seat.
I continue to support various organizations seeking action on climate change; but the various strategies appear to be working too slowly. Maybe politicians can be induced to pay more attention to the plight of their own children and grandchildren, and (especially for the religiously inclined) to the moral turpitude of their current policies.