Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for May 12, 2006

Climate Change Not So “Black & White”

By

I was back at the Future Summit today listening to more speakers lament climate change and how it is going to be drier and warmer in the future. Tom Hatten from CSIRO could have spoken about the science, but he also deferred to perceptions commenting that “climate change scenarios are now widely accepted” – as though this makes them right.

Then I came home to an email from a reader of this blog with a link to a report published by the New South Wales Parliamentary Library in February that does make reference to the science and that does acknowledge that the evidence is not straight forward concluding with the following text (pg 75):

“In October 2005 the Federal Minister for the Environment stated that the debate on climate change is over: “There is a very small handful of what we call skeptics who, in the face of seeing all of the evidence about carbon increases and all of the evidence about impacts on the climate, would still say that it’s only natural variability that is causing it. … I think the Australian Government owes it to the public to tell it like it is – it is a very serious threat to
Australia.”

In NSW, Premier Iemma, in a November 2005 speech announcing a new environmental agenda, stated:
2005 is the year that climate change hit home. Australia had its warmest year on record. Brazil had its first ever hurricane. Siberia’s permafrost showed signs of melting. America had a record hurricane season that devastated an entire city. For NSW, global warming means longer and more destructive bushfire seasons, prolonged
drought and harsher storm seasons. These trends threaten not only our environment but also our tourism and farming industries. While John Howard continues to hold out against Kyoto, NSW is getting on with the task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, we [New South Wales] were the first government in Australia to set greenhouse targets. We’ve pledged to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent by 2050. And to cut emissions to year 2000 levels within the next two decades.

This paper has presented the ‘consensus’ science about climate change, as well as the evidence and comments of those who are more skeptical, or cautious. It is apparent that whilst those who believe in the ‘consensus’ science reject the ideas of the skeptics, the science is not as ‘black and white’ as they would have us believe. Some argue that while the greenhouse effect cannot be ignored, the impact is not as apocalyptic as has been claimed.

The difficulty for governments of course, is to use this conflicting science to develop public policy.”

Of course the governments, and some scientists, have mostly choosen to ignore the evidence and just focus on “the consensus”. But as Aldous Huxley has written, just because facts are ignored it doesn’t make them go away.

You can read the full report here:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/fb07f849fcba7b76ca2571150023166e/$FILE/climate%20change%20and%20index.pdf .

Against Wearing & Eating Animal Products

By

The Weekly Times, a rural Victorian newspaper, had a feature this week on animal rights. It reports on a group called Voiceless that plans to work with school children against the eating and wearing of animal products.

Interestingly Voiceless already have a program with Griffith University for the development of a school curriculum.

While the Weekly Times article suggests Voiceless are also against the harvesting of kangaroos, their website focuses on intensive farming of animals, particularly pigs.

Not so long ago I spoke with farmers at Cowra about what groups like Voiceless and PETA represent. Here’s an extract:

“There has been much written about how Australia’s national character emerged from a bush ethos: the idea that a specifically Australian outlook emerged first amongst workers in the Australian pastoral industry. The recent, big environmental and animal liberation campaigns, however, challenge key assumptions from this history. They portray Australian agriculture as harmful to the environment, and the animal liberationists suggest that our farmers are inhumane.

Banjo Paterson, perhaps more than any other writer, created and defined our cultural heritage. His story about the shearer and his jumbuck in outback Queensland remains our most popular national song.

Renditions of ‘Waltzing Matilda’ dominate when Australians gather at major international sporting events, including the Olympic Games and Rugby Union matches.

But People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are campaigning against the wool industry. They are against live export and they are against mulesing. As part of the campaign against wool products focused on US consumers, PETA campaigners have also suggested that the Australian climate is too hot for sheep.

‘The Man from Snowy River’, also by Paterson, is about bushmen and their horses in the High Country. The man from Snowy River chased the brumbies ‘down the mountain like a torrent down its bed’ through open country and mountain scrub before ‘turning their heads for home’ with his pony covered in ‘blood from hip to shoulder from the spur’.

Now the NSW and Victorian Governments are intent on banning grazing and brumbies from the High Country on the basis that they have an adverse impact on the natural heritage of the Alpine region.

The Victorian mountain cattlemen sought an emergency cultural and historic heritage listing with the Federal Environment Minister to counter the Victorian Government’s proposed ban on grazing. But lost.

No-one has a monopoly on the future. Perhaps it is time that Australians moved beyond ‘Waltzing Matilda’ and ‘The Man from Snowy River’? The PETA Website explains that there are alternatives to wool, including:
“polyester fleece, synthetic shearling, and other cruelty-free fibres. Tencel — breathable, durable, and biodegradable — is one of the newest cruelty free wool substitutes…. Choosing to buy these non-wool products not only helps the animals, but can also reduce or eliminate many of the consumer problems and inconveniences that go along with wearing or using wool. “

But what about a replacement for lamb chops? While the animal liberationists are against the farming of exotic animals, like sheep, they are also intent on preventing the development of any industry based on the farming of Australian native animals, including kangaroos. PETA is even against the drinking of milk.”

Perhaps we will one day all eat tofu and wear polyester fleece jumpers?

Worrying About Dragons in the Age of Asia

By

I spent yesterday at a conference in Brisbane hearing about “the future” and Australia’s place in “The Age of Asia”.

I enjoyed the talk at lunch by P.P.Shukla, the Indian High Commissioner to Australia, titled ‘The Emergence of Asia from India’s Perspective’. He commented that India only used to consider Australia in the context of cricket, but now people discuss Australia as a potential supplier of uranium.

Michele Levine from Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd presented a paper titled ‘The Value of Listening to People’ (its almost a 1MB download) earlier in the morning based on polling which indicated 55 percent of Australians believe uranium should be exported for peaceful purposes.

I was fascinated that Roy Morgan Research was the “knowledge partner” for the conference. While i’ts certainly useful to understand what people think, I am not sure that polling people’s perceptions can be a substitute for facts and figures on how things really are.

The polling is interesting and indicates that most Australians consider global warming to be the most significant environmental issue facing Australia and the world. Furthermore, only 23% of Australians consider that “threats to the environment are exaggerated”, only 12% believe global warming concerns are exaggerated and 71% of Australians believe that “if we don’t act now [on global warming] it will be too late”.

Given the various comments at the conference about the extent of the problem of air pollution in China including Hong Kong, it seemed strange to me that there was no reference to the potential problem of global dimming?

The overwhelming concern about global warming was continued in the speech by Acting Queensland Premier Anna Bligh at the dinner. She made three points with respect to global warming:
1. The Queensland government is going to use money from the sale of its energy providers (Energex and Ergon) to fund future research into clean coal,
2. Climate change is the reason we have water restrictions in Brisbane, salinity and drought on farms and also land degradation… all of this under opening comment that the world is getting both “hotter and drier” as a consequence of global warming.
3. As a consequence of the worst drought in Queensland’s history, the Queensland government has no choice but to build a new dam for the south east of the state.

I wonder how the drought is going to fill the dam?

The best speech was the keynote address at the dinner by Rui Chenggang (Director and Anchor, China Central Television, People’s Republic of China). He questioned the perceptions of Australians about China. He made the point that while we in the West (with reference to Britian, the US and us, I think) may have rose to power through aggression and suppression, the same should not be assume of China. He said while you can’t find two leaves the same in the world, so history can not exactly repeat itself. He said that while we in the West associate China with the symbol of a dragon that is aggressive and breathes fire, for the Chinese the dragon breathes water and symbolizes peace and development. He concluded with the comment that “China might be different, if you see if differently”.

Environmentalism & Politics: A Question

By

I am a student studying Australian Politics as a course at University, and I have an environmental question to give a presentation on:

“How does environmentalism challenge how we think about Australian Politics?”

I’m at a bit of a loss, can anyone help me on this?

Shannon Tonkin