Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Charlotte Ramotswe

Warming Alarmists Lose Yet Another Debate

By

In celebration of World Environment Day, the Queensland Division of the Property Council of Australia convened a breakfast meeting last Friday morning (June 3rd) to debate the topic “Australia needs a carbon tax”.

Leading speaker for the motion was Mr. Matthew Bell (Climate Change & Sustainability Services, Ernst & Young), supported by Ms. Kellie Caught (Acting Head of Climate Change, WWF Australia) and Mr. Kirby Anderson (Policy Leader, Energy Infrastructure, General Electric).

Speaking against the motion were Mr. Michael Matusik (Director, Matusik Property Insights), supported by Mr. John Humphreys (Director, Human Capital Project, University of Queensland) and Professor Bob Carter (James Cook University and Institute of Public Affairs).

The audience of about 150 persons were treated to some pointed exchanges, with the team speaking for the motion concentrating rather more on the science, and their opponents almost exclusively on the economics and cost:benefit analysis of the introduction of a carbon tax.

One compelling argument was the observation that to introduce a carbon tax of $25/tonne of carbon dioxide would cost around $100 billion by 2020, for a notional benefit of 0.0002O C (two ten thousandths of a degree) of warming averted.

The opponents of the tax were awarded a clear win, on rendered applause, by debate Chairman Mr Mark Ludlow (Australian Financial Review).

Australian Government Only Gets Flawed Advice on Climate

By

ON November 10 last year the Australian government’s Multi-party Climate Change Committee (MCCC) received a scientific briefing before it entered the policy-setting mode that it remains in today.

The briefing was provided by the only scientist on the Committee, Professor Will Steffen. A copy of the slide presentation that Steffen used has recently come into the public domain.

Quadrant Online has today posted an analysis by four independent scientists and an economist of Professor Steffen’s presentation, http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/government-misadvised .

The analysis demonstrates that Steffen provided the MCCC with only alarmist, inaccurate IPCC advice; no attempt was made to familiarize committee members with the reasons that many independent scientists all around the world view the IPCC as a deeply flawed organisation, whose advice on climate change is almost valueless.

This analysis of Steffen’s advice of last November is the latest in a series of papers critical of IPCC science which go back to 2009. The Australian government and its advisory scientists have failed to respond to any of these critiques, apparently hoping that if they ignore criticism it will go away. Given mainstream media attitudes, this ploy has regrettably proved to be very effective.

Australian citizens – who will be paying the costs of the intended new carbon dioxide tax – should demand that the press and government alike listen to independent scientific assessments of the global warming issue, and undertake critical analyses of the unsatisfactory scientific advice that has been provided by Professor Steffen and the IPCC.

************
Other due diligence reports & related commentaries on Australian Government advice on climate change can be found here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/due-diligence-reports

Significant Property Development at Lower Lakes: A Note from Charlotte Ramotswe

By

Dear Jennifer,

I feel compelled to alert your readers to the significant property developments occurring in the vicinity of the Lower Lakes in South Australia.

There is the canal development on Hindmarsh Island with pictures at this link:
http://tmhi.com.au/home/

The ‘Wellington Marina’ development occurred during the drought. No water at all on these ‘waterfront’ blocks when the levels are minus 1m AHD. And my guess is that even at sea level, hardly a tinny would float. The Wellington development has houses on it that look maybe 10 years old:
http://www.wellingtonmarina.com.au/index.htm

This other one, ‘Mannum Waters’, was approved by the state government during the height of the drought. It’s a big one and the city of Mannum appears to be welcoming it to boost tourism.
http://www.mannumwaters.com.au/

At ‘Milang Bay’ it’s not canal style, but lake front:
http://www.sarahhomes.com.au/land_dev.php#MILANG

Then there is ‘Pelican Shores Estate’, again not canal style either, but dependent on water at Clayton Bay for water views. No website but a lot of blocks for sale.

There must be a lot of money tied up in these developments!

Of course they depend on the river being at an artificially high height above sea level.

What I mean is that these developments depend on the barrages maintaining what you have correctly described as an artificial freshwater lake system.

Most Sincerely
Charlotte Ramotswe

Petition Urging the Australian PM to Delay Introduction of the Carbon Tax Legislation

By

Hi,   My apologies if you’ve already seen this, but I’m giving it as wide a distribution as I can and hope that you will do the same.

This link is to a petition urging the Prime Minister to delay the introduction of carbon tax legislation until after an election:

http://www.epetitions.comeonaustralia.com/petition/sign/pid/9

Please sign the petition if you agree with its terms.  Thanks, Case Smit

Pondering the Carbon Tax

By

Last week the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced that carbon emissions would be taxed from July 1, 2012. 

The Prime Minister explained that by making products that generate carbon emissions more expensive, people will use less of them and this will be a good thing for Australia.

For example, if the carbon tax increases the average Australian family’s electricity bill by $500 and the electricity bill of an average small business by $2,000, families and businesses will use less electricity and this will be a good thing for Australia.

At the same time the Prime Minister announced the tax, she explained that families would be compensated for any increase in electricity charges.   But how will families be compensated?  The Prime Minister must be careful that families are not compensated in a way that would result in them using more electricity.

Indeed, wouldn’t it make more sense if the Prime Minister didn’t compensate anyone for the tax?

*******

http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/climate-change-framework-announced

Formal Request to audit BOM and CSIRO Climate Data

By

A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have lodged a formal request with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited.

The BOM claim their adjustments are “neutral” yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by 40%. The stakes are high. Australians could have to pay something in the order of $870 million dollars thanks to the Kyoto protocol, and the first four years of the Emissions Trading Scheme was expected to cost Australian industry (and hence Australian shareholders and consumers) nearly $50 billion dollars.

Given the stakes, the Australian people deserve to know they are getting transparent, high quality data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The small cost of the audit is nothing in comparison with the money at stake for all Australians.

Jo Nova is part of the team, more details at her blog:  http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/announcing-a-formal-request-for-the-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/