Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Information

Activist Scientists Crying Wolf on Coral Bleaching and Climate Change

By

THE propaganda from our Great Barrier Reef scientists at the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium is relentless. According to Janice Lough, Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), the rate of change from anthropogenic global warming is unprecedented and is already having a catastrophic impact on the Great Barrier Reef. Also in front of the TV camera today, Phillip Munday, James Cook University, said the most spectacular of our coral reef fish will disappear. And John Pandolfi, University of Queensland, was begging us to do more to save the reef.[1] Australian Institute of Marine Science research director Peter Doherty told the $10 million symposium of more than 2000 marine scientists from 80 countries of an “alarming and unsustainable decline” in coral over large sections of the Great Barrier Reef in nearly three decades.[2]

But I reckon it’s all a put-on: they are crying wolf.

One of the symposium themes is ‘Climate change and bleaching’.

There have been some spectacular bleaching events in the last 15 years. The reality, however, is that most of the Great Barrier Reef has not bleached, and those areas that have bleached have almost fully recovered. The following are some interesting facts about heat and coral growth: [3]

[Read more…] about Activist Scientists Crying Wolf on Coral Bleaching and Climate Change

Carbon Taxing Refrigerants But Not Carbon Dioxide?

By

ON July 1, Australia not only got a carbon tax, but also a tax on refrigerants based on their global warming potential. Refrigerants are used to keep things cool, for example, food in our refrigerators and people in cars and shopping centres.

The refrigerants industry is claiming the tax will significantly increase their costs.

The Australian government, however, claims that the new tax will simply encourage the use of alternative refrigerants which are less harmful for the environment. Indeed the relevant government website states:

“In many cases there are alternatives to synthetic greenhouse gases already in the Australian market. There are also low or non global warming alternatives in prospect for many applications.
Overseas and Australian experience is demonstrating that natural alternatives [to synthetic greenhouse gases] such as ammonia, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons can be used safely and effectively.”

What? The Australian government is suggesting that carbon dioxide is, relatively speaking, not a potent greenhouse gas.

So, why in the scheme of things, relatively speaking, do we have a carbon tax?

[Read more…] about Carbon Taxing Refrigerants But Not Carbon Dioxide?

ABC Still in Denial about History of Lower Murray and Estuary

By

‘Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated failures. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.

Those inspiring words are attributed to Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of the United States (1923-1929).

It’s easy to give up.  Particularly when you choose to take-on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.  But Bob F-J is no quitter.  Following is yet another letter from Bob F-J to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation complaining about their Media Watch program of March 19.  As Bob F-J explains in the following letter of complaint: Media Watch misled viewers by withholding critical facts.  In particular, Media Watch failed to inform the Australian public about the majority view of scientists on the nature of the Murray River estuary and failed to inform the Australian public of the history of the Lower Murray and its estuary…

[Read more…] about ABC Still in Denial about History of Lower Murray and Estuary

What the Carbon Tax and ETS will Really Cost: Peter Lang

By

Tomorrow, July 1, Australia gets the carbon tax the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, promised she would never introduce.   The nation’s 500 “biggest polluters” will start paying a $23-a-tonne carbon price.

Retired geologist and engineer, Peter Lang, calculates what this tax, and the Emissions Trading Scheme to follow, will really cost Australians:

Introduction

Popularly called the ‘Carbon Tax’, the CO2 tax and ETS will cost us more than the government claims.  Initial costs will be relatively small – a ‘honeymoon rate’ – but an accelerating rate thereafter will soon create much higher costs.  Some people will be partly compensated for a while, but after that we will all pay the full costs.

Actual costs are not easily derived – much depends on assumptions and estimates.  From Treasury estimates, for instance, the cost will be more than $13,000 per person (every man woman and child), or more than $26,000 per worker, total to 2050 (in today’s dollars).

However, the costs will most likely be much higher.  Firstly, while the ‘honey-moon rate’ includes only the 500 largest emitters, all CO2 emitters will eventually be brought into the ETS to make the scheme work as planned.

Secondly, emissions will eventually have to be measured, not just crudely estimated as is done now.  Not only CO2, but all the other twenty-three Kyoto gasses, from all sources, will have to be included.  The compliance costs are not included in Treasury’s estimates (see The ultimate compliance cost for the ETS).  Therefore, the actual costs the ETS will impose on us will inevitably be higher than we are being led to believe.

Below I explain the calculations of:

  • the benefit (total to 2050)
  • the cost (total to 2050)
  • the benefit to cost ratio
  • the cost per capita and per worker

Lastly, I list the assumptions that underpin the estimate of the benefits.

The cost and benefit analysis figures I used as inputs are chosen from sources well respected for reliability and credibility. The figures and subsequent analysis tell us, in effect, that Australia is planning to spend $10 dollars for every $1 of benefit it hopes to derive – provided the assumptions about the consequences of AGW are correct.  This suggests that our climate policies are flawed and need major change.

[Read more…] about What the Carbon Tax and ETS will Really Cost: Peter Lang

Save the Carbon, Harvest the Forest?

By

Government policies across the world generally favour locking-up forests for carbon sequestration. But a new study by the NSW Government’s Department of Primary Industries suggests: Total greenhouse gas emissions abatement and carbon storage from a multiple use production forest exceed the carbon storage benefit of a conservation forest.

The report stresses that to quantify the climate change impacts of forestry, the entire forestry system should be considered: the carbon dynamics of the forest, the life cycle of forest products; the substitution benefit of biomass and wood products, the risk of leakage resulting from deforestation and forest degradation in other countries.

The study compares the overall greenhouse gas balance for two coastal harvested versus two conservation forests. The accounting method used shows that most of the savings for the harvested forests is in the area of “product substitution”; the idea being that substitution of wood through the use of cement, steel and aluminium creates emissions.

If you are interested in the crooked business of carbon accounting, or looking to justify the harvesting of forests for more fashionable reasons than economics, the report is worth a read:

Harvested forests provide the greatest ongoing greenhouse gas benefits. By Fabiano Ximenes et al. NSW Government, June 2012.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/434643/Harvested-forests-provide-the-greatest-ongoing-greenhouse-gas-benefits.pdf

Rio+20 Was Different

By

‘APPARENTLY, the Rio + 20 Conference ended on Friday. The word apparently is used jokingly. Saturday’s headlines of both the New York Times and the Washington Post failed to include any mention of the closing of the conference. These “newspapers of record” focused on sensational sex trials instead. It seems the conference did not end as the editors wished. According to reports, the conference was tightly controlled by the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – particularly Brazil which headed the conference. The leaders of Brazil, India and China have made it clear that they will not punish their citizens by stopping economic growth. Russia needs revenues from exports of oil and gas to maintain its budget and government spending.

The conference was different than past conferences for several reasons. There was no grand announcement of Western governments committing huge sums to the governments of the third world. There were no political rock-stars flying in at the last moment to put a deal together. There were no all night sessions extending far beyond the scheduled close of the meeting.

The European ministers were disappointed in the failure for the world to adopt their agenda. The non-government organizations (NGOs) were largely locked out of the process of reaching an agreement, their demands were ignored. The disappointment, even despair, expressed by a number of environmental groups is indicative of the success of the BRIC countries.

Those in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), under whose auspices this conference was given, are no doubt disappointed that they will not have a $100 Billion a year Green Fund to manage. The leaders of some third world countries are no doubt disappointed they will not be receiving huge sums from the UNFCCC, dashing their hopes of expanding their Swiss bank accounts or obtaining that special villa in the south of France. But the conference gave some political leaders the opportunity to stay at a luxurious resort while preaching austerity for others. And the conclusion gives the opportunity for many ordinary citizens in the world to sigh with relief…

By Ken Haapala at www.sepp.org