Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Uncategorized

Environmentalists Win, Win, Win on Climate Change: Ben Oquist

By

The “environmentalists’ arguments about climate change” are being accepted across Australia: embraced by everyone from Mel and Kochie, presenters of popular TV program Sunrise, to the Prime Minister John Howard.

That was the message from Ben Oquist, political consultant and former Bob Brown adviser, writing yesterday in Australia’s tabloid e-news journal Crikey.

Oquist went on to caution that ” the war” will only really be won when, there is a legislative commitment to guarantee emissions will be reduced 60-90% by mid century and a commitment to address coal exports which are by far Australia’s biggest contribution to global greenhouse emissions.

In the same paragraph Oquist states that if we get emissions down by 60-90% we can stop dangerous climate change. Now that is some false claim, particularly given Australia is responsible for such a small percent of global emissions and falling!

But I doubt anyone noticed the ridiculousness of Oquist’s claim amongst the many other fashionable but false pronouncements being made yesterday in Australia.

Columnist Paul Sheehan writing in the Sydney Morning Herald in a piece entitled ‘We fiddle as the continent turns to dust’ insisted that the word drought be replaced by the word climate change: “Most people still talk about the “drought”. It is not a drought. It is climate change. We changed the landscape. We cut, stripped, gouged, channelled and laid it bare. And thus changed the climate. How can we solve a problem when we can’t even name it, and thus still can’t even face it?”

I am surprised Sheehan didn’t include carbon dioxide in that paragraph!

Glen Milne writing in The Australia explained the Prime Minister “today goes to the South Pacific Forum,where the islands are sinking into the sea. When he gets back, he will go straight on another drought tour to inspect our once mighty rivers, now disappearing though the parched maw of the earth. There are no more flooding plains. Apparently there is nothing left but drought.”

The article was entitled ‘Liberals musts catch up on climate change’.

Milne went on to explain that: “In another sign of the rising temperature of the climate change debate (if you’ll excuse the pun), Al Gore is to return to Australia. But this time he won’t be spruiking his global warming film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. Instead, under the auspices of the Climate Project and the Australian Conservation Foundation, Gore will train 75 volunteer ‘climate changers’ to replicate here his famous PowerPoint presentation on which An Inconvenient Truth was based. Each volunteer will guarantee to deliver at least 10 seminars over the next 12 months. That’s 750 sessions across the country, minimum. And given the passion of these advocates, it’s likely to be at least twice that. That’s a lot of increasingly convinced minds, with an election looming”.

All of this on top of Australia’s Climate Institute stepping up their campaign to “educate us” including with advertisements on rural television explaining that “we can control climate change”.

Maybe this is where Oquist got the idea that we can some how stop climate change?

Add to all of this hysteria, consideration of the activities of celebrity scientists like Tim Flannery and David Suzuki. Suzuki was in Australia last week and I heard him on ABC radio explaining that we can stop climate change by signing Kyoto. Another porkie!

Add to this the relentless self-interested advice that comes from the professional scientific and bureaucratic groups involved in greenhouse studies in Australia.

And, of course, don’t forget the quick start to the current bushfire season and El Nino, which promise to deliver both a long, hard summer and a reinforced climate alarmism in Australia.

Finally, reflect that the Stern Report (which will boost the economic alarmism) is to be released in London shortly, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (which will boost the science alarmism) is scheduled for release in February, 2007.

Yes, I think Ben Oquist is right… it’s a win, win, win for environmentalists!

——————————
This post is based on an email from Cathy.

Log a Tree, Sequest Some Carbon: Mark Poynter

By

Only 10 percent of Victoria’s native forests are logged. Yet anti-logging campaigners are still unhappy, ramping up a campaign in conjunction with the upcoming state election to have the industry closed down completely.

Why anyone would oppose the sustainable harvest of such a small percentage of Victoria’s extensive native forest estate is difficult for me to understand. Then again I see both environmental and economic benefits in growing and cutting down trees as part of the active management of a native forest.

In ‘Campaigners can’t see forest for trees’ Mark Poynter* expains the value of logging in terms of carbon sequestration:

“Sustainable logging in Victoria’s designated wood production zones produces about 1.5 million cubic metres of hardwood sawlogs and residual logs a year from an estimated total harvested biomass of about 2.1 million cubic metres, including roots, bark, branches and foliage. The concept of sustainability dictates that annually harvested amount is replaced by an equivalent volume of growth.

Carbon sequestered each year in new biomass growth in Victoria’s production zones is estimated to be equivalent to saving 2.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. This is net of emissions from fuel and power use inherent to timber production and emissions from the regeneration process. It is also additional to the carbon that could have been sequestered if the forest had alternatively been left unlogged.

Putting this into perspective is that clean energy produced from Victorian wind farms has been estimated to save 250,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year. Put another way, if anti-logging campaigns were to close Victoria’s native forest timber industry, 10 times as many wind turbines as now exist would be required just to make up for the carbon sequestration lost by “locking up” wood production forests.

Enhanced carbon sequestration is only part of the “greenhouse” benefit of sustainable logging. Australian domestic hardwood production also offsets imports of tropical hardwoods and the use of steel, aluminium and concrete that offer poor environmental outcomes.”

Read the full article, click here .

If 10 times as many wind turbines would be required to offset the locking up of wood production in the 10 percent of the forest that is still harvested, how much more carbon could be sequested if government allowed logging in say 30 percent of the forest estate? Not to mention the potential environmental and economic benefits.

—————-
Mark Poynter is a forestry consultant, member of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and a member of the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF). His slide show entitled ‘Saving Australian Forests, A Counter-Productive Indulgence’ given at the recent AEF conference can be viewed by clicking here.

Kelvin Thomson Vilifies IPA Over Global Warming

By

Anyone who questions global warming is spreading misinformation and undermining the scientific consensus according to Kelvin Thomson, Australia’s shadow minister for public accountability and human services.

This senior member of the Labor party recently wrote to Australian companies warning them away from the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA)*.

The letter states we are propagandists and that “global warming is happening, it is man-made, and it is not good for us.”

I often speak publicly on global warming as a senior fellow at the IPA. My assessment of the situation is based on my own reading and independent analysis.

I agree with Kelvin Thomson that global warming is happening. But I am not convinced that the warming is wholly or even mostly man-made. Indeed the geological record shows that the earth has been warming since the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago and it is unclear how much of the current warming is a continuation of this trend or due to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

As regards the purported consensus, earlier this year sixty accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines sent an open letter to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, explaining that “global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural noise.”

Just last month, William M. Gray, professor emeritus of atmospheric science, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University explained: “My main motivation to continue my research is to help maintain the integrity of American science which, in my view, has been badly compromised by the global warming issue and now recently by the issue of global warming causing more frequent and more intense hurricanes.”

In seeking to ‘name and shame’ those who fund the IPA, Thomson is following the led of the Royal Society, Britain’s leading scientific academy. The society recently wrote to US energy company Exxon Mobil asking that it stop funding groups that it believes ‘misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence’.

After outlining the extent and diversity of energy and climate change related research funded by ExxonMobil, the 3-page response from ExxonMobil’s vice president of public affairs, Kenneth Cohen, concluded: “Our own objective, as it relates to climate change, is to seek solutions that protect the environment but do not threaten the aspirations of the billions of people who desire and deserve a better quality of life. Is that not a worthwhile road to be on? We have a role to play in the policy discussions on these subjects. It is disappointing that representatives of the Royal Society find it appropriate to intentionally misstate our actions and positions relating to these important topics.”

Are we entering a period of Climate McCarthyism?

In today’s Australian Financial Review, the IPA’s executive director, John Roskam, in a piece entitled ‘ALP needs climate change’, argues that “despite differences about the causes of climate change, it would be hoped that there’s one aspect of the issue about which there could be unanimiity. Ideally, all sides of the issue would agree that discussion about climate change is a good thing — and the more discussion the better.”

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is an independent, non-profit, public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom. Support debate and discussion on global warming, join the IPA today.

——————
* The letter, dated 27th September, also names the International Policy Network, the American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the European Science and Environment Forum as undermining the scienitific consensus.

Growing Biodiesel In Northern Australia: Roger Kalla

By

Outspoken liberal senator Bill Heffernan has suggested that Australia’s farmers move North to the tropical parts of Australia where there is more water.

In two recent blog posts at the GMO Pundit Website Roger Kalla asks: What would farmers grow in northern Australia?

In the first post he considers soybeans for biodiesel and animal feed: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/go-north-young-man-go-north-cropping.html .

And in the second cotton for biodiesel: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/another-biodiesel-crop-for-northern.html .

How to Count Don’t Count Planes, And Not Include Don’t Count Coal, While And We’ll Making Kyoto?

By

According to Hilary Osborne writing for The Guardian:

“Emissions from air travel have doubled since 1990, to make up 6 percent of the UK’s carbon footprint. Forecasts suggest that the increase in flights will mean that by 2050, emissions from aviation could be between four and 10 times higher than they were in 1990, making it almost impossible for the government to achieve its target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent.”

But according to the same article, aviation is not included in the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). So I guess it doesn’t count?*

It’s perhaps a bit like Germany excluding its new coal fired power stations?

Indeed a few months ago Germany admitted it had probably over estimated its emissions and acknowledging that it needed to tighten its greenhouse gas emissions limit in the second round of the EU’s carbon market, while at the same time suggesting that new coal plants will opt out of the ETS.

So Germany got the credits for the old coal-fired power stations it closed down, but it won’t count the new one’s it builds? At least it wants a 14 years moratorium before it starts counting them?*

How does this work? Do Germany and the aviation industry have really good negotiators?

—————–
* Changes made to this post following comments from Steve, see below.

Iceland to Resume Commercial Whaling: A Note & Pictures from George McCallum

By

The Icelandic Fisheries Ministry has declared that Iceland will resume commercial whaling with a catch of 30 minke whales and 9 Fin whales. George McCallum explains the implications both nationally and internationally:

“Iceland will become only the second country to openly conduct commercial whaling under International Whaling Commission (IWC) objection and this may very well lead to further nations following suit.

Obviously, Iceland may very well wish to open up international trade in the whale products obtained, but it remains to be seen if they will be able to achieve this. Iceland currently exports small amounts of whale meat to the Faroe Islands ( The Faroe islands are a self-governing region of Denmark). The Danish Foreign Ministry wrote in 2003 that the “CITES Convention does not apply to the Faroes for the time being.”

minke.jpg
Surfacing Minke whale. One of the two species Iceland will begin to commercially hunt. For wildlife photographs visit www.whalephoto.com.

Iceland’s whaling commissioner Stefan Asmundsson also stated that “There is free trade within that area and whale products are simply one item therein.”

The Fisheries ministry also noted ” Any international trade in Icelandic whale products will be conducted in accordance with Iceland’s obligations under international law.”

The decision is certain to raise the hackles of anti-whaling countries and anti-whaling NGO’s, indeed, the first reactions to the decision have already been publicised on anti whaling NGO websites.

One such comment from Greenpeace states:

“Iceland has no market for whale meat, but they do have a huge and far more valuable market for whale watching, ” said Greenpeace campaigner Frode Pleym.

“Instead of investing in a one-man campaign to rejuvenate an outdated, unnecessary industry, that can only damage the reputation of the country internationally, Iceland should be capitalising on the value of a growing industry of watching and studying whales.”

Claims that the hunt is sustainable cannot not be credible, since nine of the 39 whales that are to be targeted are endangered Fin whales.”

finwhales.jpg
Surfacing fin whales. One of the two species Iceland will begin to commercially hunt. For wildlife photographs visit www.whalephoto.com.

Greenpeace omit to note that the population of fin whales in the central Atlantic is estimated at 25,800 fin whales and that by any stretch of the imagination, a catch of 9 fin whales is not going to effect the sustainability of the central Atlantic population.

When Iceland re-joined the IWC in 2001 with an objection to the moratorium, they stated “As a part of the reservation, Iceland committed itself not to authorise commercial whaling before 2006. Thereafter such whaling would not be authorised while progress was being made in negotiations regarding the IWC’s Revised Management Scheme (RMS).”

They also note, ” At the IWC’s Annual Meeting in 2005 Iceland warned that no progress was being made in the RMS discussions. No objection was raised at the Annual Meeting to Iceland’s statement. At this year’s IWC Annual Meeting, Iceland’s understanding was reconfirmed as the IWC generally agreed that talks on an RMS had reached an impasse. Therefore, the two limitations attached to Iceland’s reservation with respect to the so-called moratorium no longer apply.

Accordingly, Iceland’s reservation is now in effect and Iceland has the legal right to resume sustainable whaling. This puts Iceland in the same position as other IWC members that are not bound by the so-called moratorium, such as Norway.”

Harpooncannon.jpg
The covers will come off the harpoon guns on Icelandic whaling vessels (image from a Norwegian vessel). For photographs visit www.whalephoto.com.

The chickens are finally coming home to roost in regards to the RMS “game playing” within the political plenary arm of the International Whaling commission. Iceland’s decision to resume commercial whaling may very well force anti-whaling governments to finally come to the table to deal with any genuine compromise proposals as to the real world implementation of the RMP and RMS.“

There was also comment from Japan with the Director of International Negotiations for the Fisheries Agency of Japan, Mr Morishita, congratulating Iceland for taking a bold and courageous step in the advancement of sensible management for marine living resources.

“This should come as no surprise to the world. When Iceland joined the IWC in 2001, it said it would resume sustainable commercial whaling if there were no progress on an international management regime for sustainable whaling. There has been no progress at all in that time and this has led Iceland to take unilateral action,” he said.