Email

Wong backflips on emissions target announcement

Posted December 1, 2008 07:43:00
Updated December 1, 2008 09:09:00

The Federal Government has gone back on its plan to present a 2020 emissions reduction target to UN climate talks in Poland later this month.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong will lead an Australian delegation to the talks in the Polish city of Poznan next week to begin work on a new global climate deal.

Senator Wong previously said the Government intended to announce a mid-term target before the negotiations.

The Australian Conservation Foundation's Don Henry has told ABC News Breakfast he is disappointed the Government did not stick to its plan.

"I'm assuming they're wanting to see how the meeting goes, although everyone's going to be holding their breath because President-elect Obama won't be in the seat yet," he said.

"We would prefer Australia to be going into the meeting with a strong ambition to be saying, 'Look world, we need to get cracking on climate change'. Australia can and should take a leadership position."

Greens Senator Christine Milne says the decision not to release a target figure is a cop-out.

"It's very clear that rather than lead, what Penny Wong wants to do is announce a really weak target," she said.

"[She] wants the cover of having gone to Poznan, the rest of the world not deciding to do anything, and then saying 'Oh well, look at us, we're going to do something'."

Meanwhile, the United Nations spokesman on climate change says the global financial crisis should not detract from the Poland talks, which start today.

The head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, Yvo de Boer, says urgent action is needed.

"The Poznan conference is taking place in the broader context of the current global financial crisis and impending recession," he said.

"But we cannot allow this to detract from the fight against climate change. We must now focus on the opportunities for green growth that can put the economy onto a stable and sustainable path.

"Parties have little more than a year to agree on strengthened action on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology."

Eight-thousand delegates from around the world are expected to attend the Poznan talks.

The meeting is a half-way point in the negotiating for a global climate change agreement due to be reached in Copenhagen next year.

Each country will put forward its vision on what should be done in 2009 to reach that agreement.

Tags: climate-change, federal-government, australia, act, poland

Comments (105)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

• sally:

  01 Dec 2008 8:33:00am

  What you see is maybe not what you get? Could it be Rudd & Wong are just hot air on climate change? With the economy hurtling towards a crash, it's not too surprising. But will we see another Labor election promise, err....modified?

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Michael:

    01 Dec 2008 8:46:32am

    Maybe they are focussing on ACTUAL problems (such as the economy) rather that hypothetical ones (that are looking increasingly unlikely) such as man-made "global warming"? With the last 10 years of global COOLING, as well as rapidly increasing Arctic ice, it's hard to keep up the hype for a problem that doesn't exist.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Charles:

      01 Dec 2008 9:00:49am

      The only thing is the Labor leadership are not DENIALISTS so why would they govern as if they were?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        01 Dec 2008 9:15:45am

        The only denialists are those who refuse to admit that going nuclear is inevitable and that renewables are not, by themselves, a solution.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        01 Dec 2008 9:29:20am

        So everyone who doesn't agree with you, despite the very sound arguments against nuclear power in australia, are just plain denialists? Good attitude wmc, dismissing other peoples views as a sure fire way to never learn anything.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • twobob:

        01 Dec 2008 9:34:07am

        Going nuclear would solve an electricity generation problem for the world lasting under 15 years. And lead a toxic pollution legacy lasting 500 000 years. It would be the most stupid solution to this problem that has ever been suggested.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        01 Dec 2008 9:57:13am

        Increasing numbers of countries in our region are going nuclear, partly to address climate change. It's unlikely they'd do so if they believed nuclear was a short term fix. Presumably they don't agree that going nuclear is a stupid idea.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Water:

        01 Dec 2008 9:59:42am

        For 15 years? based on what twobob? It sounds to me like you need to go look up the definition of 'economically recoverable reserve'. Also realise that the actual cost of uranium is a very small cost of a nuclear power station.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Charles:

        01 Dec 2008 9:36:52am

        AGW denialists hold back any remedial action at all so I reckon they're a bigger terget, WMC. The AGW response requires immediate action on a multitude of levels especially power production, because a nuclear power station will take decades to come on line. The unfortunate thing about the "nuke is the only way" position is that it is just not true.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Half right:

        01 Dec 2008 9:40:08am

        You are half right.
        
        IF you insist on centralised power generation THEN nuclear is inevitable.
        
        IF you utilise decentralised power generation THEN solar is viable even with the technology presently available.
        
        The opportunity for centralised solar power generation was lost in the 70s when Australia led the world on solar research, but the budgets were cut and research stymied.
        
        If you don't insist on centralised power generation, it is very difficult for big corporation to gouge consumers, so obviously there is significant resistance to decentralisation.
        
        Solar can not compete with nuclear for centralised power, but nuclear can not compete with solar when decentralised.
        
        My $0.02 worth.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Tj:

        01 Dec 2008 10:04:04am

        You've hit the nail on the head there Half-Right.
        
        If every roof in a city (at least 1 million rooves) had at least a 1kw solar power system on it.... a 1 Megawatt generator up and running in ni time. This would be would be very feasable

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • BlzBob:

        01 Dec 2008 10:12:23am

        The real denialists, are the ones that wont admit that nuclear is not a magic pudding.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        01 Dec 2008 10:27:24am

        No one's saying that nuclear is a magic pudding and no one's saying that renewables don't have a role to play. However, renewables can't generate base-load power.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Alan:

      01 Dec 2008 9:16:02am

      "increasingly unlikely...man (sic)-made global warming..." - there must be some compelling new evidence in the sand where your head is buried.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Somewhat Perplexed:

        01 Dec 2008 10:17:11am

        Sadly, people seem to think that you can pluck out one aspect of an interelated system and base a creditable aurgument on it.
        
        Anyone with even the most basic scientific background will know that such an aurgument is a waste of time.
        
        In terms of the Senators change of heart...a bit of a weak effort in my view.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Keith:

      01 Dec 2008 9:18:33am

      Isn't it funny how lots of people with nothing to do with weather science think there is so little global warming. Talk to the scientist and apart from one or two they are all tearing their hair out with worry about it.
      Will you admit you were a climate change denier in 20 years time? I suspect you won't.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Brad:

        01 Dec 2008 10:08:09am

        Even that arch sceptic George W Bush now believes that global warming is caused by human activity. You really have to wonder about the credibility of people who make Bush look like an informed progressive.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • jh:

      01 Dec 2008 9:23:37am

      Unfortunately the Royal Society (the oldest eminent body of scientists in the world - counting in it's number Issac Newton, Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking) does not agree with you.
      
      But you would know better wouldn't you.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Peter Feldman:

      01 Dec 2008 9:39:34am

      How do get your facts so backwards? You are absolutely wrong on both counts: average global temperatures are increasing, and the Arctic ice is disappearing at rates faster than predicted!

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Jacques:

      01 Dec 2008 9:41:57am

      Michael - we know who you are - the 'global cooling' and 'increasing Arctic ice' comments are spurious humbug that you keep trotting out.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Brad:

        01 Dec 2008 10:13:31am

        Increasing Arctic Ice is complete bollocks. The North Pole has become an island for the first time in 125,000 years.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • sillyfilly:

      01 Dec 2008 9:44:39am

      Hard to keep up with anyones hype which refuses acknowledge current science. For example temperature trends are still up, irrespective of the last decade (which also included several of the hottest years in a century). Basis is measurements like the hadCRUT3 temperature series with ENSO adjustments. And as far as ice data is concerned , despite the increase in ice coverage for 2008 the indicative trend in ice coverage is downward (source NSIDC)

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Yabbie:

      01 Dec 2008 10:12:10am

      This is an actual problem. The unlikely hypothesis that human impacts have not influenced climate change is to an extent irrelevant. Continued bickering on this point detracts from the cold-hard fact that earth and its biodiversity is undergoing rapid large scale global change.
      
      Any skeptics on this one need to read some ecological research. Information regarding altering patterns, numbers and behavior of biota and patterns of abiotic phenomena are readily available and overwhelmingly convincing.
      
      The mitigation of climate change impacts are paramount in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystems as we know them.
      
      There are complex positive and negative feedback mechanisms involved in global change. I suggest you look a little deeper into this topic before closing yourself off to a concept that is widely accepted by experts in thier field as being factual.
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Joel:

    01 Dec 2008 8:47:01am

    Oh for crying out loud. They've formally announced a date for the emissions briefing/announcement, December 15th, and it's pretty clear they're going to a lot more than the Liberals would. The targets may not be as high as we'd like, but it's at least a start. And, realistically, it's probably politically sensible to hold out until after the conference.
    
    And if we have to invest in infrastructure to address the economic crisis - why not do it by addressing climate change at the same time?

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Cade:

      01 Dec 2008 9:01:08am

      
      How can a new tax be justified for a theme (i.e. "climate change" from anthropogenic origins) that has not been adequately debated on world scene. If the Rudd government has enough money to fund {Ford, Holden, Japanese}-related car issues then this government should spend a little money and fund a debate between the politicised IPCC and the non-politicised NIPCC so that people can be made aware if "climate change" is strongly anthropogenic-based or if it is essentially a constant throughout the geological history of the Earth (i.e. that climate change has always been happening).
      
      Then again, Al Gore would not like this.
      
      The NIPCC had invited Gore for a debate in a recent NIPCC conference but the "climate messiah" or any of his "followers" had not been interested.
      
      

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Water:

        01 Dec 2008 10:07:19am

        Why would they want a debate? Isn't science just about enforcing a consensus? I mean without consensus scientific conclusions would be open to scrutiny based on conflicting evidence and that might change the conclusion. That's just dangerous. Better to just try and enforce a consensus and avoid a debate altogether. How dare you question the church of climatology? Why if this was 16th century Europe your head would be on a spike, after you had been forced to recant preaching your false doctrine.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Somewhat Perplexed:

        01 Dec 2008 10:24:13am

        My understanding was science was not determined by debate...in other words, the ability to be a better orator than the next person.
        
        I thought it was based on some often slightly reclusive people sitting quitely and taking several years to find and format some data and then taking several months to write a paper that is then peer reveiwed by some other scientists over the course of several more months.
        
        After that, it is either excepted into the greater body of knowledge or rejected.
        
        In view of that, what is the point of a day long debate.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Charles:

      01 Dec 2008 9:03:59am

      Wow, now that's real action: an announcement of an announcement!
      With AGW, near enough won't be good enough, what's wrong with people demanding more from government? Business sure doesn't mind demanding more...

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • acker:

    01 Dec 2008 9:28:06am

    Malcolm Turnbull and Penny Wong are the best thing that has happened to the ministry controlling Australia's waterways and environment for the best part of 100 years.
    
    Honestly before these two were consecutively in charge of the portfolio, Australia had a procession of Buffoons and Clowns who totally stuffed our river system by rubber stamping policy with very little thought.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Billy Bob Hall:

    01 Dec 2008 10:08:35am

    More likely is Chairman Kev and Penny are just wrong on "climate change" and they are only just now coming to realize it.
    An ETS will not "stabilize" climate.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Andrew:

  01 Dec 2008 8:35:30am

  Not so much a 'backflip' as a 'bendover' for industry. My kids will pay dearly for such gutlessness.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Old Clive:

    01 Dec 2008 9:12:09am

    Hello Andrew, we are going to pay for a false interpretation of mother natures changing weather paterns, sure man is poluting the planet and I'll bet you don't stop driving your car and I'll be surprised if you have a TANK IN YOUR YARD, and I'd also be surprised if you wanted to undam all the rivers that have been dammed for you water supplies. Some of you people have to get real instead of being led by the nose instead of your brane{sic]

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • sinic:

      01 Dec 2008 9:41:04am

      So what is your point? Wong is following the party line on toeing the leader's line. And HE just hasn't thought of a way to address 'Global Cooling'.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • BlzBob:

      01 Dec 2008 10:27:01am

      And some people dont even have enough "brane" to be coaxed in the right direction.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • BlzBob:

    01 Dec 2008 10:25:08am

    How big are your kids carbon footprints, and could you train them better to want to make a difference.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• brigid:

  01 Dec 2008 8:50:23am

  very disappointing indeed- considering I voted this government in on their promises. Please keep them. Please Penny. Please...................
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Lament:

    01 Dec 2008 9:07:17am

    Poor Brigid, you voted for a politician... and thats what you got!
    
    Remember the maxim, politician with mouth open not telling truth!

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Patch:

    01 Dec 2008 9:17:10am

    If they dont we are lost, we cant vote the Liberals in, they will be just as bad, if not worse, and the greens can only do so much from their position.
    
    Please labor, a lot of votes went your way because of your promise to take real action on this issue.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Tj:

      01 Dec 2008 10:06:37am

      well you got ripped off

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        01 Dec 2008 10:24:31am

        Not yet, to be fair.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Boggs:

  01 Dec 2008 8:53:16am

  Though I am a long term Labour supporter, I am realistic enough to know that most politicians have a primary goal,... stay in office. They will lie, change tack, make whatever excuses are necessary to pander to voters.
  
  Its just a job to them, a albeit one with really nice pension.
  
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Homer:

    01 Dec 2008 9:32:16am

    You are absolutely on the money.
    
    K Rudd et al don't care or possibly even believe man made climate change or industrial relations etc were a problem.
    They just checked the pols and made popular policy promises.
    
    So what's new and what are people whinging about????
    
    Surely they're not all that mindless to believe these clowns???

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• NWABP:

  01 Dec 2008 8:54:09am

  I think the headline should have been something along the lines of "Wong countermanded by meglomaniacal leader - again" or "PM shows lack of trust in amateur front bench". Good ol' Bob got it right a couple of weeks ago when he observed that the ministers should be given a looser leash otherwise they would not develop into competent leaders or representatives.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• TeddyC:

  01 Dec 2008 8:54:47am

  That headline STINKS! Backflips. It smacks of a pointed opinion. Who is responsible for these headlines? What happened to the ABC's fair, unbiased, objective reporting?

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Charles:

    01 Dec 2008 9:05:54am

    What else would you call not sticking to a prior arrangement?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • TeddyC:

      01 Dec 2008 9:28:29am

      decides against ... rethinks ... reconsiders ... changes options ... takes advice ... considers alternatives ...

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • AJC:

    01 Dec 2008 9:09:26am

    TeddyC- When I worry about the sort of future my kids are going to have to eek out in a post peak oil world of dangerous competition for dwindling resources and possible global famine..its just good to know that you're monitoring the headlines for mild tone of alarm- maybe just watch TV?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • JC:

    01 Dec 2008 9:28:23am

    Opinion and comments sections are always biased through perception TeddyC. One minute people say "its biased against the ALP" then another will say "its biased against the Liberals." If you are going to comment, try and comment on the article of and in itself rather than your "political colour."
    
    Unforunately for the Govt, the environment appears to be one area where they are seriously struggling. Buying up of water & Toorale - based on anticipated flows. Emissions targets - watered down after all the election hype. Go ahead given for water projects on the one hand (NS Pipeline) that are dubious at best, and knocked back on the other (Traveston Dam). The New Murray Darling Water Act that allows state Govts (Victoria) to take out MORE water from the Basin.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• R GRIESHABER:

  01 Dec 2008 8:56:39am

  www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Guy:

    01 Dec 2008 9:08:52am

    Ah, and there was a global economic crisis but the sahremarket was up on Friday so now the crisis is over. Phew, what a relief!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Homer:

      01 Dec 2008 9:38:59am

      What???
      
      It is a global "ECONOMIC" crises not a share market crises. And what does it have to do with the fact that global warming exists, is a normal, natural phenomenon, and is now seen to be swinging towards a possible cooling mode?
      
      Don't people remember the big fear campaign in the '70s about a new "ICE AGE".
      
      The same people who thought they were voting for something other than a PR machine I suppose.
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        01 Dec 2008 10:04:38am

        Somehow i doubt that the majority of scientific bodies around the world would have agreed with a new ice age in the 1970's.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • DM:

      01 Dec 2008 9:43:47am

      Hahaha, and the article even predicted your response, "... a global warming devotee will chuckle and say 'how silly to judge climate change over such a short period'. Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh."

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        01 Dec 2008 10:07:25am

        Er, that wasn't his response?
        
        Also, you could play that either way. If it is tosh to judge temperatures over the last-40 years, then why is it right to judge over the past 7-8 years?
        
        But if you want longer term evidence its there.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Brad:

    01 Dec 2008 10:10:57am

    It stopped in 1998? Is that why both sea passages through the Arctic Circle opened simultansously for the first time in 125,000 years in 2008? Is that why global mean sea level has risen 20mm since 1998?
    
    Get your head out of the sand.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• James:

  01 Dec 2008 8:59:10am

  All we heard from Labor in opposition was attacks on the Howard Govt for not stating such targets. Now Labor are in power and they change their mind.......Pathetic, Rudd is not a man of substance and Wong obviously has no idea..

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Charles:

  01 Dec 2008 8:59:18am

  Ratifying the symbolic Kyoto Protocol is not enough by itself. The electorate expected firm action and global warming was a significant electoral issue, which played a part in the fall of the denialist Howard regime.
  Proactive targets are required now, business needs firm decisions now, if you accept the science and the economic projections we just can't afford to wait.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Clownfish:

    01 Dec 2008 9:13:10am

    Au contraire - ratifying the symbolic Kyoto Protocol was all the Rudd government needed to do. One meaningless piece of symbolism, and everyone was cock-a-whoop that "the gummint was doin sumfink".

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Patch:

      01 Dec 2008 9:30:51am

      Err, have a look around Clownfish, to satisfy people here the government clearly needs to do more.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Willster:

        01 Dec 2008 9:55:45am

        Err, did you read his whole post or just the first sentence? And he's spot on the money. It's amazing how easily some of the Australian electorate can be fooled with empty words and trendy websites.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        01 Dec 2008 10:26:29am

        No, the whole thing. I find it amazing for people to simultaneously be reading a website full of comments from people who want more, and decide that people dont want more.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Charles:

        01 Dec 2008 10:26:47am

        Yeah, and new ministerial positions, policies etc etc...

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Billy Bob Hall:

        01 Dec 2008 10:10:48am

        An ETS will not "Stabilize" climate.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Cycle Michael:

    01 Dec 2008 9:47:42am

    A lesson on politics from Adam Smith writing in his "Wealth of Nations" in 1776. "To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight, appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers." While this quote has been used to deride the English as a nation of shopkeepers (most famously by Napoleon), I think it holds an important political message about who actually runs the government. Australias' biggest and most influential shopkeepers sell coal, iron and aluminium to china.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• FRLT:

  01 Dec 2008 9:00:25am

  The climate change bandwagon has served its purpose for Mr Rudd & Co. It was used to win an election and nothing more.
  
  They know that they absolutely powerless to do anything to change the course of natural events, however, they cannot let their devotees see that - at any cost.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • sillyfilly:

    01 Dec 2008 9:47:23am

    It's a pity current global warming is not part of the natural cycle, so there may be many ways to ameliorate it.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Young Marto:

      01 Dec 2008 10:16:53am

      There is, as of yet, no proof of this. Just endless media releases lacking substance that many, many people have fallen for. They don't pay spin doctors the big bucks for nothing.
      
      Nothing against this article though... I can't believe someone complained about the word 'backflip' being used! Put in context, it was a backflip indeed. Penny Wrong should just quit. Another useless, token ministerial appointment.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Don:

  01 Dec 2008 9:07:20am

  The difference between in opposition and being in power is that in power you have to face reality. The Feberal Labour Party recognises that to commit to policies in the belief that global warming is man made will cost real jobs. That, is their jobs.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Fred Ferdelberger:

  01 Dec 2008 9:08:32am

  What a lot of hot air. Rudd knows that increased sunspot activity is strengthening the Suns magnetic field, which deflects more of the galactic cosmic rays entering the solar system and thus reducing the number hitting Earth. This reduces cloud formation in the atmosphere, trapping heat and leading us to all say its getting hot in here and blaming it on human activity.
  Forget the climate change it is a lot of hot air and concentrate on getting us out of the financial mess that has engulfed us since this goverment came to power.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • twobob:

    01 Dec 2008 9:31:14am

    Why fred your a genius. I suppose that you will publish this in a peer reviewed journal?
    Although ALL of those reliable articles indicate that global warming is real and is caused by human activity. You seek to cloud peoples opinion by publishing this twaddle. Why fred do your kids have an alternative planet to reside on after this one is trashed?
    The increased sun spot activity that we are about to suffer is more likely to increase the amount of radiation entering our planet. This will manifest in an increased frequency and magnitude of storms and cyclones. Or as you propose it will cool the planet. Lets watch what happens. This whole right wing denial of a fundamental thing like the climate will be your ruin and the human race will be better for it.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• ravensclaw:

  01 Dec 2008 9:09:49am

  Well done Penny
  
  There are more important things than spending trillions and stuffing an economy on a possibility.
  
  Cheers

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Patch:

    01 Dec 2008 9:32:34am

    A possibility that if (pfft, if... geez man) true, will cause disaster to the earth. Bah you're right who cares if the earth dies, we'll have more money now, screw it!
    
    Cheers

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Clownfish:

      01 Dec 2008 9:50:11am

      The earth will not die, for Christ's sake.
      
      Even if - *if* - the worst cases of climate change alarmism were true, humans might die, but the earth? The earth will carry on quite nicely without us, thank you very much.
      
      Look at the geological record - there have been much more dramatic climate changes in earth's history, there have been many episodes of mass extinction (at worst, up to 90% of species), and yet, the earth is still here.
      
      It is human arrogance that decides that the way the earth has been for the last few thousand years is the way it *should* be, and the way it always will be.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        01 Dec 2008 10:11:57am

        Yes yes, good point and well made. You took my tongue in cheek statement, designed to be sacastic and uncaring, and took it to be what i thought was true...
        
        Humans might die, not the earth, how could I ever be so silly to make an error like that?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• edits:

  01 Dec 2008 9:11:20am

  I am more amd more disillusioned by this government every day.
  But, i guess that is the nature of Australian Politics.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Billy Bob Hall:

    01 Dec 2008 10:11:40am

    What di you expect. There are no Scientists in Cabinet.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• RH:

  01 Dec 2008 9:15:22am

  Just a test...
  Can anyone here, concisely (as in, within about three short sentences), precisely definte what climate change is (for my interest only, not to spark debate as such).
  I'd be very very interested in the responses...

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • jh:

    01 Dec 2008 9:45:26am

    Hi RH
    
    Climate change is natural - there are ice ages and interglacial periods.
    
    Climate can be affected by a bunch of things, like earth's position, tectonic activity, and chemical composition of the atmosphere.
    
    Since the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has roughly doubled - holding more heat from the sun close to the earth than would normally be the case. This apprears to be getting worse as the resultant heating is thawing permafrost in some parts of the world which is releasing millions of tons of methane, which is more powerful as a warming agent than CO2.
    
    The predictions from what is really 'human accelarated climate change' appear to be coming true about 30 years earlier than the most grim models predict - but for Australia they are
    
    1. Less rain where we get very little rain (already dropped over the last 30 years)
    2. Much more rain where we normally get a lot anyway
    3. Radically unstable weather patterns (like snow on the Alps in November)
    
    Climate is so complex, with man made and natural forces, that an International Panel was convened to study some 2500 studies. These models and the studies overwhelmingly point to man made climate change such that the panel said it was 90% likely that the observed changes in our climate and atmosphere are man made. 90% is about as certain as any scientist ever dares to be.
    
    Sceptics raise a number of objections which are discussed scientifically (for once) on the Royal Society's UK website. Well worth a look.
    
    Oh and the planet has not been cooling for 10 years - that's bollocks. Read the data for your self.
    
    Cheers

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Charles:

    01 Dec 2008 9:57:22am

    Try this: "climate change" is a euphemism devised by the US petrol & coal lobby to describe anthropogenic global warming without causing too much alarm in those that don't know much about it.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • R G Hay:

    01 Dec 2008 10:09:02am

    My two bob's worth: climate changes will manifest chiefly as more frequent violent rain/hail, and in some places snow falls, punctuated by longer dry spells, and also more frequent and more violent windstorms.
    In many parts of Australia (and other parts of the world) the longer dry spells and violent windstorms will make bushfires much more difficult to deal with.
    As well as flash flooding there may be destructive storm surges in coastal estuaries and on developed areas near beaches.
    Total snowfalls, and hence snowmelt, will probably be much less in the Australian Alps, with marked effects on flows in the Murray and its southern tributaries.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• don:

  01 Dec 2008 9:15:44am

  Those of us who are a little older and have lived in the bush for most of our lives, have been witnessing dramatic changes in the environment in the last few years. Those global warming/cooling sceptics out there are just kidding themselves. Please Penny Wong, your government was voted in to move forward from the last 15 years of denial that the planet is under threat. No environment no economy. Remember, Australians are at the top of the list in our emmission output. Australians are also at the top of the list in the obesity stats. Surely the facts should be adding up to coordinated policies coming out of Canberra.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Clownfish:

    01 Dec 2008 9:40:39am

    "Australians are also at the top of the list in the obesity stats."
    
    A neat illustration of the problem with climate alarmism.
    
    The "study" that "showed" that Australia was supposedly the most obese nation on earth, was shown to be deeply flawed, and deliberately skewed to the originating organisation touting for government funding.
    
    But by the time this was pointed out, the press releases had gone out, the headlines had been made, and now the public opinion is firmly entrenched that "Australia is the fattest nation on earth".
    
    Similarly with climate change: A few scaremongering headlines, some dubious facts, and the public are indelibly convinced that climate change is a man-made threat of Biblical proportions.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Patch:

      01 Dec 2008 10:12:55am

      What exactly was wrong with the study? I hope you aren't just assuming that if someone says a study is flawed, the study is flawed?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • JC:

    01 Dec 2008 9:53:02am

    And those of us that use the bush for recreational pursuits for vast amounts of the year (and I'm not talking about a walk once a year) have seen the decaying state getting worse and worse thorugh mismanagement and neglect - the lock it up and leave it policies are a shambles. Weed infestations, feral specie numbers increasing, tracks overgrown, inadequate burns, inadequate numbers of management personnel, infrastructure falling apart.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• pseudomys:

  01 Dec 2008 9:15:47am

  This is really disappointing.
  
  Where is our Opposition on this one??

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • sillyfilly:

    01 Dec 2008 10:00:47am

    The Leader of the opposition believes in global warming and climate change, so he's more likely to agree.
    Malcolm Turnbull, 29 March, Lateline:
    "The IPCC report is based on peer-reviewed published science, everything in there is well known to us, we know that there is the possibility or the probability of a hotter and drier future in southern Australia.
    I mean we know about this, this has been published, the CSIRO has been writing about this for years so I'm glad that you think it's a revelation, I'm sorry to say that it isn't, it isn't, there's nothing new in that. "
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Billy Bob Hall:

    01 Dec 2008 10:12:23am

    The opposition is agreeing ! I agree too :-)

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• frankmol:

  01 Dec 2008 9:18:32am

  Perhaps she has listened to the Geology Professsor from Adelaide whose recent radio interview on the ABC exposed the myth of man-affected climate change. We have been hoodwinked by the Greens and other such interested parties, and if we're not careful, we will be paying huge taxes in a futile attempt to reduce crabon dioxide emmissions when there is evidence there has been 25 times the current levels in the past, and that climate change is a natural phenomenon.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • jh:

    01 Dec 2008 9:36:46am

    A geology professor ... like asking a baker to have a look under the bonnet of your gogomobile isn't it?
    
    Does he even know any climatologists??

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • pseudomys:

    01 Dec 2008 9:38:07am

    frankmol
    
    This entry may help you understand the scientific consensus better:
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Young Marto:

      01 Dec 2008 10:21:36am

      Hi frankmol. Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.
      
      And while we are putting our faith in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Trevor:

  01 Dec 2008 9:19:29am

  The version I heard on the radio was that the announcement was going to be made in a couple of weeks.
  
  Sounds fine to me. I'd rather they wait until they're ready instead of rushing to make it at an international forum.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • johnno:

    01 Dec 2008 9:41:47am

    Maybe Rudd and Co are waking up to the fact that Australia is not going to lead the world into action.
    
    Until developing countries announce kerbs on population growth we are going nowhere.
    
    For example with a growth rate of 2% India is adding the equivilent of ONE AUSTRALIA to its population and build form every year.
    
    To say that by Australia taking some token action to reduce green house gases it will save the Barrier Reef and the rest of humanity is purile nonsense.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Cycle Michael:

  01 Dec 2008 9:23:35am

  Does Penny know she has a new job or does she think that she is still a lawyer working for the coal industry union making sure the people she represents remain employed? Per capita we are terrible producers of greenhouse gas but in the overall scheme of things our contribution to total output doesnt really rate. Where we can make a massive d