All pain, no gain

Climate sense

Climate sense from Richard Blandy from the University of South Australia, writing in The Australian today. Even though I do not agree with the necessity to “save the planet” as he puts it, the logic of the government’s climate policy is deeply flawed:

Unilateral action to decarbonise our own economy harms us for no gain in terms of solving the global problem. Enthusiasm for doing our bit to save the planet will surely wane as it becomes clear this is all pain for no gain. Only a watertight international treaty will save the planet. After the fiasco of Copenhagen, such a treaty looks unlikely for a long time. This means the global target of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 2C above pre-industrial levels will not be achieved.

The most sensible climate change policy for Australia in this situation (and for everywhere else, for that matter) is not only to try to put together an international treaty with enough teeth to stop climate change but also to prepare to adapt to a world that will be warmer (wetter? drier? stormier? with higher sea levels?) than at present.

We can do something about adapting to climate change all by ourselves without needing to join in any international treaties.

Whatever happens, we will need to learn how to live with climate change anyway, assuming the projections of the climate change models are correct. This knowledge and the products and services built on it will be much sought after not only by us but by other countries facing the same necessity.

This is what a climate change economy should be built on. (source)

Adaptation not mitigation. It’s obvious. And adaptation needs a strong economy, not one burdened with pointless carbon taxes. Why can the government not grasp this most basic point?

Comments

  1. Richard Blandy says: “we will need to learn how to live with climate change anyway…” Really, Richard? Climate has been changing since way before man evolved on this planet and since man evolved, man has been learning to live with climate change. Why, just in the last 1000 odd years, man has learnt to go from the medieval warm period, warming than today, to the little ice age, when they had fairs on the frozen Thames in London and the gradual warming since then.

    Richard, perhaps you can learn from the next generation. Here is a letter from a 17 year old country girl who is worried about the damage the carbon dioxide tax will have on her and her future children.

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/03/dear-ms-gillard-from-17-year-old.html

  2. rukidding says:

    “we will need to learn how to live with climate change anyway”.Yes if what Solomon et al say it is to late already.Then again if you believe Segalstad there is nothing to worry about as CO2 does not build up in the atmosphere.

    You would think buy now they would know the RT( residence time)of CO2 in the atmosphere a bit more accurately than somewhere between 5 and 500 years

  3. Why do we as humans think we can control ‘the Earth’? Regardless of what humans will do, or not do, the Earth will continue to shape us, as it has for the past 40,000 years since man began walking on Earth.

    The Earth is over 4.5 billion years old and has been evolving since it’s existence. If the time humans have been on Earth were compared to the age of the Earth, on a 24 hour clock, then we would appear 4 seconds before midnight. We are only here by a freak of nature and it just goes to show how insignificant is the human race.

    As has been demonstrated in the latest natural disaster in Japan – humans have a very tentative future on Earth. We can build tsunami break-walls or earthquake proofing of buildings … but in the end, mother nature will always win.

    The fact of the matter is, humans may not be destined to survive on Earth anymore than the dinosaurs were. Earth and ‘mother nature’ are much bigger than the human race will ever be. If humans became extinct, most of our buildings and infrastructure would have disappeared in 20,000 years – the blink of an eye – in Earth terms.

    And now we get to the ridiculous part. As insignificant as the human race is, in terms of time on this planet, a Government wants to introduce a tax on its people so it can change the Earth and control mother nature!

%d bloggers like this: