rss
55

Abbott’s climate mantra sends delegates loopy in Warsaw

Print Friendly

Australia has come under renewed attack at the Warsaw climate change negotiations, accused of bringing a “hard-line ideological agenda” to the talks and of “killing” investment in low-carbon technologies.

The public criticism came from delegates from developing countries and Europe, and from economists and environmental groups, and the level of despair about Australia’s unrelenting mantra – “no more money, no more ambition” – reached new heights as the talks moved into the high level, ministerial segment.

Delegates and negotiators remain stunned by Australia’s intransigence, and the contrast with its recent constructive involvement in climate change negotiations – up until the election of the Tony Abbott government in early September.

Australia is seen playing a blocking role in numerous points of negotiations – including but not exclusively climate finance, loss and damage, and ambition – all of which are important to enable the talks to move forward and set the path to  agreement in Paris in 2015.

They accuse Australia of taking the same text and same script – as though it were on a loop – into various negotiating bodies. Some commented that the team on the ground was struggling to say anything else because there was a lack of guidance from Canberra on how to move forward with negotiations. And, of course, there is no minister attending. The goal of the Australian delegation was described as being consistent and vague, or consistently vague.

The high level ministerial section began in the afternoon on Tuesday. Usually such speeches are couched in diplomatic terms and direct attacks on individual countries are extremely rare in this forum, but the influential  G77 (developing countries) and China bloc singled out Australia and Canada for their refusal to show increased ambition on emissions reduction targets.

Fiji’s Jiko Fatafehi Luveni, speaking on behalf of the G77 and China, said Australia and Canada’s were not willing to allow the talks to move forward. “This is highly disappointing and regrettably inadequate,” she said.

RenewEconomy had earlier asked EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard about Australia’s role at the Warsaw negotiations. “Which role?” she joked.

Hedegaard said it was not yet clear whether Australia’s domestic policy stance would seep through to the ministerial section of the talks, which will be managed by diplomat Justin Lee in the absence of a bonafide Australian minister. But the signs were not good.

“I was there at the COP (in Bali, 1997) where Australia was applauded for joining the Kyoto Protocol, so in that sense it is regrettable that – that at a time when we need so many countries to move forward – that we see steps backwards.”

Lord Nicholas Stern, eminent economist and head of the Grantham Research Institute, also targeted Australia, along with other countries, for making changes in climate and clean energy policies that he said were killing investment.

“Wherever you look, government-induced policy risk is the biggest deterrent to investment,” Stern said at a side event, to a mostly Australian audience, including the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, and forestry representatives.

“What we have seen in Europe and in Australia has been government-induced policy risk. It kills investment.”

But the strongest criticism – at least on the public record – came from environmental groups. WWF accused Australia of taking a confrontational approach to the talks.

“Australia has taken an extremely hard line on climate finance, and adopted a confrontational and ideological tone in their comments,” WWF energy expert Mark Lutes said, adding that the issue over climate finance is threatening to cause the negotiations to lose momentum and even stall. He said the “backtracking” of Australia and Japan on emission reduction targets “is casting a pall on negotiations.”

The Green Climate Fund itself also rejected Australian criticisms, particularly Abbott’s recent comments that such a fund was equivalent to “socialism masking as environmentalism” and welfare (a position it has adopted to Australia’s own Clean Energy Finance Corporation).

Manfred Konukiewitz, a German who is co-chair of the of GCF, said he was surprised by Abbott’s comments.

“It is a surprising comment, when you know that you have governments on our board like the UK,  Germany and the US, and many others who would not come near anything that looks like socialism.”

He said all these countries had similar institutions in their own countries (all have equivalents to the CEFC and GCF) which they used to mobilise private finance. “This is an element of smart investment that has nothing to do with welfare,” he said.

Elsewhere, speakers criticised countries that were not just refusing finance, but were not coming forward with increased ambition, or were stalling by claiming that natural disasters were not caused by climate change. Australia ticks all three boxes.

UN secretary-general Ban ki-Moon said the issue of climate finance was critical, and called specifically on the developed world, and members of the G20 and OECD (Australia is a member of both) to “lead by example”. And, in what could have been a slight against Australia, he said these countries needed to “show political leadership and give political direction to negotiators.”

The UN Environment Program today released a report that said African countries could face adaptation costs of $350 billion a year by 2070 should the 2°C target be significantly exceeded. The cost would be around $US150 billion lower per year if the target was to be met.

Ban is holding a leaders summit in New York next September, and he made it clear that he expects leaders to come with increased ambition – even though Australia has said it will not make any decisions until 2015. “We don’t have much time to waste, or to lose,” he said. “It’s important that member states follow scientific recommendations. The level of ambition is inadequate. “

In another interesting contrast, Juan Jose Guerra Abud, the minister of Environment and Natural Resources in Mexico, speaking on behalf  of the Environmental Integrity Group, said some countries were “regrettably …. waiting for more disasters to occur before acting.” But he said “nature is beginning to call in our debts.”

Mexico, he said, accounted for around 1.4 per cent of global emissions, about the same as Australia. But Mexico was doing “our bit so we have moral standing to call on other countries to shoulder their commitment. “

But Abbott did get one vocal supporter at these talks – from  prominent climate denialist group, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Spokesman Mark Morano said described coal as the “moral choice” for countries, particularly in the developing world. “Viva Australia – let’s hope the world follows Australia’s model.” One notable member of his audience, apparently, was Tim Wilson, the climate change analyst at Abbott’s favourite think-tank, the Institute of Public Affairs.  

Share this:

  • Keith

    The rest of the world is being too polite and respectful. Australia, Canada & Poland need to be publicly isolated and shamed. There is too much at stake for the whole world to be cowed by these vandals.

    • sean

      If the US gave a shit there would be sanctions….

    • MrMauricio

      and bullies!!!!

    • Peter Castaldo

      They should kick those three countries out of the negotiations

      • Robert Holmes

        I agree, Australia should leave these waste of time ‘negotiations’ as there is no need to cut CO2 at all.

    • lucyjunior

      I believe with the rise of selfishness and nationalism (encouraged by present Govt) it would not help by publicly shaming and isolating Australia. Abbott would use it to his advantage.

      We need financial imposts to steer the course – as said below by Robert Johnston.

      • Keith

        Hi Lucyjunior,
        I guess I’m advocating that there is no place for spoiling tactics when the issues are so important. So there needs to be push back on all fronts.

        At the moment Australia, Canada, Poland get away with it because they have no shame; they are successfully stopping actions that need to happen.

        I agree about financial imposts, but I also think bullies need to be stood up to. Surprisingly bullies often backoff when they are called bullies. To show the true alignment of concern about climate change and need for action just might have an impact.

        The situation is a little like what has happened in Australia when discussing climate change. A tiny % of dissenters have managed to get equal time in debates etc and this has confused the public in general as they think that there is a debate about climate change … there isn’t actually, the world has moved on from debating climate change and except for Australia, Canada, Poland (parts of the US) the discussion is how action should be taken.

        International meetings like that happening in Warsaw shouldn’t tolerate active sabotage. Time to stop being “nice” as the other side(s) aren’t civilised.

        • Robert Holmes

          I do not know just what planet you people are living on, but here on Earth, the CO2 alarm is dead and we here in Australia are going to bury it. There is no way any so-called ‘action’ will be taken at the COP gabfests or anywhere else. The reason is that the CO2 hypothesis (if it ever was one) has been disproven. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that our CO2 will ever cause any kind of climate disaster; the artificially-generated CO2 hysteria is complete fiction from start to end. CO2 increases has provided net benefits to us and the ecosystem and will for the rest of the century. In the last 17 years (22 years if we ignore Pinatubo) there has been no global warming despite us emitting 30% of all the supposedly ‘powerful’ greenhouse gas CO2 that we have in history.
          Suggest you get onto another band-wagon, this one is done.

          • Keith

            Robert,
            I presume you don’t read so where do you get your certainty about “lack of” global warming? I guess facts are not something you engage with.
            Tell the crustaceans in the oceans whose shells are being eroded by the acidifying water that CO2 is a myth. Unfortunately these organisms are a key link in the food chain so fish as a food supply are under threat.
            I presume all weather bureaus around the world are part of a conspiracy???
            By all means live in a delusional universe, but good luck trying to convince rational people that black is white.

          • Robert Holmes

            I suppose most of your info comes
            from S.S.

            So; instead of going to NASA or
            National Hurricane Centre or UAH MSU or RSS MSU or NOAA or HadCRUT or NCDC or
            ENVISAT or Jason 1 &2 or MET or ARGO or IERRSS or NSIDC or Cryosphere Today
            (UIUC) or CDIAC or any other proper sources of information, you go to the blog
            site Skeptical Science run by an unemployed cartoonist in his spare time, from
            his own home in a Brisbane suburb?

            Good Choice.

    • Robert Holmes

      Keith, You live in a world of fear, hysteria and invented pseudo-science. Learn the truth, it will free you from this cult.

      • Keith

        So 97% of the experts who sift through data and reach conclusions don’t reflect the truth?

        Sadly you reflect a return to antagonism to evidence-based decision making…. back to the dark ages. Unfortunately this means that decisions get made on the basis of an agenda set by the dark forces …. bad for all of us (you included).

        I implore you to look at the facts and see how dangerous the path we are on is.

        • Robert Holmes

          The 97% consensus claim is pure fiction;

          Even if it were true, science does not and has never worked by ‘consensus’.

          “I implore you to look at the facts and see how dangerous the path we are on is.”

          See; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ymlD6UNEw

          You live now in a world dominated by fear, hysteria and fiction. You need help to escape from the darkness of this fraudulent cult. Get help now.

          • Keith

            Robert,
            Thank you for the humour from the three barking mad “you tube” links.
            You gotta be kidding …. but if you aren’t, then I’m sorry that you have such a limited capacity to explore what is really happening in the world currently.
            You share a world view with a tiny number of people (essentially no intellectuals who evaluate stuff critically) who have views that they desperately cling to in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

          • Robert Holmes

            So am I right in assuming when you say; “..overwhelming evidence to the contrary”.
            That you mean that there is; ‘Scientific evidence that supports the idea that our CO2 emissions will cause dangerous climate change’ (or global warming)?
            If so, where is this evidence, and why hasn’t it been shown to the public?

          • Keith

            Robert,

            You are a fine comedian.

            Take an issue of any scientific journal that covers weather/climate/global warming and you’ll see many scientific reports covering everything from the role of CO2 in atmospheric & ocean warming, to ocean acidification etc etc. There are hundreds of such journals publishing a huge body of work.

            Or try almost any issue of the world’s pre-eminent scientific journals (eg Nature, Science) and you’ll read major articles on the topic.

            Stop looking at “you tube” clips that have been watched by 100 people. Your group don’t read and are amazingly ignorant of the world they live on.

            The alternative is that you don’t live on planet earth.

            … and by the way it is not …”CO2 emissions WILL CAUSE dangerous climate change” … the dangerous climate change is already here.

          • Robert Holmes

            “Take an issue of any scientific journal that covers weather/climate/global warming and you’ll see many scientific reports covering everything from the role of CO2 in atmospheric & ocean warming, to ocean acidification etc etc. There are hundreds of such journals publishing a huge body of work.”

            Yes, there are many papers pushing the CAGW fraud, But I still have to ask again; ‘Where is the scientific evidence that supports the idea that our CO2 emissions will cause or are causing dangerous climate change’ (or global warming)?

            I know you will not be able to point to any, since there is none.

          • Keith

            Robert,
            I am afraid I can’t help you if you are not prepared to use your brain when you read stuff.

            I take offense to your slandering of honest, hard working scientists who diligently work to discover the truth. You should be ashamed of using fraud allegations in relation to these citizens.

            The evidence is abundant and overwhelming and it is accepted by the learned academies of all countries and the Governments of most (unfortunately not Australia) countries.

          • Robert Holmes

            “…honest, hard working scientists who diligently work to discover the truth.”

            Your characterization of these fraudsters is so funny. Hansen is such a loony he thinks that our CO2 will cause the oceans to ‘boil away’.

            What will not be so funny to you is when the worst of these people are jailed for their fraud; and I personally hope it will be for a very long time. Only Hansen should escape jail; he is obviously insane and needs to be confined in a padded room.

            Your claim that “..evidence is abundant and overwhelming” is complete drivel; just where is all this so-called evidence, that we are asked to give up our freedoms and change our whole future for?

          • Keith

            Robert,

            You are a disgrace calling a whole profession a fraud.

            Demonising honest hard working professionals may make you feel superior, but it doesn’t in any way change the fact that these scientists have alerted the world to an increasingly dangerous future for more than 30 years.

            They are heroes who have turned the other cheek while constantly being smeared by people like yourself.

            Our children will suffer because of the lies and misinformation that you propagate. Shame on you.

            Fortunately the momentum for getting off fossil fuels is becoming unstoppable, so there is a chance that we will avert catastrophe. However, there are and will be severe consequences from releasing so much CO2.

          • Robert Holmes

            I am still waiting for ANY evidence at all that our CO2 will cause any kind of a climate disaster.

            One can only assume from your lack of a response on this is that there is none. The whole CO2 fad therefore is fraudulent pseudo-scientific clap-trap.

            These ‘heros’ of yours have fooled millions of the poor in the west into parting with their hard-earned money, and giving it to to the rich like Al Gore.

            I am a scientist and engineer – a specialist in GHG; my job is to estimate and mitigating fugitive GHG emissions from underground coal mines. I know about gasses. CO2 is a harmless gas with no known bad effects. To call it ‘pollution’ has to be the biggest fraud in history.

            Folk like you who really know nothing about the science of climate change are just useful fools for the climate industry scam.

            This scam is costing millions of lives right now in the third world; that is what concerns me, not some imaginary computer-modeled effect hundreds of years in the future.

            Your statement “Our children will suffer because of the lies and misinformation that you propagate”. Is something I could say to you; you have been fooled by these activist-scientists and you are completely wrong.

          • Keith

            Robert,
            Try the recent Blue Mountains bushfires, typhoon Haiyan and the upcoming heatwave moving across Australia. In your “ignore the facts world” you’ll make up something to ignore these climate exacerbated events, but the people suffering them “get it”.

            You are not the only technical expert on the planet (I suspect my scientific street cred is substantially bigger than yours), but you are one of a vanishingly small group of people with technical skills who live in denial.

  • Lifeboatman

    As far as Climate Changes is concerned, the Australian People appear to have put the Loony Bin in the driving seat

  • Andrew Tovey

    I wonder if there will come a time where renegade nations are greeted with economic sanctions by a largely aligned international community. Not yet, but perhaps sooner than we might imagine. We need a coalition of the willing here and if Australia won’t play ball then we need to be side-lined and not allowed to ruin things for everyone else.

  • Robert Johnston

    Proposal: Those countries that are upset about Abbott’s position should impose a tax on fossil fuel imports into their country from Australia. I think it will take days not weeks or months for Abbott to come to the discussion table in a different mindset, we have a moral obligation to address carbon pollution given our massive contribution to it and profit from exporting fossil fuels.

    • Robert Holmes

      You are an idiot.
      We Australians will never bow to your socialist dreams no matter what you try to do.
      Good luck in your fairy land (where its still warming).

      • Jolietjake

        Spoken like a true Aussie.
        Try speaking only for yourself instead.
        I hope you are enjoying the current heat wave, at the end of a year that smashed many temperature records in Australia.

  • picoallen

    Climate vulnerable developing countries should begin forums on planning mass migrations to countries such as Australia as a response to climate disasters. That’ll get the politicians thinking.

  • Rob Campbell

    Wake Up Tony, and see the future.
    Yes, you can trust a Labor government to run up debt at a frantic pace and Yes Australia did vote for a change of government to tidy things up. But Tony, we are becoming an embarrassment on the world stage, if not through conservatism, through belligerence. Our states are starting to see the writing on the wall with regard to the increased use of renewables, and are conceding, if only at a slow rate, what inevitably will be the future. Many of these are Liberal governed states. There are many, many things your government can do to reign in-debt, renewables is not a cost but an investment. Most of us saw “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore when it came out, I, like others thought it was a bit too extreme to be taken literally, now I see it IS the inconvenient truth. If there was a city sized meteor heading towards earth and we knew it was coming, would we not do everything in our power to stop it? This is where Australia has the opportunity to do the other thing we do well besides exporting Coal and Iron ore, We have great minds and leadership skills, sought throughout the world, We need to offer these skills up to encourage the world and help lead an assault on this “meteor” that is coming towards us. I’d prefer to leave my grand kids with a tax burden than an uninhabitable planet! Your right in assuming that if Australia does nothing, it won’t make a difference to the big picture (in terms of carbon reduction). But there is a much, much bigger issue here, it’s my pride in my country and my sense of what is right and wrong. I spend a week a month in China, the pollution is shocking but still less per capita than us. China will take substantive measures to deal with their emissions, if only to improve the quality of life for their citizens, having used their manufacturing revolution to do the same. China can do this, why? Because they can make ten year plans and don’t rely on popularity to win government, only to sustain order in what is a massive population. I for one will be at Asia’s largest solar exhibition for the second year in 2014 offering Australian minds and leadership in the challenges they face. Please don’t make our reputation worthless by carrying on the way you are. Get some good advice, tell the whole story and see how Australia can make money by leading the world in renewables, I promise it won’t cost nearly as much now as the remedy will cost in the future, and speaking of belligerence, when our indonesian neighbours can no longer live in their country, best we have the opportunity to invite them – so be nice.

    • coomadoug

      Hey Rob

      You don’t have to be a genius to know these things you have written here. Why cant the government focus on the cleanup job at hand and we all get rich leading the charge? Like you say, this is opportunity rather then doomsday if we choose.

      Thanks for your comments here and please keep talking and thinking this way and sharing your views.

      If you have not seen it, I urge you to put an hour aside to view the documentary called “The Plan”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-ZgVzTTda0

      Thanks again and soldier on

    • coomadoug

      Rob

      Please consider the fact that “The Plan” was made in 2010. Things have gone well in many aspects outlined in that documentary. But there is a segment in there around the 35 min mark, that makes us see how much change will have to come.

      If we look at it from that 2010 position, then re consider the situation and the new technologies that are emerging in ways not appreciated just three years ago, I think there is room for optimism.

      What a bonanza and boom for this country if we had a leadership team, on both sides of politics, truly informed, unbiased and optimistic. Our leaders have to get educated about this science.

      They told us that the Vietnam war was a top idea for 10 years.

    • Diego Matter

      Hi Rob

      You wrote: “(Tony Abbott), You’re right in assuming that if Australia does nothing, it won’t make a difference to the big picture (in terms of carbon reduction).”

      I think that this statement is wrong on so many levels. If Australia’s stance halts negotiations this will delay a treaty to stop CO2 emissions, and this in turn will bite Australia in the butt because it has so much Infrastructure on the coast.

      Rising sea levels, which I think will be much higher than expected by the IPCC because of feedback loops not incorporated in the models, will together with intensified storms damage the coast line. The problem of Sandy and Hayan was not only the storm, but the storm surge helped by rising sea levels.

      he sea is now rising over 3mm a year!

      So Tony, keep that in mind for the next desas

      • Rob Campbell

        You may have missed my point, Australia ‘going it alone’ won’t make a difference, we can do more to aid the overall effort by leading, of course that means doing our bit but the rest of the world needs to as well otherwise our efforts are moot

        • Diego Matter

          Sorry Rob, I did not miss your point. What ‘going it alone’ usually means is trying to delay action. Saying we are not the bad boys, the others are. But at the same time Australians have the highest CO2 emissions per capita. Imagine India and China had the same per capita!

          Australia is now one of the last countries that doesn’t get it when it comes to climate change. No wonder when a global warming denialist is at work. The Liberal Party tries hard to make us believe that they are pro global warming, but in reality the give a shisch. All lies and tacticts to delay and slash the renewable future that knocks on the door anyway and to protect the coal industry.

          It is very bad for the future of Australia to take that stance because the day will come where the world will say that fossil fuels have to stay in the ground. What other opportunity will Australia then have to avert the worst?

          • Robert Holmes

            “Australians have the highest CO2 emissions per capita.”
            (Diego Matter)
            More fiction. Don’t you ever research anything before you state it? Or facts really do not matter to you if you are scared stiff? Since you love ‘renewables’ like wind and solar so much, tell me, just how much in CO2 emissions have their use averted? I’ll tell you; NONE.

          • Diego Matter

            I apologise Robert Holmes
            for my incorrect information. Australia does not have the highest per capita emissions.

            But Australi hast the second highest CO2 emissions per capita in the OECD List.

            Please read the following article in The Guardian for yourself:
            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/carbon-emissions-australias-growth-puts-it-near-top-of-oecd-rankings

            But the rank of Australia in the list is not the point. Important is the fact that 20t per capita per year is a very high value when you consider that by 2050 – if we want to save our climate – the per CO2 emission should only be at 1.5 tonnes per capita.

            You’ll find more information in this article:
            http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/my-carbon-footprint-in-2012

          • Robert Holmes

            I have nothing against you are and you are entitled to your opinion.

            However, you are not entitled to your own facts; make sure you check these before misleading others.

            The way that you think ‘the Guardian’ or the ‘IPCC’ are some sort of believable authority on climate change, and that you think Australia’s emissions are high, says much more about your political leanings than the truth.

            Although theory tells us that an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration should increase the global temperatures, this has not yet been proven or quantified. All we know for sure is that the climate sensitivity is very low, and that this predicted warming is very likely to be beneficial.

            Your post also reveals a complete lack of understanding of the climate system, the real sources and causes of CO2 emissions and the carbon cycle.

            Firstly you concentrate on a country whose anthropogenic emissions are just 1.5% of the total, as if this mere 1.5% were important. (An amount that China emits in little over a fortnight) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_V5alLmoBs

            Second you totally ignore the carbon cycle, which shows that Australia’s net CO2 emissions are actually negative; so, far from being “second highest CO2 emissions per capita” Australia as a whole is in fact a strong CO2 sink.

            My advice would be to stay off alarmist blogs, ignore the political IPCC and start to look at the real data and the real science in the field of climate.

          • Diego Matter

            Robert Holmes, you write,
            “I have nothing against you are and you are entitled to your opinion.
            However, you are not entitled to your own facts; make sure you check these before misleading others.”

            Thank you for that statement. I’m pleased that we can still discuss like adults. But please tell me where I produced my own facts to mislead others. I’ve only presented data from an OECD report (mentioned in the guardian article that you hopefully have read), and data from the IPCC.

            Further you answer:
            “Firstly you concentrate on a country (Australia) whose anthropogenic emissions are just 1.5% of the total, as if this mere 1.5% were important. (An amount that China emits in little over a fortnight)”

            Why shouldn’t they with a population 60 times bigger!
            Population China 1,351.00 Million (2012)
            Population Australia 22.68 Million (2012)

            But they still emit only 19.5 times more CO2 than Australia
            CO2 Emissons China 9700 Million (2011)
            CO2 Emissons Australia 495 Million (2011)

            That’s another way of looking at the “facts” in the video you linked to your answer. But I agree, China is still a huge influence in CO2 emissions. We should stop buying from them.

            You also write:
            “Second you totally ignore the carbon cycle, which shows that Australia’s net CO2 emissions are actually negative; so, far from being “second highest CO2 emissions per capita” Australia as a whole is in fact a strong CO2 sink.”

            Wow, I really would like to see a reference showing me that this is true. That fact would be amazing. Please provide me with a reference to this information. Otherwise I can’t accept this as a fact.

            Therefore:
            My advice for you would be to stay off denier blogs, ignore the Abbott Government and start to look at the real data and the real science in the field of climate by thoroughly reading the findings of the IPPC in their fifth report http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.Uux19_l_sfU and other science institutions all over the world.

          • Robert Holmes

            Its not a surprise to me how misinformed you are about the science of climate change, because there is simply so much of it being shoveled out by the UN, the media, western governments and all the very well (taxpayer) funded NGO’s.

            You clearly did not watch my video; I have 134 of them up on You-tube, which is my little contribution to getting the truth out there into the public arena. If you were to spend half an hour watching five or six of them you would learn more about the science of climate change that you have ever learned from your sources, which seem to be the UN’s politicized science from the IPCC, left wing newspapers and alarmist blogs.

            I looked at the shrink your footprint website. It is a complete waste of time for anyone to worry about such a thing as their ‘footprint’. The idea that we can control the global temperature by reducing our CO2 emissions (and hence the weather) is pure nonsense and anyone really thinking this has been fooled or brainwashed. For a start, how would you even know that the cuts you had made have cut the global temperatures? The climate sensitivity of CO2 is not known, and has never been quantified! All we know for certain, is that it is very low and most studies show that any effects of this slight warming (up to a climate sensitivity of 2.5c) will be beneficial.

            The new government here will soon scrap the Green’s insane $9 billion carbon tax hit on the poor of this country; and I hope the $12 billion RET as well. These two ‘green’ ideas alone are costing each family $2,500 per year, causing unemployment and sending millions into poverty.

            This is from your Guardian website; “The last 18 months have shown that the carbon price and the renewable energy target [RET] have helped decrease emissions from the electricity sector”.
            They have no shame at all in claiming this tripe; which is a complete travesty of the truth.

            Yes, emissions have been cut; but they failed to explain how or why.
            1) Factories and aluminium works closed down because of the much higher cost of electricity, throwing thousands out of work.

          • Robert Holmes

            “Australia as a whole is in fact a strong CO2 sink”.

            GOSAT, Japan’s GHG monitoring satellite has shown that most CO2 and CH4 emissions come from developing countries, (south America, central Africa, developing parts of Asia) and are absorbed in developed countries like the USA and Australia; http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/10/20091030_ibuki_e.html

            NOAA’s ‘Carbon Tracker’ system confirms this; http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/documentation/longterm_flux1x1_glb_ltm.png

      • Robert Holmes

        “The sea level is now rising over 3mm a year!”
        Where are you getting this stuff.
        Its alarmist fiction. There is no danger from our CO2 or from sea levels.

        • Diego Matter

          These are IPCCs fifth report numbers of the past (meaning measured sea level rise) . So this is not a prediction or model. That’s what we already see today. Go to IPCC.CH to read the report. The 3mm data is under the sea level chapter.

          Therefore I think there’s a reason danger from sea level rise and global warming.

          • Robert Holmes

            The 3+mm per year is fiction just like much of the CAGW story.
            Even if it were true this would be no reason for alarm.
            The real eustatic sea level rise is around 1.5mm per year and slowing; there is every indication that the rise will soon reverse and sea levels will start to fall. eustatic sea level rise itself does not mean much anyway, what matters is local sea level rise, for example, it is 0.7mm along most of Australia’s east coast. Learn something about this subject before speaking on it next time.

    • Robert Holmes

      You are clearly an idiot and if you don’t like Abbott I suggest you go to where your opinion on the claimate change fraud is more welcome; maybe the socialist EU?

      • Rob Campbell

        N.R.D.

  • Chris Fraser

    I’m a bit embarrassed by the level of representation Australia has shown at Warsaw. Minister Hunt must have anticipated how the world would react. He needed to stay away from the insults to boost his self-esteem. Such well deserved comments we, as a collective of voters, are responsible for.
    I rather like the idea of a coal apartheid. The world knows that the new government’s ‘mandate’ is to pollute as much as the market will take. So i think for starters we might hope that Japan, even with all its nuclear trouble, can somehow be convinced that it doesn’t want our ’emissions-not paid-for’ coal. That should start the ball rolling nicely.

    • Chris Fraser

      On a small matter. The COP at Bali was 2007. Giles is possibly thinking of Kyoto 1997 where, once again Australia embarrassed itself. Deja Vu !

  • Claire

    I think MLK had a premonition of Australia when he said “nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignornance or willing stupidity.”

    • Claire

      And I would very much welcome an international sanction.

      • Robert Holmes

        For what?
        Just for wanting evidence-based science?
        Do you know there is no evidence whatsoever that our CO2 will cause any kind of a climate problem; the whole idea is preposterous.

  • lucyjunior

    For non-Australians who are baffled at this… Over the last few years Australians have been groomed to think climate change was a non-issue. We have had a traveling circus of celebrity deniers, denier politicians, coal promoters and anti-climate action media. The progressive climate-conscious Labor party was disrupted by disunity and vicious Murdoch press attacks.

    Now the rest of us are aghast with what we are stuck with.

    • Motorshack

      “Baffled” is perhaps too weak a word. Here in the U.S. we have had our fling with the Tea Party and the corporate goons who fund them, but the latest polling shows the Tea Party is dropping rather abruptly in popularity. In contrast, reading the news from Australia leaves one with the impression that the majority of Australians feel really cheated in life, despite having one of the highest standards of living in the world. So, you vote in a guy who makes Ted Cruz look almost rational. I daresay that in the long run it will be a case of the punishment fitting the crime only too well, which is to say the voters will likely get exactly what they asked for. In short, good luck.

    • Robert Holmes

      Lucy, you are living in a world of alarm, fear and hysteria. There is no danger from our CO2 emissions the whole idea is silly. Learn something about the science.

  • Robert Holmes

    Dear alarmists, find another way to make a living because the CAGW fraud is finished, the hysteria is over, the pseudo-science is disproven and dead; now we Australians are going to bury it.

    • Diego Matter

      In your future perhaps.

      People like you make me try harder to get the information out there. Unfortunately facts won’t change your mind.

      Enough said.