The CPRS will not save us
When Kevin Rudd says “it is now time to act”, he is not himself acting. When he says “failing to act today is to roll the dice on our children’s future”, he is throwing them down the chute and calling for lucky 7. This is PR. This is spin. This is not to be believed.
5% by 2020 is not “ambitious”. It’s not even close. We’re too late for 450ppm. This isn’t a problem we can softly softly approach. We’re already past the 350ppm limit our planet can maintain. We’re fat and about to have a heart attack. This isn’t the time ease into a healthy lifestyle. Give up the burgers, get to the gym – your only other choice is death.
I’m a big believer in markets, but a market can’t work if you’re monkeying about with it. There’s a time and place for subsidies, but propping up a dying industry is not one of them. Giving the most compensation to the biggest polluters is bullshit. It undermines the very goal the CPRS is supposed to achieve. There is no economic incentive to change if the government is offsetting your costs. The market doesn’t even cover one of the biggest polluters in the country – agriculture. Yes, there are complications in measuring emissions from farms, but the idea that it’s not possible is frankly an outright lie. A market so obstructed and distorted cannot function effectively.
Taking into account voluntary action for households is a token gesture. The direct measurable impact households can make is important psychologically, but in the scheme of things neglible. The real gains to be made – primarily dietary changes and reduced consumption – will not and should not be covered by an emissions trading scheme1. Don’t think for a second GreenPower absolves your responsibility to our planet.
It all comes down to risk.
If science is wrong and we do something, the precious “economy” slows a little as we move to renewables we’re going to need anyway2.
If science is right (current consensus) and we do nothing: Big capital-T Trouble.
Skepticism is important, but I’m not a betting man. And I’m not stupid. I’m not going to gamble on something this important. Keep asking questions, keep demanding proof, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that we must act now. Real action, not KRudd-jumping-up-and-down-not-going-anywhere action.
What can you do? Start making some noise. Tweet about it, blog about it, write your local paper. Tell your friends, tell your family, tell the person you meet on the train. Get angry. The government’s job is to look after us. It’s time to demand they stop posturing and start doing their job. The Walk Against Warming is coming up on the 12th December. Get off your couch and come show them – and those complicit on the sideline – that we’ve had enough. The future is not to be gambled with.
Supplementary
- Government media release on CPRS compromises
- Greens call CPRS actively harmful
- AYCC also unhappy
- 350ppm science
- Walk Against Warming
1 Though it’d be neat to get some credits for being vegan…
2 Even if all the climate change research is bollocks, “renewables” will rear it’s head again in a few years anyways. Exponential growth does not play well with finite resources.
November 25, 2009 at 3:21 PM
You've just spoiled it for me. I used to enjoy reading your blog entries on coding but using your platform as a blogger to push global warming issues, you've just lost my interest. You should stick to the topic at hand and not using this website as a political platform for controversial issues not related to software development
PS Have you read the recent news about IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) being exposed? These are the people you put your faith in as 'scientists'?
I quote:
"These emails are very clear in several things. The scientists were deliberately changing, manipulating and deleting data. They were delivering data to computer modelers that were designed to give specific results, and were determined ahead of time. They were colluding to delete emails that were under Freedom Of Information Act laws in the UK, and were deliberately adding and removing data to make it appear that Global Warming was continuing, despite blatantly obvious data, temperature measurements, as well as worldwide growing ice sheets in order to continue the myth."
December 06, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I write about what interests me. Recently that has included topics other than code. Why should I only write about software development? You'll see many of my oldest posts are about other topics. I encourage you to subscribe to my code feed if you're not interested in non-tech writing: http://rhnh.net/code.atom
As for the PS, I stand by my comment of managing risk. Stripping away the politics, we would still need solid research in sufficient numbers published by expert skeptics to justify non-action, which to my knowledge does not exist. If the big names are wrong, it shouldn't be hard to refute their argument.