The battle over climate change continues

21 comments on “The battle over climate change continues ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   11 February 2016 at 3:49 pm

   Well, since nations are now signing up to the likes of TPP and TTIP, there’s no point in wasting money on any climate science that might have informed government policy or legislation.

   In the new world that’s kinda dawning, corporations will use ISDS to claim huge sums in compensation should any CC related policy or legislation impact on their potential future profits. Many governments will now choose to not even formulate or propose any such policies or legislation. I’m saying that while acknowledging that governments weren’t exactly acting on the information given to them by CC scientists anyway.

   Thing is, now they’re off the hook. Happy days, aye?
   • mickysavage 1.1

     11 February 2016 at 4:04 pm

     Yep taking climate change out of drafts of the treaty shows the extreme cynicism at play.
     • Bill 1.1.1

       11 February 2016 at 6:04 pm

       Not to mention that there is no mention of fossil fuels in the Paris doc…

       No mention of dealing with shipping and aviation sectors (emissions equivalent to UK + Germany apparently…and growing)

       No mention of the fact that the entire doc is predicated on tech that doesn’t currently exist.

       No mention that the most popular sequestration technique (biomass) would involve an area up to x3 the size of the Indian subcontinent being planted with various grasses, trees etc and harvested, transported and sunk in geological formations every. single. fucking. year…

       The cynic in me says that our glorious leaders already know they have no plan for saving millions who currently live in huge cities and so are willing to ride out the ride. Possibly easier for them than for some of course 😉
   • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2

     11 February 2016 at 4:09 pm

     The insurance industry’s response will be interesting.

     For example, the Insurer Climate Risk
     Disclosure Survey Report & Scorecard (pdf). Quite apart from the reputational damage, Australian businesses can probably look forward to increased premiums in the near future.

     Can anyone say “competitive advantage”?

     Mit der dummheit kämpfen götter selbst vergebens.
     • Tiro 1.2.1

       12 February 2016 at 12:01 am

       +100
2. B 2

   11 February 2016 at 4:16 pm

   Again, establishment politics takes the focus away from actual climate change and creates controversy. Lets hope Sanders makes it into office without having a ‘heart attack’ and the rest of the world follows.

   Thanks for the post – meanwhile on stuff, the main story is about a mercedes crashing into a lambo. The insanity is real!
3. JonL 3

   11 February 2016 at 5:39 pm

   CSIRO boss, Larry Marshall, who believes in water divining, is a venture capitalist who ran a $100m company into the ground and is now being sued by irate investors, who “said the reaction to his planned cuts to climate science in the organisation is more like religion than science, and compared climate science with the oil lobby in the 1970s.”
   Aaaaaah, but he is a physicist….as if that exonerates all..
   Another plant by the “back to the 19th century” brigade in charge of Australia!
   Jesus wept!
4. alwyn 4

   11 February 2016 at 5:56 pm

   I understand you are a lawyer Micky.
   Can you briefly explain what the jurisdictional issue is?
   Is it just that he has to wait until court action is complete or is it that he has no Constitutional right to over-rule the State Governments?
   The latter case would be serious.
   However even if he put in his rules via executive powers couldn’t a new President just scrap them if he was of that mind this time next year?
   • mickysavage 4.1

     11 February 2016 at 6:02 pm

     I don’t know enough about American law to comment properly Alwyn. The reports suggest that the opponents were saying that Obama exceeded his powers and was acting ultra vires. The law was originally passed to deal with air quality standards and pollution so the use of the law is potentially contentious. There is some more detail at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html?_r=0
     • alwyn 4.1.1

       11 February 2016 at 6:11 pm

       Thank you. It does rather look from that that the Supreme Court may take a States Rights view on whether the Federal Executive can force rules on the States doesn’t it? They will never get anything done if that turns out to be the case.
       As the Times said the Supreme Court doesn’t normally get involved until a case has gone through all the lower levels. Making a ruling now certainly seems to be suggesting what they will do in the future.
       • Macro 4.1.1.1

         11 February 2016 at 7:06 pm

         At the present time around 56% of Republican Congressmen deny Climate change .These are the people who are holding up any real action by the US on Climate change and ipso facto the whole developed world, because by denying any legislation to take direct action, they also limit the ability of combined Nations coming to any agreement with any meaningful programmes eg COP 21 at Paris.
         Thus Obama has had to try to use the back door – the EPA legislation of the Clean Air Act – passed in the 70’s to combat Acid rain, and emissions from industry to cut Carbon Emissions.
         History – if we get to have any – will judge these imbeciles harshly.
   • Sacha 4.2

     11 February 2016 at 6:16 pm

     “couldn’t a new President just scrap them if he was of that mind this time next year?”

     They could, I imagine.
5. bearded git 5

   11 February 2016 at 8:22 pm

   As I posted yesterday, South African power companies are budgeting to burn 2 billion tons of coal over the next 35 years.
6. Lloyd 6

   11 February 2016 at 10:11 pm

   Since New Zealand has been given the finger by the Australian government with respect to shipping back New Zealand Maoris and Polynesians who haven’t spent $6000 to become Australian citizens and have been caught having beers with bikers or jay-walking, there is a wonderful opportunity to increase the 100% green image of New Zealand by offering all these climate scientists a job with a crown institute in godzone.

   Oh damn. FJK is PM. Bugger!
7. esoteric pineapples 7

   12 February 2016 at 9:08 am

   The unpleasant irony is that Australia is one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change.
8. Ad 8

   12 February 2016 at 10:06 am

   Used to be that Auckland would get two weeks of humidity, in January.

   Now apparently it’s two months.
9. William 9

   12 February 2016 at 12:49 pm

   Closer to home, it’s happening in NZ. From this morning’s Dompost (12/2/16) :

   “Tech staff laid off

   The government has revealed that climate-change research staff lost their jobs during a restructure at crown institute AgResearch late last year. A total of 16 climate-change science staff – including nine scientists and seven technicians – were laid off during a shake-up due to the agency’s funding challenges.”

   I can’t find it online, it’s a short story in the ‘Briefs’ column on page three .
10. Draco T Bastard 10

    12 February 2016 at 4:10 pm

    How the Overwhelmingly White Donor Class Stops Action on Climate Change

    Although the Paris Climate Deal certainly represents a step forward for the international community, there are still many potential pitfalls to addressing climate change. New data suggest that the overwhelmingly white donor class may be one such obstacle.

    As I say – the rich are the problem and we can no longer afford them.
11. johnm 11

    12 February 2016 at 8:14 pm

    We still behave as if Climate Change is controllable; it isn’t. All we can do is prepare and sit back and watch year by year as it progresses. Therefore what the U$ or their vassal state Australia do is like King Canute ordering the tide not to come in.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1

      12 February 2016 at 8:25 pm

      The amount of extra CO2 we’ll add to the atmosphere is a decision that will directly impact the eventual new equilibrium.

      Canute’s example is apposite, although perhaps not in the way you think.

Links to post

1. Guantanamo Bay to close? « The Standard: posted on 24 February 2016 at 1:18 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS