Right Pulse

A New Zealand man is taking NZ Labour Party politicians to the NZ High Court to prevent the introduction of an emissions trading scheme:

Former property developer Basil Walker is seeking an injuction against all Labour Party MPs preventing the scheme being passed into law before this year’s election.

Mr Walker said he was acting in the interests of the people of New Zealand.

“I’ve taken the action because someone had to. This Government is trying to force this on the people and someone had to stand up and say that there is no evidence to support it,” he said yesterday.

It’s not clear on what legal basis this court case could be successful, but nevertheless it might give publicity to the cause. Here in Australia, I know of no constitutional power which gives the Commonwealth government the right to regulate air (carbon). It is interesting that in the Australian government advertising for the future emissions trading scheme, carbon is referred to as a pollutant - which given that carbon is one of the building blocks for life on earth, to claim it is a pollutant is nonsense.

The Australian constitution does not give the Commonwealth any direct power to regulate environmental affairs. It can only do so via commercial and/or external laws, or the like, under the Constitution. This means that challenging environmental issues on legal grounds is difficult. A government only need prove that it has signed an international treaty for instance, which happens to deal with an environmental issue, for it to be constitutional.

When it comes to environmental affairs, the Commonwealth has few legal checks and balances in place to regulate and challenge what it does. One may though challenge the Commonwealth’s assertion that carbon is a pollutant, through various truth in advertising regulations. But when it comes to the Constitution, there are few avenues that will likely lead to success.

On the other hand though, there may be a basis for someone taking legal action against an organisation for supposedly inducing climate change. Of course the link between carbon and the changing climate would have to be established in court and this may very well work in skeptics favour.

Legal researcher Dr Joseph Smith has been analysing scientific evidence for the effects of global warming and the legal basis for court action.

The work has been sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Dr Smith believes scientific evidence linking climate change to pollution is now sound enough to make a civil case against businesses and governments.

If it was shown in court that business had no impact on the climate from their carbon emissions, then they may have a legal basis challenging a Commonwealth carbon tax and any associated regulation that increases liability costs or bankruptcy.

Five Nobel laureates in economics think the following:

The Copenhagen Consensus Centre co-ordinated by Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg has ranked the pursuit of deep cuts in emissions by countries such as Australia and Europe as one of the least-effective ways of advancing global welfare.

The findings contradict the analysis by Ross Garnaut and Nicholas Stern, who argue that the high cost of mitigating greenhouse gases now is much less than the risk of inaction on climate change.

In prioritising how best to spend $75billion over the next four years to deliver the greatest good to mankind, a panel of eight economists, including five Nobel laureates, did not feature any climate change spending among their 13 priority projects.

The highest priority was to supplement the diet of children in developing countries with vitamin A and zinc, followed by a successful negotiation of the stalled Doha Round of trade talks, which would deliver between $6-$8trillion a year by 2100.

The 13 priorities would deliver between $20 and $30 of value for every dollar invested, compared with 90c for the mitigation of greenhouse gases, because of the high cost of cutting emissions now and the limited impact such reductions would have.

And critics counter with the following lines:

“The level of risk we confront is a greater level of risk than virtually any other area,”

“There are a whole lot of moral and ethical considerations that need to influence that process as well. It’s not just a technical exercise.”

Well risk is a combination of probability and consequence. By that measure the risk of human induced climate change being a problem is low - probability of the world warming due to human induced carbon emissions is low (no evidence has ever been established to link the two) and the overall consequences are mostly unkown, despite what the doomsayers pretend.

The list of issues ranked by the economists are not risks, but are actually happening - probability is 100 per cent and consequences are known and they are not good. And if this is not just a technical exercise, where then is the moral imperative to spend billions on a future global risk that has a low probability of occuring as oppossed to current problems affecting people now.

An excellent article from David Evans, a prominent green house defector to skepticism. A quick bio:

Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, building the carbon accounting model that Australia uses to track carbon in its biosphere for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.

Those credentials are good enough for me. Evans notes in the following article that the science of climate change has, well, changed since the UN IPCC first touted human induced global warming back in 1998.

First, the new ice cores shows that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says that the carbon rises could not have either started or ended the temperature rises, and that there are more powerful forces on global temperatures than atmospheric carbon levels.

Second, there is now no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed), but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

Third, the satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, that 1998 was the warmest recent year, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the last year (to the temperature of 1980).

Fourth, we looked for the greenhouse signature and could not find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the atmosphere the warming occurs first. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is a hotspot 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.

The hotspot is central to our understanding - if there is no hotspot then either there is no significant increased greenhouse warming, or we don’t understand greenhouse and all our climate models are rubbish anyway.

We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes—weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hotspot whatsoever.

Maybe its time the politicians and their socialist and activist mates caught up with the latest findings.

According to Algore we are all going to die in ten years time, again:

The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more – if more should be required – the future of human civilization is at stake.

Another classic passage from his recent speech:

Of course there are those who will tell us this can’t be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo – the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, “The Stone Age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones

Al Gore is not exactly what one would described as a disinterested party in these matters, thanks to a $500 million dollar ‘green’ investment fund he is a partner to. One might even say he has a financial vested interest in promoting a future system of carbon cap and trade as much as ‘carbon’ industry seemingly has interests in promoting the status quo. And for Algore, his business interests could do with a bit of a kick along:

And further from Algore:

To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world’s scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don’t act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

Note the speech is devoid of primary sources and citations. Also note that Algore seems to like ten year moving deadlines. Back in January 2006 Algore also claimed we only had ten years left to save the planet otherwise we would all fry, from Rush Limbaugh (requires member log in):

He’s (Algore) attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans. He’s enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel’s soirée. He’s palling around with Laurie David of Curb Your Enthusiasm, who is the husband of Larry David, who drives the Prius and then flies the GV. Larry David says, “You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”

In serious need of a share price kick along more like it.

Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun has written an article against the climate change gods and the recent Ross Garnaut report. The article has received global attention and acclaim from The Drudge report and Rush Limbaugh, the most popular radio personality in the world. Here are some brief excerpts:

Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: “If we do not begin reducing the nation’s levels of carbon pollution, Australia’s economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands.”

And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd’s guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: “Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . .”

Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd’s next campaign slogan?

Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide — the gas they think is heating the world to hell.

The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they’re even planning to tax farting cows, so there’s no end to the ways you can be stung.

Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and — hey presto — the world’s temperature will then fall, just like it’s actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.

The article went on to describe the advent of a psychological disorder that some people are suffering because of climate change propaganda. The article also highlighted how China and India are now publicly ignoring calls to reduce emissions, and because of this, any attempt by Australia to cap carbon emissions will be pointless.

I cannot overstate how big this article is. Limbaugh basically read the entire article out to his nearly 20 million listeners and millions would have seen the article on The Drudge Report. Limbaugh on Bolt’s article:

Meanwhile, while all this is going on, while the Australian government is telling its citizens, “Pay more or die,” which is about what we’re being told here, in fact, this poor kid in Australia thinks if he drinks the world’s going to die so he’s killing himself by not drinking. They had to put him in a psycho ward. Your kid could be next, folks. Now, in China, the ChiComs released their own global warming strategy a year ago, its own Garnaut report — this is Rudd’s guru in Australia — “which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions. Said Ma Kai, head of China’s powerful State Council: ‘China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments … our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth.’” The ChiComs, of all people, get it! The ChiComs!

If anybody ought to be leading the charge on this, it would be socialist communists, but the ChiComs know full well the disaster that awaits anybody who buys into the delusion and the requirements to fulfill the delusion as advanced by Algore. Mr. Bolt writes, “In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: ‘It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China’s energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high.’” Damn straight. They’re growing. They’re going to expand. Here’s another instance. India. India has said that it will not stop its per capita emissions from growing “until they match those of countries such as the US.”

A big dittos!

Top Gear, the most popular TV programme in the world, has a distinct dislike for hybrids. From the main presenter Clarkson:

You may save the planet with this car. But you could well lose a leg in the process. You will certainly lose all your friends because to justify your significant £7,000 purchase you will need to explain, loudly and often, that it uses no fuel, that you simply charge it up at night – using power from a power station.

There are a range of cars that are cheaper to run and better for the environment than hybrids - any small to mid-sized diesel or petrol car. Well this time Top Gear have the Toyota Prius versus the BMW M3 - which is more fuel efficient?

The Garnaut report, which seeks to levy heavy taxes on carbon producing activities, has been released and is getting favourable coverage from the main stream media. This should come as no surprise given the agenda driven coverage of this news over the last 5 years. When one actually deals with the facts though, the picture becomes a harsh one for those pushing the climate change agenda.

The single most important fact that readers should be aware of is that no carbon cap and trade system will have any measurable impact on the climate. No politician or academic will be able to stand up and say that because of the cost $x billion incurred by Australia on carbon cap and trade, the average temperature in Australia has dropped x Celsius. A carbon cap and trade system will have no impact on the climate - none.

If one assumes that human induced greenhouse gas emissions causes global warming, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are so small (about 1 per cent of the world) that one would not be able to measure the impact on temperature from any introduction of carbon pricing and the consequent emissions reduction.

The only clear outcome is that Garnaut’s approach will increase our cost of living and thereby reduce our standard of living, increase government control over our lives and make the Australian economy less internationally competitive. And what for, to show leadership?

GEORGE NEGUS: So I guess, to that extent, you should feel as though you guys, over the years, have achieved something in that the environment is in people’s consciousness, isn’t it?

PETER GARRETT: Well, look, I hope so. I think that’s what the public are telling us – it does matter to them. What they’re also telling us is they want leadership and they want a commitment.

Its the type of leadership that matters, and the way the debate is being held over carbon cap and trade at the moment, it is likely to be leadership more akin to the charge of the light brigade during the Crimean War. Leadership yes, but leadership for leadership’s sake - sacrificially pointless. As Alfred Tennyson wrote about the charge:

Theirs not to make reply  Theirs not to reason why  Theirs but to do and die

Indeed, as “All the world (once) wonder’d”, the world will wonder again. But final thoughts go to Professor Dr. Jack Steinberger, CERN - Europäisches Kernforschungszentrum, joint-Nobel Prize Winner in Physics, 1988. On a recent discussion on ‘Climate Changes and Energy Challenges’, from the 58th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Steinberger said:

Here on this table you’ve heard opinions which didn’t agree, and we’re all claiming to be scientists. So, to what extent political leaders can believe us is not obvious.

Forbes recently reported the rise of the mid-size car in the USA:

The biggest winners were the Chevrolet Malibu sedan (piece of Barbie like rubbish), sales up 73.4% in June 2008 compared with June 2007; Honda Accord sedan (okay if you are Barbie), sales up 54%; Chevrolet Equinox crossover (Barbie family car), sales up 45.9; Subaru Forester crossover (fake off road Barbie 4X4), sales up 41%; and Pontiac G6 sedan (Ken’s car), sales up 34.2%.

Well if you want to buy a car that is good for you and the environment pick the Peel 50.

Although you may be pressed for choice and price. While they were sold in the 1960s for only 200 pounds, good ones can now go for nearly 50 000 pounds. That’s appreciation in more ways than one.

“All talk and no action” in the words of Tony Abbott, aptly describes Rudd. The Coalition is now 10 points behind the Government on 2PP. Abbott on Nelson :

“I don’t think anyone who’s worked closely with Brendan Nelson over the last six months could fail to be impressed,” he told. “Because he’s worked incredibly hard and I think he’s made gutsy calls on a few key issues and I think people will come round.”

While Nelson’s approval rating is below that of Rudd, by a long way, he is making in roads into Rudd’s popularity and people are moving into the undecided camp before they commit to supporting Nelson. I’d say Nelson has to November to really shake things up further, to avoid a leadership challenge. The key battleground issue should be opposing a carbon trade system, by explaining to people it will have no measurable impact on the climate, but will cost businesses and consumers billions of dollars. Dollars that the government will pocket for no clear fiscal outcome. This from Access Economics:

Mr Richardson, director of economic consultants Access Economics, said many people still did not get the concept of an emissions trading scheme and much of the pressure on politicians was wrong-headed. “The whole idea of carbon pricing is that if it doesn’t hurt it won’t work,” he told Canberra ABC radio today.

In other words: “you bunch of peasants, the lady of the lake has spoken so just learn to cop it sweat while the rest of us make millions out of the climate change agenda.”

Andrew Bolt has the latest regarding Rudd’s poor leadership skills in play. I’m not going to repeat the details here, needless to say it is amateur hour on display by Rudd and his office cronies. The media elite are also beginning to turn against their mate Rudd. They are disappointed Rudd has not turned hard left, like they were all hoping he would. John Lyons in The Australian:

The commentators, for their part, are increasingly seeing a problem. “Everything’s either for the next 24-hour news cycle or 2020. Nothing seems to be for the here and now,” says a leading political commentator who asks not to be named.

Most of the journalists spoken to for this story requested anonymity for fear of being frozen out by the new Government.

One prepared to be named was the ABC’s political editor, Uhlmann: “Petrol is a case study of how the Government’s focus on the news cycle is working against its long-term agenda. We have been treated to a daily slanging match over meaningless price cuts when Labor’s real task is to show the courage to make the hard argument for a carbon tax.

“It makes you question whether the Government actually appreciates just how fraught introducing an emissions-trading system (for dealing with climate change) will be: it will dwarf the GST as the most dramatic, wilful change ever imposed on the economy. The longer Labor plays short-term politics on petrol, the harder the long game will become.”

Talk about posting your colours to a mask. So the ABC wants a carbon tax, regardless of the consequences for the economy. The remarkable thing about this comment is that the ABC knows a carbon tax will damage the economy - so the motivation is clearly ideological. Like their apparent disdain for Howard and the GST.