Last Tuesday I went along to the “Supper club” event, where the topic was why some environmentalists seem to enjoy pessimism, and the similarities between some AGW-alarmists and religious fanatics. As was the intention for the Supper club, there was not agreement, and we all had a good time telling each other how wrong we all were.
The presentation was given by Paul Comrie-Thomsons (from ABC’s counterpoint) and afterwards he mentioned to me a website that would be of interest to people who want to follow the climate debate — Climate Debate Daily.
I quickly followed a random link, and found the website of Climate Skeptic. In one of the discussions, and AGW-proponent asked a few questions which sparked a less-than-friendly response from another commentator. The author (Stevo) then politely responded to the original questions and asked the other commentator to be more polite. Bravo! There is so little reasoned and polite debate about this issue that it’s nice to find a place for friendly discussion.
The consequence was that the questioner ended up taking the skeptical argument more seriously.
I wrote the following as an opinion article for a general audience.
—————————–
Following the release of the Garnaut Report, it seems that everybody wants to talk about climate change.
Clearly, climate change is an important issue. Last year the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said they are more than 90 per cent certain that humans are contributing to global warming. Computer models suggest a temperature increase of about 2-4 degrees over the next 100 years and many people are worried about the possible impact. But there is an important difference between having good intentions and introducing good policy.
At the moment, both major parties and most minor parties are pushing a carbon trading system and billions of dollars of subsidies towards alternative energy. This looks good, but it is bad policy. Australia would be better served by introducing a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
The Garnaut report is out and climate change is back on the agenda. And Clive Hamilton and John Quiggin have been back to their usual game of vilifying people they disagree with as “denialists” and “delusionists”. They say the debate is over. I disagree.
I’m not an AGW-alarmist. But I’m not an AGW-denialist. I’m a sceptic… which means that I’m not quick to accept the story from any side. Some people seem to have a strong faith that the end of the world is nigh. Others seem to have a strong faith that nothing is happening and it’s all a leftist joke.
I don’t have faith (an opinion based on something other than reason) but I do have beliefs. Based on my reading of the science, I believe that human-induced global warming is a potential danger. But I also think that this danger has been blown out of proportion, that we should be very careful about introducing new government programs, and the debate has become so political that few people honestly consider the arguments of the “other side”.
I want to quickly mention one example where I think both sides have put politics before truth — and that is the issue of “no warming since 1998″. This is commonly said by AGW-sceptics and often dismissed as a distortion by AGW-proponents. Both have a point.
First, here is a graph of the temperatures over the past 30 years as provided by Climate Audit.
I recently came across the ABC’s “planetslayer” website, a tax payer funded educational tool for children, and found it quite typical of environmentalist material. See, http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm It has prompted me to attempt to think through my ideological concerns about environmentalism. Read more »
VIVA, or the Vegetarians International Voice for Animals, are picking a fight with Pete Garrett about the planned culling of 400 kangaroos on government property in Canberra.The Minister for the Beds are Burning is being made to sweat by none other than Sir Paul McCartney, who has urged Australians to protect kangaroos from ‘a barbaric industry that slaughters them for meat.’ Quite what business it is of Sir Paul, who lives on the other side of the planet, will have to remain a mystery. Or Chrisse Hynde for that matter. Or Heather McCartney.
McCartney’s message of loving the ‘roo was posted on the website, www.savethekangaroo.com.. This site helpfully points out that 6.5 million kangaroos are legally culled every year.
And we are arguing about 400?
The whole animal rights movement is as bonkers as the Vatican’s ‘Sins and Penances’ Chief.
The every-angry Gerry Jackson has sparked another debate about a carbon tax, disapprovingly citing my monograph on the topic (pdf) and declaring that a carbon tax will “drastically slash living standards”.
It is unclear whether Gerry is aware that electricity and petrol are already taxed.
In the past few days Gerry has written three articles on the topic, and his lap-dogs (including GMB) have also penned thousands of words in his defence. In particular, there is one obsessed nutter who writes here, here, here and here. As I have been travelling I have been limited to a few quick comments. Until now. Be warned… this is a long post.
There has been something of a discussion about carbon taxes at Catallaxy which started out pretty constructive however it seems to have turned somewhat feral and I’ve called it a day because wading through the abusive mud comments to find the gem comments is too much like hard work. Instead I’ve been doing some digging on Google and I found a few things that surprised me.
Firstly there is this news that British Columbia has just implemented a carbon tax in their latest budget with the revenue being used to reduce personal income tax and company tax.
That, at least, is how the provincial Canadian government has designed the tax, which will rise incrementally until 2012. It starts at about 9 cents per gallon of gas, and ending at about 27 cents.
But the $1.85 billion annual tax is about influencing behavior, not generating revenue for the government. Income and corporate taxes are to be adjusted to save people about as much as the carbon tax will cost them, and low-income residents will get $100 each, plus $30 per child.
This has got Canadian environmental poster boy David Suzuki rather excited. Anyway I thought that this was interesting and I wondered if any other nations have carbon taxes. Apparently several do.
Sweden in fact implemented a carbon tax at a wopping .25 SEK/kg (US$100 per ton) back in 1991 although it then proceeded to give all forms of discounts to industry. Although even after those discounts industry has been paying around US$25 per ton.
I’m pretty much of the view that any government initiative to reduce CO2 emissions in Australia should be in the form of broadening the base which the fuel tax applies to. This idea was first outlined to me by John Humphreys in January 2007 and he later published a paper on the topic. The option from that paper that I’m most inclined towards is a A$30 per tonne of CO2 tax. Such a tax if applied to all fossil fuels as a replacement for existing petrol taxes would see the price of petrol decline by around 30 cents per litre and the wholesale price of electricity rise by about 1.8 cents per kWhr.
Of course I would not object if somebody wanted to use a carbon tax to reduce income tax. Any shift away from income tax is a good thing in my view. And if they wanted to simply cut income tax with no new taxes then even better.
A group of Australian and New Zealand organisations and scientists today called on the governments of Australia and New Zealand to set up an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on the Science of Global Warming (to be known as “The ANZIG Royal Commission” – the Australia New Zealand Inquiry into Global Warming).
The chairman of Australia’s Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, said that many groups and individuals in Australia and New Zealand had listened with alarm and disbelief to plans of both governments to saddle their people and industries with the burdens of carbon taxes and the risks of carbon trading which he described as “an open invitation to massive fraud”.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the views of the ABC. It is an independent film and is only opinion.”
That much is clear. Last night, the ABC aired the ‘misleading and scientifically flawed’ documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, by Martin Durkin.
The purpose of this post is not to discuss the merits of Durkin’s arguments as the film is not new and has been available on YouTube for ages, but to take a look at the reaction in Australia. Read more »
More from the excellent pen, or keyboard, of Viv Forbes. Point 16 alone shows the utterly vain tokenism of the whole hysterical exercise.
“Look before you Leap” – A Submission to “Climate Smart 2050” by The Carbon Coalition, June 2007
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st Century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections, combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.
– Professor Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
‘Native’ vegetation simply means plant species that were in Australia before 1788. The distinction between native and introduced vegetation is therefore based on history and aesthetics, rather than on botanical or ecological science.
The idea that the aesthetics of native vegetation have some kind of specially deserving status, justifying confiscation of private property rights, is wrong. Our town and country landscapes have many introduced plant species, including wheat, rice, lucerne, and dozens of kitchen vegetables and garden flowers. Removing them from the landscape is neither practical nor desirable. It is too late to try to force society into acting as a ‘museum’ of native vegetation. Attempts to do so are unjust.
The following is a Media Release from Viv Forbes. Viv is a man who’s opinion I hold in the greatest respect. I am posting it for your information.
Climate Smart?
A new organization called “The Carbon Coalition” has been set up to defend the role of carbon on earth and in the atmosphere.
Chairman of the new group, Mr. Viv Forbes, a pasture manager, soil scientist and geologist from Rosevale in Queensland, says the group is concerned at the growing and unjustified vilification of carbon by politicians and the media.
More information on The Carbon Coalition can be found on our web site here.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming.
The show was screened in the UK in March 2007 and has lead to the expected controversy and name-calling. The ABC will show a cut-down one hour version at 8:30pm on 12 July, followed by an interview with Durkin and an “expert panel” discussion. But if you can’t wait until then, youtube has the full version (split into 8 parts) available now. Below is the first segment. For the remaining segments follow this link, or read below for a brief overview.
As libertarians, we often hold views that aren’t popular. Privatising universities, legalising drugs, removing industry R&D subsidies, gun law liberalisation, abolishing the minimum wage, lower government health spending and many other policies put us in a minority. But on one issue the libertarian position is very popular: lower taxes. Everybody (well, nearly everybody) hates taxes.
I have listed all the main taxes and a few that don’t currently exist – including income, company, GST, cigarette, gambling, alcohol, petrol, carbon, land, death, tariffs, stamp duties, payroll, capital gains and other. And for the trolls I have included the option of “I love all tax”.
The last poll asked for predictions about global warming over the next 10 years. The most popular answer was the IPCC answer of 0.2 degrees warming (23%), closely followed by the slightly more conservative 0.1 degree warming (21%). A total of 49% agreed with the IPCC estimate +/- 0.1 degree. The other main answers were no change (14%) and a 0.1 degree cooling (12%). Nobody took up the challenge of putting money on the line.
There are four distinct reasons for skepticism about political action on global warming.
The first ground is the positive question of fact whether the global atmosphere is heating up. Any given person cannot know this through his own senses. Everyone, including all the scientists, must rely on other tools of knowledge. Skepticism here notes the uncertainty in the astronomically complex data sets, the uncertainty in the many, various and complex models used, and the statistical uncertainty involved at every stage.
Global warming are the new public policy buzz words. Apparently, we’re all doomed and so every politicians and well-meaning statist wants to save us.
Debate goes on as to what exactly happened in the past, what is going to happen in the future & what the government can and should do about it. Estimates for future warming vary considerably, with some people predicting dire consequences in the next 5 or 10 years while others suggesting that we have little to fear. The IPCC has a range of estimates from 1.1 to 6.4 degrees in this century.
It is easier to control people if they are scared. Towards that end, the global-warming fear-mongers have been upping their campaign, and may soon rival Dubya and the warnicks in terms of encouraging irrational fear for the purpose of selling bad (and expensive) government action.
In the SMH last week we were warned that “climate change may have passed a key tipping point” and reported a warning that “global warming was contributing to increased conflict over dwindling resources”. The example was Dafur.
This is a good opportunity for you to check out some Australian libertarian blogs that you might not have checked out before. If you haven’t visited Fleeced, Pommygranate, Double Think or Real World Libertarian before, then go have a look.
I tried to include every libertarian solo political blogger, but if I have forgotten somebody then please tell me so that we can update the ALS links.
The highly scientific results to the last question are now available. In response to the question “if the government must act on climate change, which should it do“, 60% of people supported a carbon tax offset with other tax cuts while 22% refused to answer the question. Other options, such as nationalising the energy industry, introducing carbon trading or picking winners, got a handful of votes each.
UPDATE 24/05: Terje pointed out that I didn’t include Graeme Bird’s blog and I also realised (to my embarassment) that I hadn’t included long-time Australian libertarian blogger Tex & his whackingday blog. Both have now been added, but that means the voting had to be re-set. Apologies.
If something needs to be done about greenhouse gases in Australia*, then the best approach is a carbon tax with revenue used to remove or decrease other taxes.
The goal of climate change policy should not be to reduce energy use, but to switch energy production from carbon-intensive energy (primarily dirty coal) to alternative energy sources (clean coal, nuclear, solar, wind etc). This could be achieved by “picking winners” (ie subsidising specific energy alternatives) and the government has already spent over $2 billion researching energy from pig waste, using biomass waste from sugar mills, cloud seeding for more hydropower, improved solar energy, exploring clean coal and many other alternatives. This is the exact wrong way to go about public policy at it required politicians and bureaucrats to make decisions about the future of the energy industry.
There has been something of a discussion about carbon taxes at 
