In the early days of recent reform movements (talking ’60s ’70s) many conversations started along the lines “I’m not racist/gay…but isn’t about time we did something…” There was some of that in the column that Graham Lloyd published on the weekend on the costs of various climate policies. The sub-heading was Making the debate about cost, not morality, was a Coalition winner. (Hey has anyone made fun of the Coalition for having xxxx in the name? Lets put it back loud and proud!). My next post may be Putting the coal back into Coalition.
Sorry, that thought arrived late on the scene, the point of the post to use Lloyd’s column to highlight the way so many people think they have to ritualistically or superstitiously bow their knee to the god of climate alarmism. Like the seriously honourable John Anderson “I am not a climate change denier but I believe what was being missed was that carbon abatement is expensive.” And Brian Fisher, the analyst who put numbers on the cost of the competing climate policies Everyone is talking about how we have to do something about climate and I agree. Mitch Hooke appears to be on the same page. He ran the Minerals Council of Australia when they led the charge against Kevin Rudd’s failed mining tax. Lloyd described him as an agricultural ecologist, he worked with John Howard and now he is a prime mover in the Menzies Research Centre that became the epicentre of the cost alarm that deflated Labor’s tyres late in the election campaign. [Several Labor leaders are going to have Hook in their nightmares].
Unfortunately Hook is a climate bed-wetter. I am also an Agricultural Scientist so he has no excuse! We read Hook has a long track record in climate policy and acknowledges that there is a problem that must be addressed….the bottom line is that there needs to be a price on carbon and a market mechanism to set it.
So the bottom line is that the supposedly “moral” and scientific alarmist position wins even when people start to count the cost. So lets start from the top one more time and ask a series of question to explore what kind of climate policy comes out at the bottom.
First have we had enough warming or the prospect of enough warming to be alarmed?
Second, how much of that can we attribute to human CO2.
Can we reduce CO2 emissions without going nuclear? (NO judging from Germany).
What are the costs (human, environmental and economic) of trying to reduce emissions?
And for Australia, why even think about it?