Cop-out 26 as Morrison poisons people, nation and planet

By in Australian Politics, Carbon Economy

| 45 comments

COP-out 26 has held onto coal:

…the agreement established a clear consensus that all nations need to do much more, immediately, to prevent a catastrophic rise in global temperatures. It outlined specific steps the world should take, from slashing global carbon dioxide emissions nearly in half by 2030 to curbing methane, another potent greenhouse gas. And it sets up new rules to hold countries accountable for the progress they make — or fail to make.

The final agreement included language about the need to “phase down unabated coal,” a weakening of an earlier text that called for a “phase out” of coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel. It was an alteration urged by India. Switzerland’s representative, Simonetta Sommaruga, slammed the change, along with negotiators from the Marshall Islands, Mexico and other countries.

“We do not need to phase down, but to phase out,” said Ms. Sommaruga, who said the coal provision was changed at the last minute, with no input from other countries and no further changes were allowed. “We are disappointed both about the process and the last minute change. This will not bring us closer to 1.5 but will make it more difficult to reach.”

Nice coverage for the Morrison Government to poison the people with a new Labor wedge:

Australia signed an international request for countries to strengthen 2030 emissions reduction goals by next year but within hours of agreeing to the Glasgow climate pact, the Morrison government, facing a 2022 election, told voters it had no intention of changing its “fixed” target.

Professor Ross Garnaut with the analysis:

Australian renewable energy, land and human resources make it naturally the superpower of the zero emissions world economy.

Grasp the superpower opportunity, and Australia can enjoy a period of exceptional economic expansion after being at the bottom of the developed country league table for average growth in output and incomes per person over the past nine years.

This is the first of three reasons why we have a stronger interest than any other developed country in the world reaching the goal agreed in Paris in 2015: to hold temperature increases below 2 degrees and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees.

The second reason is that we happen to be the developed country that would be damaged more than any other by climate change itself.

The third reason is potentially of large importance. Recent developments in Australia’s international relations and diplomacy have increased our stake in the domestic and global political success of the US and the UK, and in our own standing and influence in Washington and London.

As The New York Times described the line-up of teams in its summing up of the Glasgow conference: “Some countries, like the United States and European Union, did step up their climate pledges under the Paris Agreement. But others – like Australia, China, Brazil and Russia – hardly improved on their short-term plans.”

What should we be doing? Installing a carbon price to unleash massive private investment, and provide big public subsidies to retrain labour in fossil fuel-dependent regions.  It ain’t rocket surgery.

Toxic Morrison will poison people, nation and planet so long as he remains in power.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

  1. TheLambKingMEMBER

    The modelling released on a Friday arvo, (you know it will be rubbish/bad when released on a Friday afternoon) only achieves 85% – not 100% net zero and says there needs to be a price on carbon (but no mention of a policy to support it.)

    • High school level testMEMBER

      Its like a high school Maths test –
      The calculation says 85% but then we add the fudge factor of 15% and get the right answer. (or the “miracle” of sci fi technology”

  2. fitzroy

    “At least we can stop pretending this has anything to do with science or the voters. Just cut out the IPCC and go straight for the BlackRock Temperature Tax, eh?”

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/11/well-that-explains-everything-bankers-bullied-australia-into-net-zero/

    Follow the money.
    Apparently all bankers really want to help the planet

    “A giant Spanish Bank once spent €100 b on Earth’s weather, cos they are nice people. Bank of America spent $50 billion to save the world. Citigroup commited $100 billion, Goldman Sachs pledged $750 billion. Banks are just falling all over themselves to help. Deutsche Bank built 70 foot high clock towers of doom, and produced their own climate science reports. Blackrock wanted Australia to shut coal plants faster.” (Hyperlinked in the above article)

    Meanwhile in the real world China is currently building 43 coal power plants- Half the UK’s emissions
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/25/china-to-build-43-new-coal-fired-power-plants/

  4. nyleta

    Nothing will be done until it has to be which will be too late. We all , in advanced countries, need to use a quarter of the energy per capita we do now. It doesn’t matter how this energy is generated in the long term because building all the so-called renewables is as bad as what we are doing now because we mean to keep the present energy use going at the same time.

    https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/11/03/Tech-Will-Not-Save-Us-Shrinking-Consumption-Will/

    I don’t think Australians are ready for sacrifice yet……..the virus situation has shown that, we are still fully invested in wishful thinking.

  5. gballardMEMBER

    I believe in climate change but NOT that it is “settled science” that Carbon emission by mankind is the main culprit. We are being force fed like a goose stuffed to make foi gras. We are witnessing a mass hysteria on a global scale based on models. When the models don’t fit the facts the model’s parameters are changed. If one goes back to earlier IPCC Reports we were predicted to be in deep s**t re rising ocean levels by now. Look at the facts not the modelling.

  6. Robert

    And for open minded people who are sceptical of “Doomsday” claims, here is some peer reviewed empirical data that shows natural cloud changes are the dominant driver of climate. (Cloud forcing is ignored by the IPCC despite its obvious significance) https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/#more-27917
    There is no evidence of large positive feedback that could make CO2 forcing dangerous. Negative feedback dominates as is expected from physics (Le Chatelier’s principle.)

  7. David WilsonMEMBER

    Yep climate is changing as it always has and will.
    No there is no climate catastrophe, our wonderful planet is cooling since 2016 and yes we will have floods as predicted by long range forecasters in our BOM for this and probably next year then it will start to dry out again followed by drought, and fires.
    It has been this way in my 75 years living in our wonderful country and rising CO2 will not make it any hotter.
    Massive cities and industrial hubs certainly lead to warming cities but as and if sea temperatures rises we will have more clouds and rain which have a cooling effect. Massive solar fields also cause substantial temperature increases in our atmosphere.
    Let’s stop the rubbish about climate catastrophe stuff and simply work on reducing all forms of chemical pollution and keeping our rivers and seas clean then all should be ok.
    As I travel around Australia there is very little pollution, cars and industry are cleaner and farming practices are improving with better use of soils and all I see is massive speculation by our rich to continue to want more subsidies to build more ugly inefficient renewables meantime labor and the greens stand against nuclear energy at our peril.
    Why are we so stupid I ask.

    • Fart Mechanic

      As Ginger beautifully worded it above “It’s not about belief”.

      If you really are 75 years old and not troll then your a very
      simple person that can not see the forest because of the trees.

      And that answers your final question..

      • fitzroy

        Try the measured temperature then
        Temperature.global
        Data Sources
        NOAA Global METARs
        NOAA One-Minute Observations (OMOs)
        NBDC Global Buoy Reports
        MADIS Mesonet Data
        2015 average: 0.98 °F (0.54 °C) below normal
        2016 average: 0.48 °F (0.27 °C) below normal
        2017 average: 0.47 °F (0.26 °C) below normal
        2018 average: 1.33 °F (0.74 °C) below normal
        2019 average: 0.65 °F (0.36 °C) below normal
        2020 average: 0.00 °F (0.00 °C) below normal

        These temperatures are unadjusted.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Denialists used to cherry pick 1998 (as it was an outlier hot year) and say it had been cooling for X years since then.

        Then the early 2010s were all hotter so the utter stupidity of that argument was laid bare.

        Now 2016 is the new outlier and the same stupid argument is being used, again, and it is wrong, again.

        • fitzroy

          You mean to say the years between 2015 and now are getting cooler even though there is rising co2? Good to see you are a denier too smithy.

          • AlexDMEMBER

            At best, your question reveals a very incomplete understanding. At worst………………………………

  8. BoomToBustMEMBER

    Yellen has said it will cost the USA $160 TRILLION to achieve net zero. If Australia was to cease all global emissions immediately it would make almost zero difference to global pollution, and would destroy our country. And China increase its emissions output every 6 months that would make up for our reduction of around 2%.

    Also if we want to reduce our national emissions we need to reduce immigration, adding millions more people does nothing to aid us in efficient use of our already scarce resources.

  9. MathiasMEMBER

    Satjadit Das: ” We operate a Scorched Earth Policy. We dig it up and use it up… and its the only way we know how to make money. “