I am pro-carbon tax

I don't mind being taxed, I just hate when the government misuse my (our) money for stupid things like Tony Abbott's salary.

Anyway, I received a forwarded email from a friend of mine this afternoon. It had obviously used the current carbon tax as its meme replicator. Generally I ignore these things (or don't read them at all because all forwarded mail gets filtered into the Trash) because they are not worth the eyeball tracks but I was compelled to 'Reply All' to this one.

Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!

If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.

Are you sitting down?

Okay, here's the bombshell.

The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash had, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but - not to be outdone - I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and - not - mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but, furthermore, the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

======

Thanks for setting back the movement a decade, anonymous.

So anyway, I replied:

Hmm. I don't think this is the right attitude to take.

For starters, the carbon tax is not just about reducing carbon emissions. It is about a nationwide behavioural change in the way we consider our (often wasteful) consumption of energy. Forget about carbon emissions for one second and think of the energy crisis: peak oil etc. It is real. The only way we are going to get energy from *non-renewable* resources is to dig it out of the ground, whether coal, gas or uranium.

Despite a lot of Australia's wealth resting on these industries, the fact stands that it is damaging to our environment purely from a location perspective. Old growth forests and Aboriginal cultural sites are often the location of these energy deposits—sites that we will never be able to re-attain after mining. And for what? Energy that we could otherwise get from the sun, surf and wind?

While we cannot change the way nature operates (for example "who cares about rising sea levels when a tsunami could hit at any moment?") we can change our reaction to it and the way in which we control our own environment. That is why humans have survived for so long, our ability to adapt conditions to suit us. Alternative, preferably renewable, energy is one way we can adapt.

By the way, I should also mention that Prof Ian Pilmer is a geologist, not a climate scientist. I might also mention that he is a director of three mining companies so it is, of course, in his best interests to spread this kind of message.

Please think about it.

Adeline
Journalist and long-time environmental hobbyist (not lobbyist)

P.S: If you really want to know why they changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change', it's because the *extremes* in temperatures will get pushed both ways. While Sydney gets 43C days, London has its largest snowfall in decades.

P.P.S: Recommended reading: Tim Flannery's 'The Weather Makers', and for answers to most of your climate change questions: www.grist.org

What do you think?

At the risk of saving lives

Last week I went to two interesting lectures. The first was at my alma mater, Macquarie University, presented by bioethicist Peter Singer. Basically it was about climate change and the philosophy around how to deal with it fairly so that the people who caused it are responsible for the remedy and making sure the others don't add to the problem without infringing on their rights.

That was tied into poverty and other types of social damage caused by climate change and how each and every one of us could contribute to the solution whether through money, or our actions, or through influencing policy etc. Singer's point was basically the less you spend, the more you can give to charity and the more lives you can save.

I did start to wonder about the implications of this from an arts point of view. I don't buy a lot of clothing and I don't spend my money on things like makeup or jewellery, and I don't waste food. But I do spend a LOT of my money on arts-related things like music and gigs and publications and theatre. Is the concept of art, collectively, worth more than a human life?

I'm going to be controversial and misanthropic and say yes.

Can I really justify my answer? (Do I have to?) While it isn't quite articulated in my brain yet, the best way I can explain it is that art enhances life. To bastardise Nietzsche: "Without art, life would be a mistake."

Just off on a tangent, it's like those stats that talk about life expectancy and using life expectancy as a measurement for how advanced a country is. I can't remember who asked the question, maybe it was a columnist like Adele Horin, but what about the QUALITY of that life? What's the point in living an extra 20 years if those years are riddled with disease and misery? Bright star, would I were as steadfast as thou art, etc (Keats).

Anyway, so art enhances human life. I would go so far as to say that the art we create defines us as humans. So I don't think I will feel guilty about going to a gig instead of putting the money I would have spent on a ticket towards a charity.

My main concern is that the human life that is 'not saved' would probsbly be one that never contributed to the problems from which he or she suffered. It's rarely the Hummer-buyer that suffers when I decide to pay $150 to see Simon & Garfunkel instead of putting that money into Oxfam, it's more likely a fisherman from a low-lying island whose home and livelihood become consumed by rising water caused by climate change.

Sigh. Life ain't fair for some, but it doesn't mean I'll stop listening to music.

The second lecture was Max Barry's essay on Risk at the State Library. It was an intellectual, rather than mathematical, take on how we perceive risk and what taking risks can lead to, including how it builds you as a person.

The Q&A session was chaired by Julian Morrow from The Chaser, no stranger to risk himself. I think the best thing that came out of the event was the concept of learning from risk if it doesn't pay off, and also not risking things that you don't have to risk.

Barry's most telling remark was talking about a fan who had written in and told him he was thinking of killing himself because everything had gone wrong. Barry advised him not to kill himself, not because it was the wrong thing to do, but because the guy would risk killing himself at the worst possible moment, exiting at the lowest point in the 'curve' when things could only get better.

"'The best time to kill yourself,' I told him, 'is when everything is going really well because you know that that's as good as things will get and you only have misery to look forward to'."

Quite wise, really. At least it worked and the guy didn't kill himself.

Diet Coke is bad

I've just been analysing a few consumer items for a 'Green Day' I'm hosting at work. I've come to the conclusion that a can of Diet Coke from a vending machine is probably the worst thing you could buy (other than a uranium mine, perhaps).

Firstly, there are more environmentally-friendly beverage alternatives, so there isn't a true need to buy it.

Secondly, most of a can of Coke is actually marketing and packaging and energy consumed to get it to you.
- Aluminium for the can in particular has a high energy consumption.
- A vending machine uses a lot of energy to keep the product cool and the machine lit for marketing purposes.
- Fake sugar means you're keeping some chemical lab operating somewhere.
- It takes about three litres of water to make a litre of Coke.

Thirdly, the can, although recyclable, is not likely to be recycled if purchased at a vending machine due to the lack of recycling facilities in those types of locations (train stations etc).

And all you get is brown fizzy water that tastes gross.

Why do people drink that stuff?

Back to implacable

For some crazy reason the weather has whipped back to 'implacable', giving us wild winds and bursts of rain this morning. I found it difficult to sleep.

Last night I was walking around the city in short sleeves.

I blame climate change.

I don't drive

... so I found this image quite funny. Look, I feel for people who have no option but to drive because there's no public transport (or what public transport there is sucks arse) but for all those people who find it merely 'inconvenient', they can pay what it's worth, which is actually more than they're charging so be thankful.

My worry is that since urban sprawl has eaten up metropolitan farmland, the follow-on effect will be that we pay more for food because it's so damn far to transport it from where the farms are now to where we live. The problem with that is, packaged food becomes more attractive because it's cheaper to transport due to its longer shelf life than fresh food and that's worse for the environment.

Earth Hour

Just got an email demanding that I post this up on every space available to me. Tis for a good cause and a good enough excuse for me to not post a real entry.