Fallacy 4: We can solve everything using carbon capture and sequestration
Continuing my review of fallacies offered by climate change deniers discussed by Mark Diesondorf in his latest book, I now turn to a shorty but a goody! The fallacy is simply this: coal power with CO2 (carbon) capture and sequestration (or CCS) is the principle greenhouse solution.
Response: Big Mark D begins by note that a while a few components of this solution exist, it remains largely an unproven technology.
The federal government is pouring $2 billion into this technology in an effort to save the coal industry (yes kids, Mark does say $2 billion). Despite this, pilot plants will only be built in about 10 years with no commercial production possible until long after that.
In contrast to the Australian position, the US Government terminated funding to a power station with CCS technology because of the out of control costs. In addition, there are substantial risks that the carbon captured will escape – which adds to the cost and liability!
Despite this, Mark D does not dismiss the technology, but quotes the Future of Coal study that indicates it is possible that CCS can make a contribution but not before 2025. So rather than dismissing, Mark argues we should not put all our eggs into this unreliable and unproven basket. Rather, we should also be investing in renewable technologies that are ready to go (wind, solar and so on) as well as the ones that are close to fruition (such as rock geothermal)
Hard to argue against that one!
Cheers, james
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Socio-logic with James - FBi Radio (28 Oct 2009): population and religion
Hi everyone
This week on socio-logic with the amazing Alex Pye on FBI radio, we looked at some controversial issues… would love your thoughts…
Population growth: what should Australia’s population level be?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/challenges-of-our-growth-spurt-20091025-hely.html
The Prime Minister recently got excited about the idea of having 35 million people in Australia. Ken Henry, Treasury secretary responded by raising concerns about Australia’s ability to handle this – fair point.
I have historically avoided talking about population growth and environmental issues because it makes me feel that we are adopting a ‘life boat mentality’ and we can use it as an excuse to exclude people (here I am thinking refugees). This has been described as the ‘greening of hate’ by the very cool Betsy Hartmann.
I think we cannot shield ourselves from what is happening around the world including population growth and herein lays the issue: the problem is not with the poor countries with big populations, but with us. That is, we use way more resources than they do.
In fact, if everyone used the same resources as an Australian, we would need four earths to support us! (Check out this website on eco-resources.)
There are two ways around this that would also act to deal with the excess resource use that is threatening our planet:
a) The first is to build smarter cities: mass investments in public transport and green medium density urban environments; and
b) We should get used to using fewer resources!
We are better off doing this now in a negotiated way and having a response to the issue of population growth – not have it forced upon us at some future point.
Religion v. ethics in schools
http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/06/dumbest-education-policy-australia
The issue of religion or scripture in public schools has always perplexed me. I only realised recently that it is done as a compromise between the State government and the Church in a deal struck in 1880 (see article above).
When I was at school, many of us avoided religious studies because we could not relate to the teachings – so we just kicked the ball around instead.
The Parents and Citizens Association has recently proposed that ‘ethics’ could be taught in parallel with religion as a way of giving non-religious children and families an alternative.
I think this is a great idea and it could act as a way of discussing the many ethical dilemmas to modern life: how can anyone be against this. Further, any teaching of ethics must include religious ethics because the frameworks are related.
In seems that sections of the Church are against it however – it seems more because it sets a precedent than because they do not like the idea. What a crock I say!
Teaching on ethics are important – both religious and secular – and are part of a well-rounded education. In fact, I have had a long association with a number of religious groups who are strong advocates for human and environmental rights: and there is no reason why these things should be in conflict. For the State government to squander this opportunity is to let us all down: well those of us who believe in a well rounded society anyway.
For some information on ethics teaching, check out the St James Ethics Centre who designed the proposed program.
Speak soon
james
This week on socio-logic with the amazing Alex Pye on FBI radio, we looked at some controversial issues… would love your thoughts…
Population growth: what should Australia’s population level be?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/challenges-of-our-growth-spurt-20091025-hely.html
The Prime Minister recently got excited about the idea of having 35 million people in Australia. Ken Henry, Treasury secretary responded by raising concerns about Australia’s ability to handle this – fair point.
I have historically avoided talking about population growth and environmental issues because it makes me feel that we are adopting a ‘life boat mentality’ and we can use it as an excuse to exclude people (here I am thinking refugees). This has been described as the ‘greening of hate’ by the very cool Betsy Hartmann.
I think we cannot shield ourselves from what is happening around the world including population growth and herein lays the issue: the problem is not with the poor countries with big populations, but with us. That is, we use way more resources than they do.
In fact, if everyone used the same resources as an Australian, we would need four earths to support us! (Check out this website on eco-resources.)
There are two ways around this that would also act to deal with the excess resource use that is threatening our planet:
a) The first is to build smarter cities: mass investments in public transport and green medium density urban environments; and
b) We should get used to using fewer resources!
We are better off doing this now in a negotiated way and having a response to the issue of population growth – not have it forced upon us at some future point.
Religion v. ethics in schools
http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/06/dumbest-education-policy-australia
The issue of religion or scripture in public schools has always perplexed me. I only realised recently that it is done as a compromise between the State government and the Church in a deal struck in 1880 (see article above).
When I was at school, many of us avoided religious studies because we could not relate to the teachings – so we just kicked the ball around instead.
The Parents and Citizens Association has recently proposed that ‘ethics’ could be taught in parallel with religion as a way of giving non-religious children and families an alternative.
I think this is a great idea and it could act as a way of discussing the many ethical dilemmas to modern life: how can anyone be against this. Further, any teaching of ethics must include religious ethics because the frameworks are related.
In seems that sections of the Church are against it however – it seems more because it sets a precedent than because they do not like the idea. What a crock I say!
Teaching on ethics are important – both religious and secular – and are part of a well-rounded education. In fact, I have had a long association with a number of religious groups who are strong advocates for human and environmental rights: and there is no reason why these things should be in conflict. For the State government to squander this opportunity is to let us all down: well those of us who believe in a well rounded society anyway.
For some information on ethics teaching, check out the St James Ethics Centre who designed the proposed program.
Speak soon
james
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Socio-logic with James - FBi Radio (21 Oct 2009)
Hey everyone
This week on FBi Radio (94.5 FM) we got into some serious stuff. It was a week when Parliament has been sitting and throwing mud at each other in debates that my first year students at University of Western Sydney undertake with much better dignity!
This week’s stories…
There is no doubt that race plays an issue here, but as I have written for the Centre for Policy Development, I do not think we should take a simple approach by saying Australia is a racist country.
What is needed is leadership - and while the Prime Minister did not show a great deal, a number in the ALP stood up to be counted (as did the Greens Senator Bob Brown). The truth is that refugees flee countries because they have little or no choice - it has nothing to do with Australia's policies. These are human beings like us and we need to show humanitarianism rather than use it for political advantage - as the Liberal Party seem bent on doing: see a great piece by Crikey here.
The issue of political donations was the second story discussed. The question is: do political donations corrupt democracy? I have discussed this previously in a paper looking at the need to reform the system and make it more transparent (read it here).
There is no doubt that when someone makes a political donations there are, at least some, strings attached. The questions is how many strings?
I think that we need to demand more from our politicians and ask them to reform the system. All donations over $1000 should be made public and no longer should there be such cozy relationships between big business and government. Even if there is nothing to worry about, the truth is that the perception that such a relationship means 'favours' are being done, we are seeing the undermining of our democracy.
Ok, that is it for now... join me next week on FBi!
This week on FBi Radio (94.5 FM) we got into some serious stuff. It was a week when Parliament has been sitting and throwing mud at each other in debates that my first year students at University of Western Sydney undertake with much better dignity!
This week’s stories…
We started by looking at the Australia's attitudes to refugees: it felt like we were going to return to the Howard Government era of fear and hate towards some of the world's most vulnerable people. A brief look at the lives of those who risk their lives shows that we need a more humanitarian approach: click here for a discussion by Australia's Human Rights Commission!
There is no doubt that race plays an issue here, but as I have written for the Centre for Policy Development, I do not think we should take a simple approach by saying Australia is a racist country.
What is needed is leadership - and while the Prime Minister did not show a great deal, a number in the ALP stood up to be counted (as did the Greens Senator Bob Brown). The truth is that refugees flee countries because they have little or no choice - it has nothing to do with Australia's policies. These are human beings like us and we need to show humanitarianism rather than use it for political advantage - as the Liberal Party seem bent on doing: see a great piece by Crikey here.
The issue of political donations was the second story discussed. The question is: do political donations corrupt democracy? I have discussed this previously in a paper looking at the need to reform the system and make it more transparent (read it here).
There is no doubt that when someone makes a political donations there are, at least some, strings attached. The questions is how many strings?
I think that we need to demand more from our politicians and ask them to reform the system. All donations over $1000 should be made public and no longer should there be such cozy relationships between big business and government. Even if there is nothing to worry about, the truth is that the perception that such a relationship means 'favours' are being done, we are seeing the undermining of our democracy.
Ok, that is it for now... join me next week on FBi!
Cheers, james
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Socio-Logic with James (on FBi Radio)
Hey everyone
As some of you may know, I have a regular gig on FBi Radio (94.5 FM). It is a trial for 6 weeks so let’s hope that they like me and keep me! (You can email them and tell them I rock or even better subscribe to keep independent radio alive and well in Sydney).
I am on Up For It with the cool and funky Alex Pye every Wednesday morning at about 8.15 am, so please tune in!
This week at a conference in Beijing, the News Corporation chairman, Rupert Murdoch, criticised online companies like Google – saying they were ‘content kleptomaniacs’. His argument is that Google makes money by directing people to content loaded by organisations such as Fox News and Sydney Morning Herald, and they should pay (and by extension, we should pay).
The internet has always been a battleground since its development as corporations have always tried to commodify it and make us pay, while the open source software movement has always believed that this is something that we all own as it was built by our tax dollars and should remain free. An amazing guy here is Lawrence Lessig – you should check out his work!
I am all for free content – and think Rupert’s move is a negative one. He never establishes why we should pay to visit his site: is it better than everybody else’s? I do not think so: it is just a way to enclose more area for profit.
Watch this one – I think it will heat up – and get ready to get active to protect what is owned by all of us already (a true commons) – in which corporations are already making money off!
As some of you may know, I have a regular gig on FBi Radio (94.5 FM). It is a trial for 6 weeks so let’s hope that they like me and keep me! (You can email them and tell them I rock or even better subscribe to keep independent radio alive and well in Sydney).
I am on Up For It with the cool and funky Alex Pye every Wednesday morning at about 8.15 am, so please tune in!
This week’s stories…
1. Pay to use the internet:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/10/2710367.htmThis week at a conference in Beijing, the News Corporation chairman, Rupert Murdoch, criticised online companies like Google – saying they were ‘content kleptomaniacs’. His argument is that Google makes money by directing people to content loaded by organisations such as Fox News and Sydney Morning Herald, and they should pay (and by extension, we should pay).
The internet has always been a battleground since its development as corporations have always tried to commodify it and make us pay, while the open source software movement has always believed that this is something that we all own as it was built by our tax dollars and should remain free. An amazing guy here is Lawrence Lessig – you should check out his work!
I am all for free content – and think Rupert’s move is a negative one. He never establishes why we should pay to visit his site: is it better than everybody else’s? I do not think so: it is just a way to enclose more area for profit.
Watch this one – I think it will heat up – and get ready to get active to protect what is owned by all of us already (a true commons) – in which corporations are already making money off!
2. Climate camp
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/11/2710652.htm?section=justin
The second story was a discussion about Climate Camp – which is a community of volunteer’s environmental group – that has emerged because they believe that the government is not doing enough to combat climate change: and I think they are spot on the money!
The Climate Camp ran for three days at Helensburgh near Wollongong. This was symbolic because it is the site of one of Australia’s oldest coal mines and the NSW government, despite everything we know about carbon emissions, coal and climate change, has decided to expand it! (Note that residents are also concerned – not just about the emissions, but the risk to the local environment and water quality).
The meeting culminated with about 500 protesters blocking and closing down the mine on the Sunday afternoon. It was a peaceful protest though 13 people were arrested.
I am all for non-violent civil disobedience – it may be the only way to make people list and confront power.
Again, watch this space – I think we are going to see a whole lot more of these leading up to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year. (Click here to be linked to Oxfam Australia's discussion and background information and Copenhagen).
Join me next week on FBi!
Cheers, james
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Confronting Climate Change Deniers Fallacy 3: Climate change is unstoppable
Continuing my review of Mark Diesendorf’s new book, Climate Action, I know move to look at the next fallacy…
Fallacy 3: Climate change is unstoppable
This is a simple one - climate change is happening and is unstoppable, so why waste money on mitigation and spend it on adaptation.
Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by explaining the difference between mitigation (which means reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (which is reducing the impacts of climate change while doing nothing about reducing emissions).
The underlying assumptions for this position include that Australia is too small to have any impact on emissions (something that he repudiates in fallacy 2).
The second assumption is that expenditure on mitigation is expensive and ineffective and will not reduce the cost of adaptation. Big MD responds as follows: if the global mitigation effort is sufficient enough to avoid catastrophic tipping points, some mitigation is much better than no mitigation. That is, a 2 degrees rise in temperature will have a significantly smaller impact on the earth than a 3 degrees rise - so why just go with the worst possible outcome?
The third assumption is that the cost of adaptation will be below that of mitigation. For Big MD this is a ridiculous argument - and I have to say, I agree with him. He uses the following example to make the point:
MD also quotes the Stern Review: where it notes that the cost of adaptation if climate change continues unabated, the cost of adaptation will be much more expensive.
The solution is quite simple: for some countries to take the lead and make changes. For them, they will be in a better position to take advantage of new clean industries that are going to emerge. In other words, time to show some leadership!
Fallacy 3: Climate change is unstoppable
This is a simple one - climate change is happening and is unstoppable, so why waste money on mitigation and spend it on adaptation.
Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by explaining the difference between mitigation (which means reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (which is reducing the impacts of climate change while doing nothing about reducing emissions).
The underlying assumptions for this position include that Australia is too small to have any impact on emissions (something that he repudiates in fallacy 2).
The second assumption is that expenditure on mitigation is expensive and ineffective and will not reduce the cost of adaptation. Big MD responds as follows: if the global mitigation effort is sufficient enough to avoid catastrophic tipping points, some mitigation is much better than no mitigation. That is, a 2 degrees rise in temperature will have a significantly smaller impact on the earth than a 3 degrees rise - so why just go with the worst possible outcome?
The third assumption is that the cost of adaptation will be below that of mitigation. For Big MD this is a ridiculous argument - and I have to say, I agree with him. He uses the following example to make the point:
One strategy of adaptation is building more dams in areas where droughts happen; as MD points out, however, what good is a dam if there is not rain brought on by climate change?
MD also quotes the Stern Review: where it notes that the cost of adaptation if climate change continues unabated, the cost of adaptation will be much more expensive.
The solution is quite simple: for some countries to take the lead and make changes. For them, they will be in a better position to take advantage of new clean industries that are going to emerge. In other words, time to show some leadership!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)