by Professor Bob Carter
Control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate
Ten dishonest slogans about global warming, and ten little facts.
Each of the following ten numbered statements reproduces verbatim, or almost verbatim, statements made recently by Australian government leaders, and repeated by their media and other supporters. The persons making these arguments might be termed (kindly) climate-concerned citizens or (less kindly, but accurately) as global warming alarmists. 
Despairing of ever hearing sense from such people, some of whom have already attributed the cause of the devastating Japanese earthquake to global warming, a writer from the well regarded American Thinker has badged them as “idiot global warming fanatics”.
Be that as it may, most of the statements below, self-evidently, were crafted as slogans, and all conform with the obnoxious and dishonest practice of political spin – in which, of course, the citizens of Australia have been awash for many years. The statements also depend heavily upon corrupt wordsmithing with propaganda intent, a technique that international Green lobbyists are both brilliant at and relentless in practising.
The ten statements below comprise the main arguments that are made in public in justification for the government’s intended new tax on carbon dioxide. Individually and severally these arguments are without merit. That they are intellectually pathetic too is apparent from my brief commentary on each.
It is a blight on Australian society that an incumbent government, and the great majority of media reporters and commentators, continue to propagate these scientific and social inanities.
1. We must address carbon (sic) pollution (sic) by introducing a carbon (sic) tax.
The argument is not about carbon or a carbon tax, but rather about carbon dioxide emissions and a carbon dioxide tax, to be levied on the fuel and energy sources that power the Australian economy.
Carbon dioxide is a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet.
To call atmospheric carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of language, logic and science.
2. We need to link much more closely with the climate emergency.
There is no “climate emergency”; the term is a deliberate lie. Global average temperature at the end of the 20th century fell well within the bounds of natural climate variation, and was in no way unusually warm, or cold, in geological terms.
Earth’s temperature is currently cooling slightly.
3. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will punish the big polluters (sic).
A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users, but especially energy-intensive industries. These imaginary “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Any cost impost on them will be passed straight down to consumers.
It is consumers of all products who will ultimately pay, not the industrialists or their shareholders.
4. Putting a price on carbon (sic) is the right thing to do; it’s in our nation’s interest.
The greatest competitive advantage of the Australian economy is cheap energy generated by coal-fired power stations.
To levy an unnecessary tax on this energy source is economic vandalism that will destroy jobs and reduce living standards for all Australians.
5. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.
Economists know well that an increase in price of some essential things causes little reduction in usage. This is true for both energy (power) and petrol, two commodities that will be particularly hit by a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
Norway has had an effective tax on carbon dioxide since the early 1990s, and the result has been a 15% INCREASE in emissions.
At any reasonable level ($20-50/t), a carbon dioxide tax will result in no reduction in emissions.
6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.
They are not. All hope of a global agreement on emissions reduction has collapsed with the failure of the Copenhagen and Cancun climate meetings. The world’s largest emitters (USA and China) have made it crystal clear that they will not introduce carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading.
The Chicago Climate Exchange has collapsed, chaos and deep corruption currently manifests the European exchange and some US states are withdrawing from anti-carbon dioxide schemes.
Playing “follow the leader” is not a good idea when the main leader (the EU) has a sclerotic economy characterised by lack of employment and the flight of manufacturers overseas.
7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.
Self-delusion doesn’t come any stronger than this.
For Australia to introduce a carbon dioxide tax ahead of the large emitting nations is to render our whole economy to competitive and economic disadvantage for no gain whatsoever.
8. We must act, and the earlier we act on climate change the less painful it will be.
The issue at hand is global warming, not the catch-all, deliberately ambiguous term climate change.
Trying to prevent hypothetical “dangerous” warming by taxing carbon dioxide emissions will be ineffectual, and is all pain for no gain.
9. The cost of action on carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is less than the cost of inaction.
This statement is fraudulent. Implementing a carbon dioxide tax will carry large costs for workers and consumers, but bring no measurable cooling (or other change) for future climate.
For Australia, the total cost for a family of four of implanting a carbon dioxide tax will exceed $2,500/yr* – whereas even eliminating all of Australia’s emissions might prevent planetary warming of 0.01 deg. C by 2100.
10. There is no do-nothing option in tackling climate change.
Indeed.
However, it is also the case that there is no demonstrated problem of “dangerous” global warming. Instead, Australia continues to face many self-evident problems of natural climate change and hazardous natural climate events. A national climate policy is clearly needed to address these issues.
The appropriate, cost-effective policy to deal with Victorian bushfires, Queensland floods, droughts, northern Australian cyclones and long-term cooling or warming trends is the same.
It is to prepare carefully for, and efficaciously deal with and adapt to, all such events and trends whether natural or human-caused, as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide taxes serves only to reduce wealth and our capacity to address these only too real world problems.
Preparation for, and adaptation to, all climate hazard is the key to formulation of a sound national climate policy.
Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
Notes:
*Assuming a tax rate of $25/tonne of CO2, and Australia’s emissions being 550 million tonnes, indicates a total cost of $13.8 billion. Spread across a population of 22 million persons, that equates with $627/person/year.
This essay originally appeared in Quadrant online and was reposted here at the invitation of Dr. Carter
For more information:
Australian Climate Science Coalition
Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The greatest competitive advantage of the Australian economy is cheap energy generated by coal-fired power stations.”
It is at the moment. (And the greatest cost so far this year is extreme weather events and forest fires).
But the world must move to a low carbon economy, and Australia should be positioning itself in the emerging industries, not in dying ones.
Furthermore, Australia has suffered economically from flooding, drought, forest fires, and coral bleaching. As the greatest per capita producer of CO2 (Largely due to this competitive advantage that Mr Carter discusses) outside oil export based economies, there is a greater onus on Australia to reduce emissions than any other first world nation.
“Norway has had an effective tax on carbon dioxide since the early 1990s, and the result has been a 15% INCREASE in emissions.
At any reasonable level ($20-50/t), a carbon dioxide tax will result in no reduction in emissions.”
Mr Carter fails to Notice that the GDP of Norway has tripled since 1990. That CO2 emissions have only increased 15% strongly suggests that the carbon tax is both effective and no great burden to economic growth.
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Orwell.
I was born during WWII so grew up during the Cold War and can vividly remember reports of the 1953 East German uprising, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and of course the ‘Prague Spring’ of 1968 but it’s only now that I’ve a hint of what it must have been like living under those ‘peoples’ democratic republics’, being fed a constant diet of lies and exaggerations.
Take this quote from the editorial in Melbourne’s largest selling daily: “….
“…..What these events [Japan earthquake & tsunami] prove is that climate change is real…”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/nature-sends-a-grim-warning/story-e6frfhqo-1226020086330
……that is probably at the extreme end of the stupidity scale but as others have said, there is a constant barrage in the media of references to ‘climate change’, ‘carbon pollution’ and similar nonsense, enough to send an old bloke’s blood pressure to dangerous levels.
Thank you Professor Bob for re-iterating those key points.
I also agree with Adam’s sentiments above. These points would be better served by being bandied around on the ‘ABC Drum’ rather than WUWT where most people would agree with you.
I note you are a contributor on the ‘ABC Drum’ but have only had one article published in 2009. Those on the other side of the argument need to be constantly reminded that there is an alternative voice that can present a case on global warming. Or is your miniscule material there because you have no choice in this matter?
One other thing that our American friends should be aware of is that our Prime Minister may have had a standing ovation from the US Congress but she is getting the big thumbs down at home.
Her approval rating has slumped to its lowest level since she deposed of her predecessor Mr Rudd and on a two party preferred basis, the Opposition has leapt to a 54-46% lead. All polls show that the public is against a carbon tax and this issue has had a major influence on the approval rating. This is accentuated by the fact that she emphatically stated just prior to the election that would be no carbon tax.
Readers should also be aware that as an ex-industrial lawyer, she is a cunning and wily debate and an excellent public speaker as well as being quick off the mark with the media. She is now stuck with the carbon tax and will fight to the death to change the public’s mind.
I have long considered that Bob Carter is the best spokesperson we have for the sceptic position on global warming.
In this essay, I think the response to Statement 8 is the key point we should never lose sight of.
On the other hand, the response to statement 5 as it stands: “Norway has had an effective tax on carbon dioxide since the early 1990s, and the result has been a 15% INCREASE in emissions”, contains a non sequitur that will be seized upon by those of bad faith. The problem is just one word : “result” – Unless of course Bob can clearly and briefly demonstrate the cause and effect, it might be more judicious and accurate to say something like, “such has not prevented a 15% INCREASE (…)”.
Regards, John W.
REPLY:Fixed italics per comments below. Please learn how to use italics properly with HTML coding. Mistakes unfortunately affect the entire thread. – Anthony
Well done, Bob, and keep it up. You have plenty of supporters.
Pop over to NZ Bob and rip our lame duck govt a new one, we have an ETS, a moribund political landscape, and a strange desire to out do the misery of the 13th Century by returning to the technology and politics of the12th.
Many thanks Bob.
“7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.”
There is no nice way to put this: Australia is economically a small country with little to no impact on the rest of the world. No one will follow your example because no one will notice it.
As I spent 3 weeks visiting a cousin in Oz in the late 90’s just as the greens were getting going. Anyway, I do have a soft spot for the Aussies – and they are a great bunch of folk.
What I don’t understand is how come in sporting matches, (to use as an analogy) – the Aussies do tend to be able to pull themselves out of a hole with amazing regularity and determination. This seems to come from some deep seated self belief and it is high time the general public in Oz did the same thing and took out these fanatical alarmists for good.
all I can say is I hope they come to their senses, and sharpish!
Interesting about Norway’s carbon tax, which is relatively high. Strangely enough since its implementation in 1991 its had 70% economic growth and is by all accounts still a very wealthy nation. The point being, given the case of Norway and other European countries that have carbon taxes, doesn’t it seem a little alarmist to imply, perhaps, that such a tax will crash economies?
So long as the growth comes from increased oil revenues!
I don’t know how you might go about replacing Gas or Coal or if it’s even possible without a huge burden on the economy/s, but Oil? Your kidding?…
In a barrell of oil you get constituents parts. Some is for Kero (jet fuel) some for diesel some for gasolene and some for polymeres.
Not all berrells are created equal. Some barrels are better suited to a higher proportion of Diesel and some Gasolene etc etc.
If we manage to replace Diesel (Bio Diesel) or Gasolene (Electric) where are the oil company’s going to get the revenue to replace what they’ve just lost from the barrell?
Where are they going to get funds for exploration from?
Where are research and developments funds going to come from?
So while we pay a premium for the Green and Clean Bio Diesel and Electric car. We cop in the neck big time from oil company’s trying to retain their viability.
So we have a tax on the Co2 component of a barrell of oil, The price of a barrell goes up because it now costs a truckload more to produce because your throwing away a portion that you used to get revenue from.
So while we have replaced Diesel and Gasolene we have distorted the economics of a barrell of oil.
We have also introduced additional costs to the other fuels and products produced from that barrell. A Co2 charge.
We haven’t even examined Coal and Gas yet.
If this is not madness beyond measure I don’t what is.
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Orwell.
I was born during WWII so grew up during the Cold War and can vividly remember reports of the 1953 East German uprising, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and of course the ‘Prague Spring’ of 1968 but it’s only now that I’ve a hint of what it must have been like living under those ‘peoples’ democratic republics’, being fed a constant diet of lies and exaggerations.
Take this quote from the editorial in Melbourne’s largest selling daily: ….
“…..What these events [Japan earthquake & tsunami] prove is that climate change is real…”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/nature-sends-a-grim-warning/story-e6frfhqo-1226020086330
……that is probably at the extreme end of the stupidity scale but as others have said, there is a constant barrage in the media of references to ‘climate change’, ‘carbon pollution’ and similar nonsense, enough to send an old bloke’s blood pressure to dangerous levels.
Prop Carter,
I would add a number 11 as cited in ‘Hansard’ amongst many other places:
11. That a ‘Carbon Tax’ will create business investment, Jobs, productivity, and prosperity.
If a ‘Tax’ can do these things well………hell why don’t we just have one giant flat rate 100% ‘Australia Tax’ that would enable massive business investment, massive Job creation, massive productivity, and massive prosperity for all. This may entail the rewriting of all the theories of economics but hell, this is Australia and our politician’s are masterminds, just give them all your money and property and you will be in Utopia. No more worries !!!
Wombat said: ‘The point of a price on carbon is that some methods of producing energy are favored over others. It is not a blanket cost on all energy.’
You don’t live in Australia, a proxy tax has already been dumped on us and then Julia shoots herself in the foot by promising even greater hikes.
Give up the green pill, it’s going out of fashion.
God, I hate responding to trolls.
Please let me refrain from properly chastising “Allan”……
“Christopher Hanley says:
March 14, 2011 at 12:56 am
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/nature-sends-a-grim-warning/story-e6frfhqo-122602008633o”
From the article…
“The biggest earthquake recorded in Japan, perhaps the greatest in Japanese history, sent a tsunami sweeping through cities in the country’s north.”
Even the person(s) responsible for monitoring quakes stated that the quake was the biggest since modern measuring methods were installed. So, yet again, more scare monerging from the Australian MSM.
If this tax is leveled, the extra revenue should be used for the environment accordingly!
This should not contribute for pay rises of the politicians or disappear otherwise untraceable!
There should be public projects of supporting the environment like building ponds, create forests or re-naturalizing rivers.
Otherwise it is as usually another rip-off and reaching into the wallet of the everyday person in the end.
This does not only apply to Australia, but also the UK and the US…
You stupid, witless, cretin Wombat,
The GDP of Norway has tripled since 1990, because of all the natural gas they export. After World War II, Norway experienced rapid economic growth, with the first two decades due to the Norwegian shipping and merchant marine and domestic industrialization, and from the early 1970s, a result of exploiting large oil and natural gas deposits that had been discovered in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea.
Why you trolls bother is beyond all understanding. It’s a wonder you can even read & write. Do you like sex and travel?
Some time ago I posted that the greenhouse gas was water vapor 93% with methane 3% and CO2 bringing up the rear. The reason CO2 is irrelevant is because the absorption spectra for infra red are fully occupied. I was a little puzzled that there was no one disputing this and when I noted this the only comment was ” you are preaching to the choir”. It is high time some courageous journalist asked Julia Gillard or Bob Brown to describe how a green house works , what are the greenhouse gases and why does CO2 change 6-800 years after the temperature changes on the Vostok ice cores. For the concerned young give up Earth Hour- they can’t turn the power house off but start by boycotting soft drinks and beer and releasing all that pollutant gas. I worry that the good Dr Bob may be preaching to the choir and wonder how we can have so many politicians in Canberra without one honest scientist among them. Maybe their Naplan should include a test of physics and chemistry as well as the three Rs. Geoff Broadbent
For all those that don’t understand the Australian venacular. A wombat is used when describing a dimm witted action or silly train of thought that will result in self harm or harm of others.
Common usage. “AAAhhh, ya stupid wombat”.
If you’ve been paying attention to your Australian documentaries, Crocodile Dundee, ;-). You’d notice the usage.
Wombat by name, Wombat by nature
Interestingly………….
If you visit the world’s poorer countries which are home to 3/4 of the entire earth’s population, virtually no one talkes about climate change. Wondering where your next meal is coming from is far more important. Our survival instinct takes over !
So, when the carbon tax does come and subsequently sends us back to povery it will completely destroy all support for the Green and Socialist movement as as we regress back towards our former colonial ‘Right Wing’ selves.
On the other hand, maintaing a high wealth and carbon full lifestyle makes many of us forget about the perennial struggle of survival and focus on saving whales, dophins, starving people in Africa, this list is endless, ..etc. This green and socialist view is fuelled by our moral compass bending to try and justify our rich and pleasant livestyle.
So, If the Greens are serious about maintaining their supporters, converting the non-believers and living in a pure green society where we all worship the new Gaia …….
We need CO2, and lots of it !!!
Hey Wombat
You are a Wombat… nothing more to be said…
Det says @ur momisugly 2:12 am,
“There should be public projects of supporting the environment like building ponds, create forests or re-naturalizing rivers.”
“Building ponds” means man made, “create forests” means man made, however, “re-naturalizing rivers” means destroying man made dams, weirs or ponds.
With logic like that it is little wonder that the world is in for some worrisome times. Please Det, if you have another thought keep it to yourself.
Professor Carter’s article is clear and well argued rebuttal of the government nonsense being pedalled in Australia at present. The option of doing nothing at all glares out like a beacon of common sense.,
His book “Climate the Counter Consensus” should be compulsory reading in schools instead of the current Green Garbage being force fed to our minors. The Warmists are not just misguided but are acutally organizing a massive fraud on us all for their own gain and moral satisfaction. Ignorance of the historical and geological facts of climate are very widespread and need emergency aid..