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.
eadler,
“Various estimates put the reduction at carbon price of $20/ton in the range of 5 to 15% and at $50 /ton at 8 to 22%.”
And this would be good for the economy, why exactly?
@Wombat
As Bjorn Lomberg has pointed out, the ‘massive’ drop in biodiversity has been greatly exaggerated; however, to the extent that loss of biodiversity is occurring, it is primarily the result of loss of habitat. There is no credible evidence of climate caused loss.
This loss of habitat is only to get worse if we adopt taxes etc that promote the use of biofuels which will cause further deforestation in Indonesia or Brazil for example. Green policies such as carbon taxes will severely compromise the world’s ability to feed itself within the land area currently cultivated.
This cultivated land area actually decreased due to the green revolution and biodiversity was the winner. The biggest threat to biodiversity in the world today is ‘green’ policies.
Wombat,
“In Europe they are. And might well increase their commitment to reduce emissions from 20% to 30%.”
Yep, and that’s why Europe is boned.
Vince Causey says:
March 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm
There is no reason to suppose it could happen, either. Yet it is this blind, ignorant faith that is so dangerous.
Seriously, learn some basic rules of debating, and stop pumping out ignorant straw man fallacies. I’m not arguing that it will, only that the possibility means the Australian governments assertions that they need to catch up and take a lead are not contradictory.
I like Austrailia i hope they dont do something that will hurt their economy. Why dont they just build several large solar furnacses in their remote areas and also go to electric cars. i think this whole carbon tax is a waste of time. Also i hope that whatever they do it is what the citizens want and not just a few politicians raming it down everyones throat.
The best thing that can happen in Australia is for there to be a PUBLIC technical debate covered by TV over say 5 or 10 sessions between sceptics and AGW proponents discussing the points raised by Bob, amongst other things. Such a debate with right of response and a chance to revisit claims and counter claims over series of episodes would make great viewing. The AGW folk don’t want this and will squirm their way out of it because they know their argument is full of holes and political bias. However they would outwardly resist having such a debate on the grounds that a clear majority, in their minds, of scientists believe in AGW. The need to present and discuss facts is irrelevant to them. The vote is all that counts. The talking up and the dumbing down on this issue is appalling and is one of the main reasons the public’s view on science is deteriorating.
Stuart MacDonald says:
March 14, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Vince Causey says:
March 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm
There is no reason to suppose it could happen, either. Yet it is this blind, ignorant faith that is so dangerous.
Seriously, learn some basic rules of debating, and stop pumping out ignorant straw man fallacies. I’m not arguing that it will, only that the possibility means the Australian governments assertions that they need to catch up and take a lead are not contradictory.
==================
If you have simply been arguing that needing to catch up and take a lead are not contradictory, then I don’t disagree with you. I had, perhaps mistakenly, assumed you were also arguing that the Australian policy is a good thing, and that was the point I was trying to address.
Vince Causey, you are right on in your analysis. Stuart MacDonald is trying to put two items together that were not stated together and oppose each other. If they had been put together as one statement then he would be correct. But, they were stated as different reasons to promote the tax. Typical alarmist double-speak.
Stuart MacDonald says:
March 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm
“As a general rule, I tend to dismiss anyone who tries to pass off (sic) the kind of junk thinking you used as logic and reason as anti-science.”
“Your argument is bunkum…”
and finally:
“Because I thought it obvious they were following anyone who produced a mobile phone before they did, I will be sure not to hold your comprehension in such high esteem in future.”
Argument from intimidation is not an argument. It is a tactic to avoid an argument or debate, and you are good at it. It is a piss-poor way to win a debate, however. Does it work OK on your high-school debate team? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) By the way, I don’t know who you think you’re fooling but I don’t believe you ever held my comprehension in high esteem. Patronization doesn’t work very well, either.
One more thing – you also say:
“…there is no contradiction, these are future goals, they do not have to be performed simultaneously, but one can be achieved as a consequence of the other.”
So then what exactly is the plan? Lead now and follow later, follow now and lead later? Either way you are right (and so was I); there is no contradiction.
I like this blog because the troll traffic is usually minimal, but this thread seems to be a giant exception. Fun, nonetheless.
Wombat @ur momisugly 1:36 pm says:
“For Australia, the mean cost for a family of four is nil, because a carbon tax goes to the government, so the average family of four will need to pay less GST or income tax to the same value.”
Wombat, your statement has to be the most moronic statement that any person could put on paper. What part of a ‘Tax’ on production, and specifically a tax on energy production, could possibly in your wildest dreams have a ‘Nil’ effect on a family of four because it (the Tax) “goes to the government” ?
So if the tax were to go to anyone else other than the “government” then it (the Tax) would have an impact on a family of four, is that right ? But what about the compensation Wombat ?
The bottom 20% of Australian households will receive ‘Cost of Living Increase’ compensation with the next 20% of Australian households being ‘Carbon Tax Neutral’ and the so-called top 60% of Australian households paying the full ‘Carbon Tax’ cost of living increase AND THEREFORE BY DEFAULT, all the compensation, with the government being nothing more than a conduit for the compensation.
You really should pay attention.
Billboard suggestion:
CARBON chemistry is called “Organic Chemistry.”
We are carbon based life forms.
Thank you as ever for your clear, concise and helpful information. If only more media outlets would share this with the public.
Bravo Professor Bob. Your comments should be required reading for all politicians, particularly Malcolm Turnbull and the few Labor blokes who have a brain.
Send it on everyone!
Kaboom says,
“God, I hate responding to trolls.
Please let me refrain from properly chastising “Allan”……”
Thank you for this surgically precise cutting criticism Kaboom. I’m not sure what was trolling about what I said.. I thought it was important and on topic to mention this mis-information about my country being the worst per capita CO2 emitters. If you are upset that I didn’t provide a link then fine here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Of course you could have found this yourself with a half seconds effort but it is more fun to just post random inflammatory comments isn’t it? Also we are number 12 not 6 as I thought. Sure, the countries ahead of us are export economies (aside from the U.S) as Wombat states, but Australia also has one of the most diffuse populations in the world so much of our CO2 per capita comes from moving things around, which we probably can’t really avoid can we?
In any case, the line I hear again and again from politicians is just that “Australia is the worst CO2 per capita emitter” no caveats no nothing. Just that, and it is plainly untrue.
Also, I note that Canada which is comparable to Australia in many ways, due to large land mass and low population distribution, is only slightly behind us in CO2 per capita. Then if you look at Canada’s sources of energy you see that 15% comes from nuclear (banned in Australia and not popular in light of the problems facing those poor Japanese people) and most of Canada’s electricity comes from hydro, which is also effectively banned in Australia due to the green fear of damns. So thanks much to all the greenies in Australia for making us such bad CO2 emitters!
Allan
I think Wombat and co are putting up a valiant rear-guard action. They still recite the official warmist creed, (which is a very difficult thing to do if you have any scientific training) but it’s the subtle change of tone that I enjoy hearing, that old righteous, suprematist, ‘I’m Right, the science is settled, you are a flat-earth Denialist…’ thing is definitely fading away.
So let’s hear more from Wombat and co, as they will soon be extinct and I enjoy the plaintive sound of their voices in the wilderness. Their puzzled squeals of discomfort are like a tonic to me, sweet reward for the years of warmist claptrap foisted upon us all by their media chums.
As an Australian I will post how I interpret the following as one who follows and understands the science that is driving the present world politicians into an era of carbon sensitive awareness.
1. We must address carbon (sic) pollution (sic) by introducing a carbon (sic) tax.
The argument is about carbon and a carbon tax. We need to place a price on carbon and those who generate such dependence on carbon fossil fuels. We should tax the inefficiently but reward innovation. We should not penalise the consumer – we should penalise the traders in the carbon based economies. We begin to shift the emphasise on cheap dependence to a diminishing resource and start revaluing that dependence. We reward consumers but penalise a lack of innovation and alternatives. It is a diminishing resource that will only get more expensive. There are no other options. We run out of coal and oil in the next two hundred to three hundred years.
A carbon dioxide tax, to be levied on the fuel and energy sources that power the Australian economy.
Carbon dioxide only becomes a real issue when a doubling of it remains in our atmosphere over and ABOVE 400ppm – That is – it becomes dangerous at 500pmm and amplifies further beyond that. Any science presentation that is telling you it becomes saturated at 400ppm is an unprovable hypothesis. Not to worry – she’ll be right is not an option.
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, and especially energy-intensive fossil fuel industries. These “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Any cost impost on them will be passed straight down to consumers. And we reward the cause when they decrease outputs of CO2 and when they start innovate by placing responsibility on them. Any tax generated should be used to shore up consumers and reward the compliant innovators. The cost placed on carbon translates into turning the earth green again. It is also an insurance policy against striking out following generations with abject poverty because we the present generation were lazy and wanted it cheap and go on burning the stuff.
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. Yes it is – but its dependence hides the devil in the detail. We as a present generation cannot and must not sell our soul for cheap living when the following generations face a world with diminishing resources. Without planned innovation paid for and pledged by our generation – a transition must be made. Man did not land on moon without a taxation cost. It’s innovations echo through everything we use today. We can do this. We need to examine our own biased negativities.
5. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.
Putting a price will not lower emissions into our future for at least another one hundred years. It will be a slow crawl way from our carbon cheap addictions. Our future generations will thank their forefathers for their planning with selfless insights.
6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.
They are! China builds one wind tower per hour! China shuts dirty coal fired stations at the rate of one per week.
7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.
Leadership is carried in the very heart of prophets long ago who were being stoned daily by their own people because they dared tell the truth. These words echo: “Your nation will be destroyed because you lacked a progressive vision. You placed your hope in former fore fathers – living on their past prosperity.
8. We must act, and the earlier we act on climate change the less painful it will be.
If the disasters come we will be ready. We will be prepared based on the minor signs now inbuilt into our climate. Not when “they” come to visit our nations – the man of the house is prepared to meet them head on. “The thief in the night could not enter.” We will go the way. We will walk the mile. We will give our children the futures they deserve. We can and will do this – even if it costs those in government because it was right thing to do.
And infamous of our generation – we be known into all the generations. Those who told us safety when it was not safe. Those who told us peace when there was no peace. Those who spoke of promised prosperity when the robber took all. Those who spoke of wondrous harvests when famine, drought and pestilence destroyed the crops of millions.
9. The cost of action on carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is less than the cost of inaction.
Yes it is. Mr Carter with due respect – you seriously do not know. I am afraid for you as you well know you are one of only a few in my great country who deny the issues up ahead. I think you are dead wrong the way I see it and read it. And time will tell whether you speak the truth and speak of inaction as your only solution. Generations that follow in my country will remember you.
10. There is no do-nothing option in tackling climate change.
Indeed.
Reworded responses:
However, it is also the case that there is a demonstrated problem of “dangerous” global warming. 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. We agree.
The appropriate, cost-effective policy to deal with Victorian bushfires, Queensland floods, droughts, northern Australian cyclones and long-term 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.
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.
And Ross Brisbane is an Australian citizen who vehemently disagrees with Dr Carter. When we do not tax and place a price on things present the climate battles we face of our tomorrow will be much harder to overcome.
Wombat:
You’re Ken Henry—our soon-to-be-retired Secretary of the Treasury— aren’t you?
Off to look after the hairy-nosed wombats, with a spot of blogging on the side??
You seem to think China has the moral high ground over us—but they’re building right now—– 24 large-scale brown coal mines, and 8 clusters of coal-fired power plants in the ‘autonomous region of Inner Mongolia’, between 2011 and 2015.[see Andrew Bolt’s blog}:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/2011/03/
That’s brown coal —the dirtiest kind—the kind that we’re phasing out right now.
They’ll be producing at that region, 237 million tonnes of brown coal annually.
That’s just one region.
They’ve also polluted some of their farmlands and the locals there, with highly toxic by products of their much-vaunted solar programs.
And we shouldn’t give them special dispensation because of their developing status.
When a country systematically —-for political and ideological reasons— brutally murdered millions of its best and brightest, and denies its people democracy still—–then no special allowances should be made for it in its catch-up stage—and certainly not by countries that always honoured freedom and human rights.
Why is it, Wombat, that people like you who are so concerned about GW, never mention the research of Drew Shindell of NASA and others as well, that finds that 50% of the Arctic warming [ and some of the glacier melt], is caused by black carbon—soot—from China, India, Indonesia, Brazil?
Why would you not be loudly supporting and speaking out about what Shindell urges—that the mitigation of that be done as a priority, because it will make a difference much earlier than any CO2 mitigation can do?
Could it be that warmists worry that mitigation of black carbon will do too good a job—and demonstrate a lesser impact from CO2 than they now claim?
Is this part of the post-normal science—where the imperative is to tailor the message for the end result required—an alarmed populace?
Great website,glad that I found it however there is one small error that needs to be addressed,the economist spokesman that this bunch of commies quote is Prof.Garnaut but the correct pronunciation is ‘guano’ after what comes out of his mouth.
Absolutely marvellous! I note that the GREENHOUSE GAS is WATER VAPOUR-93%. No refutes that or even questions it. If true that is the finish of all the rot about CO2 which was 3000 ppm 65 million years ago followed by 20 million years of cooling. The graph is in Bjorn Lomborg’s book and he has not noticed it! Discussing CO2 without a passing knowledge of past levels sounds like Gullivers Travels where the Brobdignagians argue learnedly over whether to cut open the egg at the big or the small end. If you want to trade in nebulous gases like CO2 why not water vapour – or better still clouds as you can at least see what you have purchased. Our gorgeous “Morning Glory” clouds which roll across our Gulf would be worth a motza as glider pilots love to surf the cloud wave! Lord-what fools these mortals be! Geoff Broadbent
I understand the basic economic environment under which Norway’s GDP has tripled over a time when its CO2 emissions have only increased 15%.
Nevertheless, given all that extra drilling, mining and exportation that they have been doing, a 15% increase in CO2 is very modest. (Especially when the population has also increased about 12% over that time).
So I find Mr Carters claim that carbon taxes have no effect on emissions as not supported by his example of Norway. Certainly there has been a drastic reduction in emissions per GDP there.
Where did you get these figures from Geoffrey?
More accepted figures are about 35% reduction in the Greenhouse effect if water vapour is removed from the atmosphere, 9% reduction in Greenhouse effect if CO2 were removed, and Methane much less than that.
These are lower than you might be used to seeing, because of the overlap with other gasses. If you leave only water vapour in the atmosphere, you leave about 65% of the greenhouse effect, and if you leave only CO2 in the atmosphere, you leave about 25% of the Greenhouse effect.
But your source seems to be somewhat different from either of these ways of calculating the proportional effect of a greenhouse gas.
I’m a pretty quick fellow when it comes to soaking up information. I can often ‘skim’ and get it all. I was pleasantly surprised to find someone who does not inflate their verbage with a load of gas and that actually made me slow down and think about what was being said. Each sentence an economical and worth construct, worth my time.
Well done, Sir. Well done.
“Ross Brisbane says:
March 14, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Carbon dioxide only becomes a real issue when a doubling of it remains in our atmosphere over and ABOVE 400ppm – That is – it becomes dangerous at 500pmm and amplifies further beyond that. Any science presentation that is telling you it becomes saturated at 400ppm is an unprovable hypothesis.”
Can you present any science which states CO2 become “dangerous” (That is “dangerous” climate change) at concentrations at 500ppm/v. Until then, this claims is bogus.
“Wombat says:
March 14, 2011 at 1:36 pm”
Regarding the Victorian bush fires. Fire 1, caused by a failed/downed power line. Fire 2, caused by an arsonist. All fires enhanced by silly local council rule regarding the clearing of fuel from properties. Not sure where climate change and CO2 emissions come in to play.
[snip . . off topic]