15th May 2019
New report reveals how climate change could cost you
Author: Janelle Ward
climate change

Climate change was the most searched political issue over the past two weeks, according to an assessment of all Google searches relating to politics, as Australians come to grips with a new report that reveals how global warming will affect their household budgeting.

A report from the Climate Council, an independent, crowd-funded organisation, says climate change and extreme weather are projected to reduce property values by $571 billion in the next 10 years – if global greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current trajectory.

But it may well be the associated hike in home insurance costs that will have the most immediate affect on Australians living in key at-risk areas.

The report, Compound Costs: How Climate Change Is Damaging Australia’s Economy, says that one in every 19 property owners faces the prospect of insurance premiums that will be effectively unaffordable by 2030 – costing one per cent or more of the property value per year. An at-risk home with a value of $1 million in 2030 could be facing an annual insurance premium of at least $10,000.

“Some Australians will be acutely and catastrophically affected,” says report author and climate risk expert Dr Karl Mallon. “Low-lying properties near rivers and coastlines are particularly at risk, with flood risks increasing progressively and coastal inundation risks emerging as a major threat around 2050.

“Even for Australians who can afford to pay, general insurance currently does not cover damage from coastal inundation and erosion, events that are likely to become more common because of climate change.”

The report identified the 10 most vulnerable local government areas in each state and territory, and the key concern, with most at risk of flooding.

It follows that the extra money many home owners will have to spend on insurance will heap more pressure on household budgets. And older Australians with properties in at-risk areas, which may once have been prime locations, may need to revisit their retirement strategies.

Dr Mallon was highly critical of the evolution of planning laws.

“The problem affects far more homes than most people realise, because planning laws haven’t kept pace with climate change,” he said.

“We are still building, buying and selling ‘the wrong kinds of buildings in the wrong kinds of places … A lot of people are sleepwalking into [this]’.

“If the industry doesn’t step up, we’ll all pay – both as taxpayers picking up the bill for the recovery … or because of the impact on our communities and our economies.”

The report says that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have been rising for four years and that we are not on track to meet our weak 2030 emissions reduction target. It says: “If the world followed Australia’s approach, we would be on track for at least 3–4°C of global warming, which would have catastrophic economic consequences.”

The Climate Council recommends:

  • reducing emissions to net zero by 2050 or earlier, through clear and coordinated policy leadership
  • strengthening building codes to increase the thermal efficiency and energy efficiency of buildings as well as ensuring building designs are fit-for-purpose to cope with increasingly frequent and severe climate-influenced hazards
  • adopting risk-appropriate national land-use planning guidelines that prevent new buildings and infrastructure being constructed in areas that are, or will be, highly exposed to climate change hazards

YourLifeChoices research found that older Australians rated climate change action as the second most important issue in the lead-up to the Federal Election. Top of the list of their concerns was an increase in the base rate of the Age Pension.

Is climate change a key concern for you? Are you worried that you have property in a vulnerable area?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Chris B T
    15th May 2019
    8:51am
    How many of these Flood events could have been Significantly Reduced or Effects, By Better Management of Dam Storage. Not Releasing Water before or containing near Max levels in Historically Known Weather Events.
    Climate Change is Real but Mismanagement Of Dam Storage has nothing to do with it.
    It is a shame you can't Bill The Dam Utility for your loss/damage caused.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    4:10pm
    Not sure this is what the problem is.
    What is coming coastal surges which will hit coast properties and likely push water up rivers (?) to do the same. When the wealthy get flooded THEN coalition governments will act. Whilst its somebody else who cares.
    Climate change is however much more than rising water and storm surges. We've see weather patterns change with extreme events like fire and flood occurring at shorter intervals. Then there's extreme heat which farmers are unable to combat because their crops are no longer suited to where they are grown and next year's weather is not predictable any longer.

    We'll all pay for this and the crooked politicians who acted for their coal buddies will be retired and living the life of Riley rather than being in court having everything they owned stripped from them. Think bank CEOs. No case to answer. So it will be with pollies who say 'I had no idea', etc.

    I'm not sure ANY action taken by the incoming Labor government can address what the current lot have done to us over the past 6 years but maybe its not too late.
    Chris B T
    16th May 2019
    9:48am
    Brisbane 2011 Dam Release or Dam would Burst.
    More Recently Townsville automatic Release To Save Dam so a minor flood turned into a Catastrophic Event.
    Both of these Earlier Releases of Water before Known Weather Events the outcomes would have been Different.
    Climate Change is Problem Looming, the Dam Management/Mismanagement has Immediate Consequences.
    River tidal Back Flows are Known Events, that's why we have Tidal Charts.
    Talk to people effected by these 2 events and ask them about Climate Change.
    My question was How many of the Flooding Events was Caused by Not Controlling Water Flows, where they are controllable.
    Not a Bludger
    15th May 2019
    10:25am
    My giddy aunt is at it again.
    Yet another if, but or maybe report from a completely uncredentialed, rentseeking outfit breathlessly huffing & puffing about something that might (or equally might not) happen.
    And, it is reported without critical analysis by YLC.
    The old adage is do not build your house on a flood plain or the river bank - it will flood sometime.
    Tom Tank
    15th May 2019
    12:02pm
    Spot on about not building on a flood plain BUT developers have been allowed to by governments of all shades.
    The big issue is however the real possibility of flooding into areas that haven't been flood plains for millenia.
    Mootnell
    15th May 2019
    12:43pm
    exactly there will always be a flood one day if near a river.
    Over 25 years ago we had an exceptionally wet year, a few narrow areas had road sections cut off for a short time but to call it a flood makes a mockery of what northern Australia has experienced.
    According to the chart,
    we are deemed to be in a flood zone. I can tell you if we flood, all of you will be in an ark or dead.
    Rosret
    15th May 2019
    7:39pm
    - and anyone who has done any historical research into major floods in Australia will know we have done a lot of flood mitigation.
    We are a land of drought and flooding rains.
    Can we do better? Of course. But as a very new nation with a large land mass and a very small population it takes time. However, we have done an awful lot in a very short time and we should be congratulated on what we have achieved.

    If you want to see Australia in all its magical glory take a flight to Lake Eyre and see something that only happens a few times each century. Its not global warming - its cyclic.
    Farside
    15th May 2019
    9:53pm
    If you build on a flood time you takes your chances, do your own mitigation and don't come crying or expecting handouts when the flood happens.
    floss
    15th May 2019
    10:30am
    We have been told by the LNP. that climate change is not a problem?.
    Rod63
    15th May 2019
    3:47pm
    Not quite. They haven't said it's not a problem, but that it's not worth spending money on.

    In otherwise, we are better off to have more money now and suffer enormous consequences in the decades to come, than spend money now to make for a better future.
    maxchugg
    15th May 2019
    10:33am
    Climate change is an ever present reality - As Dorothea McKellar wrote, we live in a land of droughts and flooding rains.

    Tim Flannery assured us that we faced endless drought, building a dam near Brisbane was a waste of money because it would never fill. It did, overflowed and flooded Brisbane and another one recently did the same in Townsville. Now we see a chart listing a very large number of places threatened by flood.

    For several years climate scientists were warning us that the Arctic ice would disappear in Summer, the NSDIC photos of the polar icecaps completely destroy this argument, their comments notwithstanding. We were told in 1990 that the Maldives would be under water by 2000, it didn't happen and won't.

    We are told to reduce our emissions to zero, even though the Chief Scientist stated that if we managed to achieve this impossible task, the effect on the climate would be insignificant.

    The promoters of the global warming religion stand accused of adjusting temperature records over several decades in order to turn a period of slight global cooling into global warming, a charge that they have never effectively denied. Heretics are subjected to the same treatment as heretics of the past. Nils-Axelsen Morner was effectively run out of town when he assured the Maldividians in mid 1990 that the predicted inundation would not occur. More recently we have seen Peter Ridd fired for daring to contradict the James Cook University's position on the Barrier Reef with irrefutable evidence.

    Finally, I repeat a question I have issued dozens of times before - if human activity on Earth is causing global warming and melting our icecaps, why are the icecaps on Mars also melting?
    Mindy
    15th May 2019
    11:08am
    Martian activity?
    Tom Tank
    15th May 2019
    12:07pm
    The icecaps on Mars are melting because the atmosphere is almost totally Carbon Dioxide.

    The climate on Earth has never static in terms of the Life of Earth. A look at geological history shows periods of ice ages and of much warmer times that the present. The real conundrum is by just how much have we humans increased the problem?
    Tom Tank
    15th May 2019
    12:07pm
    The icecaps on Mars are melting because the atmosphere is almost totally Carbon Dioxide.

    The climate on Earth has never static in terms of the Life of Earth. A look at geological history shows periods of ice ages and of much warmer times that the present. The real conundrum is by just how much have we humans increased the problem?
    maxchugg
    15th May 2019
    6:53pm
    Tom Tank, you say that the Martian icecaps are melting because the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, you fail to notice that if solid ice, albeit largely frozen carbon dioxide begins to melt, something caused the melt to happen, like, maybe, altered solar activity?
    maxchugg
    15th May 2019
    6:53pm
    Tom Tank, you say that the Martian icecaps are melting because the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, you fail to notice that if solid ice, albeit largely frozen carbon dioxide begins to melt, something caused the melt to happen, like, maybe, altered solar activity?
    IndyLopos
    15th May 2019
    10:35am
    Climate Change is a problem, BUT it is a GLOBAL problem!
    Unless the MAJOR polluters of the world, like USA, CHINA, & INDIA take action, it will NOT be addressed.
    AUSTRALIA is only a small part of the picture, and while we should do our bit, if we go ahead of these major polluters then we will only be disadvantaged without any significant benefit to us!
    We produce a small part of the world's greenhouse gases and we certainly are not influential enough to lead by example.
    So those activists trying to force Australians to pay for a greater share of the reduction of greenhouse gases per head are simply forcing Ozzies to bear an unfair cost burden without the corresponding benefits. Let us not blow totally out of proportion what our contribution will do for us!
    Yes, act on climate change, but do it in line with what is being done globally and not overstimate, the effect that Australia can possibly have!
    SFR
    15th May 2019
    11:01am
    We should be a world leader in renewables especially solar
    GeorgeM
    15th May 2019
    1:51pm
    Completely correct, Indylopos. CO2 Contributions are: China=30%, USA=15%, India=7%, yet all 3 of them have refused to have any emission targets. Australia with 1.3% is making futile noises (committed to 26-28% emission reduction targets, with Labor proposing 45%), when in fact, as the Chief Scientist said, we cannot have any impact even if Australia is shut down! So, Labor & the Greens are selling a furphy - for which the people will pay heavily!

    The calculation of our (Australia's) effect on the CO2 levels is as follows:
    CO2 in the atmosphere = 0.04%,
    Human contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere = 3% of the above,
    Australia's contribution to CO2 levels = 1.3% of the 3% above, i.e.
    .04% x .03 x .013 = 0.0000156% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    As a result, the Chief Scientist advised that there would be no effect to the climate even if Australia fully shut down!
    It's very much a con industry pushed along by vested interests who have gains coming out of such climate-based industries.

    Reminds one of The Emperor's New Clothes story - when he was actually naked!
    This would all be really funny, except that we have major political parties running this line and planning to hit the people with massive changes to allegedly help the climate (not likely) which will hurt most the people on fixed and low incomes, including retirees.
    maxchugg
    16th May 2019
    12:20pm
    It’s good to see some common sense on this site, something that is seriously lacking.

    The science is settled, we are told, but, far from being settled, it is not even science because of the total disregard of scientific method where any scrap of evidence which supports the theory is given huge importance, anything which contradicts is totally ignored. Even though by guessing the future weather, statistically you would be right around 50% of the time, the multi billion solar computer models have fallen well short of that figure, and we are asked to believe them!

    We have repeatedly seen what happens to scientists who deviate from the doctrines of the climate change religion. Peter Ridd spoke out and lost his job, then commented that he was able to speak because he had reached retirement and, obviously unlike junior colleagues, could afford to lose his employment. Even the Chief Scientist, after committing a grave faux pas by admitting that even if Australia ended all emissions the effect upon the climate would be insignificant, he subsequently covered his tracks by claiming that Andrew Bolt had put words in his mouth, which, as may be seen by replaying the interview, is totally untrue and he even admits as much:

    https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2018/12/clarifying-the-chief-scientists-position-on-reducing-carbon-emissions/

    Here is a very short list of scientists who do not agree with them, many more are readily available. Most people will neither have heard of them nor given consideration to their arguments because they are, in the words of Al Gore, an “Inconvenient Truth”:

    Dr Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist and meteorologist. Renowned for predicting climate with 85% accuracy, using solar, lunar, jetstream and GulfStream activity.

    Nir Shaviv Astrophysist. Even a critic, Vaughn Pratt who admitted to completely agreeing with Shaviv on the importance of solar activity, “an egregiously overlooked point in the IPCC reports.”

    Professor Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, previous consultant to Goddard Space Flight Center who has also worked with the IPCC. He commented that the IPCC “Summary For Policymakers” had not been written by scientists alone, it was the result of a dialogue between scientists and policymakers. Articles from major modelling centres to anticipate the absence of global warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure to account for natural variability, “thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.”

    Ross McKitrick Economist, has authored many reports into the conduct of the IPCC which include details of accounts of bias in reporting and inadequate peer reviews:

    https://www.rossmckitrick.com/submissionsresponses-to-govt-inquiries.html

    The really bad news is the extent of brainwashing of children by their left wing teachers who follow the traditional pattern of only discussing the arguments for climate change, never mentioning the mass of contradictory evidence. This is child abuse.

    The bad news for the proponents of the scam is that Mother Nature will prove them wrong and there will be a day of reckoning for those who have wasted countless billions of dollars desperately needed in health and education.
    maxchugg
    16th May 2019
    12:20pm
    It’s good to see some common sense on this site, something that is seriously lacking.

    The science is settled, we are told, but, far from being settled, it is not even science because of the total disregard of scientific method where any scrap of evidence which supports the theory is given huge importance, anything which contradicts is totally ignored. Even though by guessing the future weather, statistically you would be right around 50% of the time, the multi billion solar computer models have fallen well short of that figure, and we are asked to believe them!

    We have repeatedly seen what happens to scientists who deviate from the doctrines of the climate change religion. Peter Ridd spoke out and lost his job, then commented that he was able to speak because he had reached retirement and, obviously unlike junior colleagues, could afford to lose his employment. Even the Chief Scientist, after committing a grave faux pas by admitting that even if Australia ended all emissions the effect upon the climate would be insignificant, he subsequently covered his tracks by claiming that Andrew Bolt had put words in his mouth, which, as may be seen by replaying the interview, is totally untrue and he even admits as much:

    https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2018/12/clarifying-the-chief-scientists-position-on-reducing-carbon-emissions/

    Here is a very short list of scientists who do not agree with them, many more are readily available. Most people will neither have heard of them nor given consideration to their arguments because they are, in the words of Al Gore, an “Inconvenient Truth”:

    Dr Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist and meteorologist. Renowned for predicting climate with 85% accuracy, using solar, lunar, jetstream and GulfStream activity.

    Nir Shaviv Astrophysist. Even a critic, Vaughn Pratt who admitted to completely agreeing with Shaviv on the importance of solar activity, “an egregiously overlooked point in the IPCC reports.”

    Professor Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, previous consultant to Goddard Space Flight Center who has also worked with the IPCC. He commented that the IPCC “Summary For Policymakers” had not been written by scientists alone, it was the result of a dialogue between scientists and policymakers. Articles from major modelling centres to anticipate the absence of global warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure to account for natural variability, “thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.”

    Ross McKitrick Economist, has authored many reports into the conduct of the IPCC which include details of accounts of bias in reporting and inadequate peer reviews:

    https://www.rossmckitrick.com/submissionsresponses-to-govt-inquiries.html

    The really bad news is the extent of brainwashing of children by their left wing teachers who follow the traditional pattern of only discussing the arguments for climate change, never mentioning the mass of contradictory evidence. This is child abuse.

    The bad news for the proponents of the scam is that Mother Nature will prove them wrong and there will be a day of reckoning for those who have wasted countless billions of dollars desperately needed in health and education.
    libsareliars
    17th May 2019
    1:21pm
    @maxchugg - "Most people will neither have heard of them nor given consideration to their arguments "

    Probably because they are not credible.
    maxchugg
    17th May 2019
    8:24pm
    Libsareliars, you label as unreliable the highly qualified scientists who dare to question the doctrines of the religion originally called global warming but name changed because global warming was not happening while climate change was constant. So let’s examine your credibility:

    Dr. Piers Corbyn has a reputation for predicting climate with 85% accuracy, but has no credibility in your eyes, yet Tim Flannery obviously does. Compared with Dr Corbyn, Flannery’s predictions of endless drought which would mean that dams would never fill, several capital cities would run out of water by around 2010 were total nonsense. Instead of droughts there were floods, the nominated capital cities failed to run out of water on cue, Perth is not looming like being the 21st century’s first “ghost metropolis” as predicted. Flannery attempted to cover his tracks about the endless drought with a nonsensical claim that he had been misquoted and attempted to Blame Andrew Bolt.

    The Chief Scientist “did a Flannery” when confronted by his statement that if Australia achieved the impossible and ended all emissions, arguing that he had been misquoted and attempted to blame Andrew Bolt. Bolt effectively ended this argument by screening the interview between the Chief Scientist and Sen. Ian MacFarlane. Credibility?

    Nir Shaviv, critical of IPCC reports, was obviously unwillingly supported by a critic who could not dispute the claim that the effect of solar activity was egregiously overlooked. Further support for this criticism comes from the fact that the polar icecaps on Earth and Mars were melting in synch with each other, the only possible explanation is solar activity. Why is Nir Shaviv’s credibility questioned, that of the Chief Scientist accepted?

    Upon what basis is the credibility of Professor Richard Lindzen questioned? He worked for the IPCC and was critical of their reports because of failure to take into account natural variability which made the IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change to be false. Other scientists have made similar statements

    National Geographic November 1976 and the January 33, 1977, cover of TIME magazine featured the story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age” which included ‘facts’ such as scientists predict that the temperature of the earth could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to man-made global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned, “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one-sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.” Please explain which scientists have credibility, those who predicted global cooling or those who predict global warming.

    Finally, where is the credibility of James Cook University. Peter Ridd presented solid evidence which contradicted the rusted on opinions of the university so, instead of examining with an open mind the “inconvenient truth” of the evidence raised, they simply fired Professor Ridd. If the university’s opinions were based upon solid facts, why did they choose to “shoot the messenger” rather than obey the rules of scientific method and disprove his claims? The answer is apparent, they were wrong and knew they were wrong It isn’t the Libs who are liars!
    maxchugg
    17th May 2019
    8:24pm
    Libsareliars, you label as unreliable the highly qualified scientists who dare to question the doctrines of the religion originally called global warming but name changed because global warming was not happening while climate change was constant. So let’s examine your credibility:

    Dr. Piers Corbyn has a reputation for predicting climate with 85% accuracy, but has no credibility in your eyes, yet Tim Flannery obviously does. Compared with Dr Corbyn, Flannery’s predictions of endless drought which would mean that dams would never fill, several capital cities would run out of water by around 2010 were total nonsense. Instead of droughts there were floods, the nominated capital cities failed to run out of water on cue, Perth is not looming like being the 21st century’s first “ghost metropolis” as predicted. Flannery attempted to cover his tracks about the endless drought with a nonsensical claim that he had been misquoted and attempted to Blame Andrew Bolt.

    The Chief Scientist “did a Flannery” when confronted by his statement that if Australia achieved the impossible and ended all emissions, arguing that he had been misquoted and attempted to blame Andrew Bolt. Bolt effectively ended this argument by screening the interview between the Chief Scientist and Sen. Ian MacFarlane. Credibility?

    Nir Shaviv, critical of IPCC reports, was obviously unwillingly supported by a critic who could not dispute the claim that the effect of solar activity was egregiously overlooked. Further support for this criticism comes from the fact that the polar icecaps on Earth and Mars were melting in synch with each other, the only possible explanation is solar activity. Why is Nir Shaviv’s credibility questioned, that of the Chief Scientist accepted?

    Upon what basis is the credibility of Professor Richard Lindzen questioned? He worked for the IPCC and was critical of their reports because of failure to take into account natural variability which made the IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change to be false. Other scientists have made similar statements

    National Geographic November 1976 and the January 33, 1977, cover of TIME magazine featured the story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age” which included ‘facts’ such as scientists predict that the temperature of the earth could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to man-made global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned, “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one-sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.” Please explain which scientists have credibility, those who predicted global cooling or those who predict global warming.

    Finally, where is the credibility of James Cook University. Peter Ridd presented solid evidence which contradicted the rusted on opinions of the university so, instead of examining with an open mind the “inconvenient truth” of the evidence raised, they simply fired Professor Ridd. If the university’s opinions were based upon solid facts, why did they choose to “shoot the messenger” rather than obey the rules of scientific method and disprove his claims? The answer is apparent, they were wrong and knew they were wrong It isn’t the Libs who are liars!
    Young
    15th May 2019
    10:44am
    So if we stop mining coal, natural disasters will no longer happen.
    I don’t think so.
    SFR
    17th May 2019
    1:29pm
    Duh, we can't prevent natural disasters but we can plan better for them.
    On the other hand we can stop mining coal which pollutes the air & the ground
    SFR
    15th May 2019
    10:58am
    Climate change
    LNP = sit on hands, do nothing, refute all science information unless it's from our own sources declaring it's not happening, burn more coal
    ALP = we agree climate change is a concern, will look at all reports & set realistic targets & renewables.
    Greens = we're up shit creek with no paddle, ban coal, ban cars, people can walk & use bicycles, they are an over the top joke
    inextratime
    15th May 2019
    11:02am
    Ok if 'climate change ' is such a disaster then when will the government, which ever party that is, stop mining coal. Surely its totally hypocritical to spout on about climate change infinitum but not stop what is supposed to be the main cause. Maybe its because Australia would immediately become a much poorer country because we derive much of our standard of living from the export of coal, thousands of people would be out of work and guess what, no-one can say what difference it would make, No-one, just ask. No-one has the slightest idea of what difference it would make. However the climate change industry is expanding exponentially with the virtual signallers getting their jolly's off, scaring the hell out of people but offering no tangible solution or result. This article is another scare mongering offering. If the CC industry was genuine they would be aiming their vitriol at China, India and the USA the biggest generators of carbon emissions. Without their involvement we can all whistle dixey.
    BrianP
    15th May 2019
    11:23am
    This is irresponsible and criminal publicity. Australia's influence on climate change is around 1% so what we do has next to no effect if large populations like China, India, USA etc are not reducing emissions.

    Meanwhile we would all be facing huge rising costs while our economy is ruined.
    KSS
    15th May 2019
    12:45pm
    No it won't BrianP. Mr Shorten says there will be no cost to the ecomony. So much so he hasn't bothered to factor in rising costs because according to him they are all cost neutral.
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    1:27pm
    We should all be doing our bit BrianP, Australia is one of the highest emitters per capita and renewables are actually cheaper than coal now. Also, the costs of inaction are way higher than action on climate change. Did you not read the article? The science is in, it happening right before our eyes and we only have 10 years to arrest global warming to 1.5 degrees - remember there is no planet B.
    GeorgeM
    15th May 2019
    2:05pm
    Climate Council is trying to justify their existence - when the facts are that Australia can have NO effect on the climate by anything we do here. Rest of the discussion is irrelevant.

    The cost of inaction by Australia (we are actually acting to get a 26-28% reduction in emissions, so it is dishonest to suggest we are not acting) is zero, as per the Chief Scientists response when asked what is the effect if Australia shuts down all emissions.

    It is dishonest of Shorten to avoid providing an estimate of cost to the economy and to the people from his plans - he just has to list a set of actions proposed, and there are plenty of experts available (in PBO, Consultants, etc) who will work it out fairly quickly - the people MUST NOT accept such deceptive responses from politicians, otherwise we deserve the crap outcomes we get from them.
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    2:21pm
    It was dishonest of Abbott to call it a tax, Peta Credlin even said they called it that for purely political reasons and to frighten the ignorant. The CPRS was lowering emissions, now under the LNP emissions are going up.
    KSS
    15th May 2019
    3:28pm
    libareliars: Spoken like a true Green.

    " Also, the costs of inaction are way higher than action on climate change.........we only have 10 years to arrest global warming to 1.5 degrees ......"

    And you think it is all Australia's fault so we have to singlehandedly fix the world's problems right? You do klnow that even if Australia stoppped all coal mining, exports and electricity generation, took all petrol and diesal vehicles off the road, installed solar pannals on every building, banned placstic and saved the whales tomorrow it wouldn't make one iota of difference right?

    Any saving Australia can do is totally over run by China and/or India in a couple of hours.
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    5:11pm
    Spoken like a true luddite COALition member KSS.
    So we just sit and do nothing? Anyway, there are a lot of countries doing things to stop it and just because others may not be it's the morally correct thing to do. Very soon they will have stranded assets and be pariahs. I don't expect an LNP voter to put the environment before greed though - it's all about money for them.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:23pm
    Brian - yes, but we have on many occasions pointed the way for the rest of the world. We punch well above our weight and being the last country to act is a sign of a destitute government.

    KSS - go hand out how to vote cards will you. We do not need to read your cash for comment propaganda which just regurgitates the same lies told by your party again and again. Australians have for the most part come to realise the deceit for what it is.
    johnp
    15th May 2019
    11:36am
    How can Australia alone have any more than a minimal or barely detectable effect on climate ??
    Farside
    15th May 2019
    10:10pm
    it doesn't Johnp, but isn't it a good thing to have cost effective strategies for a cleaner environment, reduced pollution and increased climate resilience in accordance with a long term goal?
    johnp
    20th May 2019
    5:28am
    The root cause is population increase which will defy all other efforts !! Also there are certain cultures which are determined to have large families especially to eventually overcome and impose their religion etc on the rest of us. Generally it is western cultures that are having small families plus in the past in China with their one child policy. Its mostly the poor that are kind to the environment. An example is the Davos conference where delegates and celebrities gathered like Attenborough, Prince William etc. They arrive in their private jets, stray, enjoy and eat in opulent surroundings while preaching to the rest of us. Another example is where many celebrities do not re-use (wash) say underwear, they just use brand new ones continually every day !!!
    Farside
    20th May 2019
    10:45am
    A wide ranging collection of comments Johnp. Population increase will level off and this trend is already well advanced. Most people overestimate average family sizes.

    Execs and celebrities flying in planes to conferences is a given. Davos is simply another destination and not the only place they visit in a year. Do you really care if the enjoy and eat in opulent surroundings or would they be more authentic if munching down on insects or mice-on-a stick and living in tents in a dusty Malawi field?

    And the celeb underwear, I understand it is recycled and sold on the web to so-called fans but I am not sure why you think their underwear habits affect population or climate trends.
    johnp
    21st May 2019
    12:07pm
    Re. Population increase will level off.
    I was unaware of this. Just comment though, do you think the leveling off will be sufficient to avoid the climate change issue ??
    The stated aim by certain cultures/religions to eventually overcome through large families is still valid though.

    Those celebrities etc that espouse the problems associated with over consumption are however being fairly hypocritical whilst they indulge extremely in these sorts of lifestyles.

    The underwear comment is just one small example of their attitudes and high consumption which is part of the problem.
    BrianP
    15th May 2019
    11:43am
    These are the facts about how little Australia's efforts effect climate. Judge for yourself.

    CO2 in the world's atmosphere 0.04%
    Of that, humans make 3%
    Of that, Australia makes 1.3%
    If Australia stopped all emissions 99.99998% of the world's atmosphere would be UNAFFECTED.

    Go figure.
    Mikko
    15th May 2019
    12:07pm
    Exactly, BrianP!
    But Bill Shorten will stop our floods, cyclones, bushfires and heatwaves by imposing 50% renewable power, 46% emission reductions and 50% EV (electric vehicles) sales by 2030 (Hey Charger, where are you?).
    Asking the cost of doing all this is "a dumb/ dishonest question" according to Shorten and adds "What's the cost of doing nothing?".
    According to evidence by Australia's chief scientist Alan Finkel to a Senate hearing, cutting our emissions to zero would have negligible effect on world climate, so the honest answer to Shorten's question would be "nothing" as nothing would change even if CO2 was the climate change demon it is claimed to be.
    If he does get elected as expected, we will see how much our economy has changed, how much house prices have fallen, how many big businesses such as aluminium smelting have been forced offshore, how much electricity bills have risen and how often the lights go out.
    Good luck with all that!
    KSS
    15th May 2019
    12:47pm
    King Kanute thought he could stop nature too and that didn't end well either!
    Tom Tank
    15th May 2019
    1:51pm
    Actually Canute was proving to his nobles that he could NOT stop the tide rising.
    Like much of the comment here the facts are being distorted through a lack of knowledge. Much of the comment here is being driven by political partisanship rather than facts.
    Tom Tank
    15th May 2019
    1:51pm
    Actually Canute was proving to his nobles that he could NOT stop the tide rising.
    Like much of the comment here the facts are being distorted through a lack of knowledge. Much of the comment here is being driven by political partisanship rather than facts.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:25pm
    Brian - you normally make a lot of sense. This post is little more than irresponsible denial. Next you'll be quoting Lord Mockton like the fossil fuel lobby has for years.
    We need to fix ourselves. Better first rather than last. If we're last then it'll cost us a lot more than if we lead. Go figure!
    Mikko
    15th May 2019
    12:04pm
    There have been numerous warnings of impending doom before and since the first Earth Day in 1970, and whenever a predicted date has been reached without the catastrophic result, the timeline just gets moved further out.
    We've seen it with Al Gore's prediction sea levels would rise by 20 feet (6 metres) "in the near future". https://scienceline.org/2008/12/ask-rettner-sea-level-rise-al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth/ We saw it with Tim Flannery's prediction before the last big Brisbane floods in 2011 and 2013 that our dams would run dry and rivers would never run again https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/tim-flannery-failed-predictions/
    But take heed all you damn sceptics: “… As all the ice at the two poles melt, a stupendous volume of water will be released. Fish will swim in Buckingham Palace … the Sahara Desert will be a great inland sea … New York will be marked by taller skyscrapers … the climate will be as when dinosaurs roamed the earth…”
    Yeah, right. This apocalyptic piece from the respected New York Times is dated - May 15, 1932. Better book those swimming lessons if you can't tread water).
    pedro the swift
    15th May 2019
    12:13pm
    Climate change? Another media beatup to allow more control over what you do! Climate changes, wether you like it or not!
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    1:28pm
    So you know more than the scientists do you Pedro? What is your field of expertise? I can't believe there are still people peddling this lie. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
    Farside
    15th May 2019
    10:31pm
    pedro, nobody is questioning that climate changes, rather the question relates to the rate of change and the degree to which human activity is responsible. Most of those who study these things agree the rate of change has increased as a result of human activity. Their evidence has been sufficient to most persuade all but the most recalcitrant of global leaders and institutions that human activity has accelerated the rate of global warming.

    The science shows atmospheric CO2 has increased from pre-industrial 280ppm to the current 400ppm and that human activity is responsible for two thirds of this increase. The atmospheric CO2 increase matches the increase in global warming (average surface temperatures).

    Do you follow the science or uninformed opinions?

    https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
    Old Man
    15th May 2019
    12:19pm
    I believe that there is climate change. Where I am at odds with a lot of people is how much influence man has in climate change. We are told about the mythical "97% of scientists agree" tale when a simple google search will explain where this has come from. Note that the term "scientists" is commonly used when "climate scientists" are the real experts in this field. Quite a number of those who are claimed to be in the 97% have refuted the use of their names. I find it interesting that a number of sites spouting doom and gloom also ask for donations.

    CO2 we are told is harmful yet plants cannot grow without it and humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Nature has always provided CO2 otherwise nothing could grow and now man has added some CO2. Again, we are told that Australia is the highest emitter of CO2 if the measurement is per capita but this is a lie. The US emits a higher per capita than Australia as is Bahrain, Brunei, Curacao, Gibraltar, Kuwait, Luxembourg, New Caledonia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Trinidad and Tobago and United Arab Emirates. Sure they are smaller countries but those making the false claims don't specify sizes. Australia isn't in the top 15 of countries emitting CO2.

    There are those who want to destroy Australia's economy by closing mining, closing coal and gas fired power stations, reducing the herds of farmed animals all in the name of fixing the climate. None of them can specify what difference closing down Australia will make to climate change or by how much the earth's temperature will be altered by this action nor will they put a figure on the cost. Instead, we are given the nonsense response of "doing nothing will be a greater cost" whatever that means. If they know that one cost is higher than another then a cynic would suggest that all of the costs are known.

    Records have been kept in Australia for over 200 years and that means that a once in 100 year flood has been seen at least twice. This measure should be alerting councils that approving a development on a flood plain should never be allowed but time after time we see councils siding with developers and approving building in areas that locals know will be in trouble should heavy rains arrive.
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    1:46pm
    Coal and fossil fuels are dirty and polluting, just ask those who have worked and lived near these industries. What's wrong with renewables, it is clean and cheaper than coal. Coal will be a stranded asset in the near future, we are much better off transitioning to clean energy, more jobs, less carbon pollution. It is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is the problem, it has been rising steadily for some time now. Hence we are getting consistently hotter, drier weather, more extreme weather events such as floods, cyclones and fires earlier. The sea stores the majority of our CO2 and that's why we are finding that the water is heating up due to excess CO2 - that's why we had those fish kills in the Murray and the coral reefs are dying. Not enough oxygen in the water, they are becoming what is known as acidified. Look at all the tourist jobs that will go if the GBR completely dies, not to mention all the sea life. Over 1 million extinctions are expected if we don't pull our fingers out and do something to stop climate change. We are all part of the earth, all interconnected. Humans are not exempted from relying on a healthy, bio diverse environment much as they might like to think they are superior and know whats best. We will face extinction if we don't get a handle on how to arrest climate change. I would prefer to listen to the scientists who are experts in their fields - what are your qualifications in this area Old Man?
    Old Man
    15th May 2019
    2:58pm
    OK, libsareliars, I have no qualifications but then again I don't know of any politicians who want us to pay more and get less who have any climate science degrees. I have nothing against renewables which are cleaner. I would argue the cost to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines are not cheap and I wonder how those items are made without a baseload power to run the welders and machines to make them. I also wonder how they mined the materials but that is another subject.

    There is a drought which is a regular occurrence in Australia and the severity is no worse than some serious droughts in the past. I lived through the drought in the '60's which was as severe as this one. Back then, the inland river system caused the rivers to stop flowing just as they have with this drought. The fish kill has been caused in part by the drought and in part because irrigators have taken water from the rivers and the Menindee Lakes have been used to supply water instead of letting it do its normal job of helping to supply the Darling.

    There is no proof whatsoever that the Barrier Reef is dying. Yes, parts of it bleach from time to time as has always happened and like in the past those bleached areas regenerate. Have you a time limit on our extinction? I was talking to my grandson last week and he assured me that we have 5 years to get all of this together or the earth will be unlivable in 15 years. He knew all of this because his geography teacher told him so.

    I will change my mind when I am offered proof, not the words of those who have a vested interest in the scare campaign on climate. Not you, libsareliars, I'm sure you get nothing out of all of your pronouncements but those who are putting forward the lies are most certainly getting something. Flannery told us that by 2012 there would be no rain and if any fell, the ground would be too hard for it to soak in. Plibersek told us that there would be insufficient crops to feed everybody by 2015. How are those predictions panning out?
    inextratime
    15th May 2019
    4:11pm
    libsareliars. There are more polar bears at the North Pole than there have ever been in Earth's history. Is that due to climate change ?
    inextratime
    15th May 2019
    4:11pm
    libsareliars. There are more polar bears at the North Pole than there have ever been in Earth's history. Is that due to climate change ?
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    5:20pm
    Old Man, and inextratime I can't be bothered trying to refute your claims with counter claims. All I will say is that I will believe the scientists that are warning us of what is happening and what will come. It's not a conspiracy theory it's a fact. I choose to believe science over politicians and those with vested interests in coal and fossil fuels.
    Old Man
    15th May 2019
    5:31pm
    Don't give up, libsareliars, just because of a few facts. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a lie designed to make some people very rich. I too believe in science but it seems we are reading the words of different scientists.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:31pm
    The utter ignorance in your posts astounds me OM.
    You are running the LNP line of economy first climate change BS and do nothing, at least not anything useful or which costs money.
    For an (apparent) intelligent human being you show real ignorance in your post.....but as usual I see WHO you are posting for. Shame.
    We'll have a new government on Sunday. Of course the lies from your side of politics will not end there and your crew along with the Murdoch and Stokes media machines will do everything in their power to make sure Labor do not succeed. That's par for the course

    Anybody who votes Liberal after the last 6 years is either brain dead or a rusted on and deserves the pain which another LNP government will inflict on them. Luckily it looks like Labor will be in office unless uncle Rupe can pull a very big rabbit out of the hat tomorrow or Friday. Expect some dirt or fabrication....oh yes already done that!
    MICK
    16th May 2019
    11:46am
    Oh forgot....political lock-out starts tomorrow. You'll have do you your bit by tonight. I can hardly wait.
    Ecstatic Cyclist
    16th May 2019
    9:32pm
    Old Man writes, "CO2 we are told is harmful yet plants cannot grow without it and humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Nature has always provided CO2 otherwise nothing could grow and now man has added some CO2."
    Ever heard of equilibrium. Tell the families of the two guys who died in a pub cellar several years ago through CO2 leaking from a faulty keg, that CO2 is harmless. With no CO2 the earth would be covered in ice and with too much it would be too hot.
    Most of us would see water as harmless but but too much causes drowning. Nature through plants absorbs CO2 and releases oxygen without which animals could not exist.
    The CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be balanced to keep the planet habitable.
    I would rather take the word of David Attenborough and Professor Brian Cox about climate change than that of those connected to the coal, oil and associated interests.
    maxchugg
    19th May 2019
    9:02am
    Well, Mick, by your judgment the majority of Australians are brain dead because so many of them voted for the Coalition. Wasn't it you who recently called Scott Morrison a Pig? Not the kind of language being used against him today where he is being praised for his conduct since the declaration.

    You predicted a new government on Sunday--ooops!

    As for the vilification of the big end of town which was ever present in you posts and also those of many others, the wealthy supported your favourites and, with Clive Palmer, proved that you can't win an election by throwing money at it just as you can't affect climate change the same way.

    As for the dirt you attach to "Uncle Rupe" and other sections of the media, with no evidence to support your outlandish assumptions, what do you think of those who defaced Abbott posters, accused him of paedophilia and mailed faecies to his office? As for media bias, after being a subscriber to the local paper for over 50 years, I finally cancelled by subscription because of extreme left wing bias. For example, endless reporting of the disgusting massacre of 50 Muslims in New Zealand, the subsequent massacre of 150 Christians is long forgotten.

    On the other side of the media, you are totally blind to the blatant, illegal bias of the ABC. Hopefully their luck will now run out because they no longer have a Labor supporter in the office of the Prime Minister, hopefully Scomo will deliver the comeuppance that is long overdue.

    You predicted that another LNP will inflict pain on all of us, what pain would have come had your favourites emerged the winner will never been known, fortunately. You also predicted that if the LNP go back into office the family home would be included in the means test. We wait and see!

    My voting practice is that I usually vote for the opposition, but for me, "the sweetest victory of all" is that Getup stuffed up.
    maxchugg
    19th May 2019
    9:02am
    Well, Mick, by your judgment the majority of Australians are brain dead because so many of them voted for the Coalition. Wasn't it you who recently called Scott Morrison a Pig? Not the kind of language being used against him today where he is being praised for his conduct since the declaration.

    You predicted a new government on Sunday--ooops!

    As for the vilification of the big end of town which was ever present in you posts and also those of many others, the wealthy supported your favourites and, with Clive Palmer, proved that you can't win an election by throwing money at it just as you can't affect climate change the same way.

    As for the dirt you attach to "Uncle Rupe" and other sections of the media, with no evidence to support your outlandish assumptions, what do you think of those who defaced Abbott posters, accused him of paedophilia and mailed faecies to his office? As for media bias, after being a subscriber to the local paper for over 50 years, I finally cancelled by subscription because of extreme left wing bias. For example, endless reporting of the disgusting massacre of 50 Muslims in New Zealand, the subsequent massacre of 150 Christians is long forgotten.

    On the other side of the media, you are totally blind to the blatant, illegal bias of the ABC. Hopefully their luck will now run out because they no longer have a Labor supporter in the office of the Prime Minister, hopefully Scomo will deliver the comeuppance that is long overdue.

    You predicted that another LNP will inflict pain on all of us, what pain would have come had your favourites emerged the winner will never been known, fortunately. You also predicted that if the LNP go back into office the family home would be included in the means test. We wait and see!

    My voting practice is that I usually vote for the opposition, but for me, "the sweetest victory of all" is that Getup stuffed up.
    Mootnell
    15th May 2019
    12:36pm
    the biggest fear mongering money-making scheme ever. Does anyone look at history or read the scientific reports that are refuting much of this claptrap. seems to me the 'kings got no clothes' is well and truly alive.
    Nan Norma
    15th May 2019
    1:35pm
    Mootnell. With you. I remember some years ago when there was a scare that we were seriously running out of petrol. Of course petrol prices went sky high as did everything else needing to be transported. We were warned we needed to stop using our cars. Then I saw racing cars on TV were still racing. I realised how we had been conned.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:34pm
    ANd I remember the fossil fuel scare campaign to shut down renewable energy. which is now cheaper than coal. They argued for years that coal was cheaper. What now? And remember that renewable energy is getting (much) cheaper by the year. I've been receiving flyers offering a 6.6 kW system for under $4000. Amazing, and still going down further.
    Arrowmaker
    15th May 2019
    12:40pm
    I will be so glad when the Government (which ever one) fixes climate change. Controlling the climate is a lofty goal and will be difficult, however the benefits are immense.
    Imaging being able to make the weather fine and sunny for every weekend!
    It will only rain at night, and there will be no more cyclones, floods, heat waves or blizzards!
    Agriculture will be a certainty rather than a gamble and there will be an
    Arrowmaker
    15th May 2019
    12:47pm
    end to skin cancer.
    Andy
    15th May 2019
    1:01pm
    I cannot believe people are still running with this climate change anyone that spends a penny on it is wasting money
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    1:48pm
    I can't believe people are still climate deniers.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:35pm
    A message from your government sponsor.
    Nan Norma
    15th May 2019
    1:16pm
    For a start, Qld is no longer building Queenslander houses. These were designed for the Qld climate. So areas are flooding because the water builds up rather then flows through. People remained high and dry. What we should be concerned about is the pollution we are creating with all our plastics. All the garbage we are producing. We have become, as was forecast years ago, a throw away society. The western world has become a huge consumer. We buy and discard at the drop of a hat. One person will sit in a large machine build to carry five, or more people around, for hours. This is a health hazard we don't want to acknowledge. Look at all the medical waste because we use once and don't serialise anymore.
    We spray chemicals in the air because every smell must be pleasant, even if it kills us.
    We have a lot of cleaning up to do.
    Richie
    15th May 2019
    1:21pm
    Agree with you SFR. Climate change is real. small islands in our region fear they will be underwater within 2O years. Seems global weather becomes more extreme with every passing year. Has Britain had a heat wave such as it had last summer? There is the argument that CO2 alone is causing the world to warm. There are at least four other equally destructive greenhouse gases that are doing their share.. chlorofluorocarbons, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide,
    Nan Norma
    15th May 2019
    1:26pm
    Richie. Depends what they call a heatwave. They've also had some very cold weather.
    Richie
    15th May 2019
    1:28pm
    We hear over and over by the sceptics that Australia does not need to reduce her CO2 emissions as we only emit some 1.3% globally. Are we forgetting that we export massive amounts of fossil fuel materials to first world and third world countries. They emit greenhouse gases.. probably 10 times what we emit. So indirectly we are adding to global warming significantly more than we want to admit.
    Richie
    15th May 2019
    1:33pm
    Nan Norma. A UK friend of mine said she had never experienced such hot continual weather in her some 55 years. Said the temps were in the hi 30C for almost a month. Regretted not having air conditioning and having to rely on fans.
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    1:53pm
    Well said Richie.
    Mandy
    15th May 2019
    8:08pm
    Richie we also export a lot of agricultural goods which they will eat and breath out carbon dioxide. Do you suggest we let them go hungry? Incidentally those agricultural goods were from carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere due to the efforts of our much maligned farmers.
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    1:22pm
    Climate change is definitely a concern for me, my children and their children. What sort of a world will they inherit? I can't believe that it was second on the list after a top up of the pension. Money will not make a difference if we have no environment.
    inextratime
    15th May 2019
    1:33pm
    Libsareliars. 1. Who are you listening too ? 2. What do you think we should do to change the climate ? 3. Will that action change the climate. 4. What will the effect of that change be in % terms ? . If the answer to 4 is not known, please advise where that answer can be found ?
    inextratime
    15th May 2019
    1:33pm
    Libsareliars. 1. Who are you listening too ? 2. What do you think we should do to change the climate ? 3. Will that action change the climate. 4. What will the effect of that change be in % terms ? . If the answer to 4 is not known, please advise where that answer can be found ?
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    1:52pm
    Inextratime see my answer to Old Man above. Also, who are you listeing to? Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and all those Deniers on Skynews After DarK?
    inextratime
    15th May 2019
    4:05pm
    OK libsareliars please answer the questions in my posting.
    If you are able too and they are verifiable then I will listen to you.
    inextratime
    15th May 2019
    4:05pm
    OK libsareliars please answer the questions in my posting.
    If you are able too and they are verifiable then I will listen to you.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:40pm
    inextratime - good try.
    The goal is to keep world temperature rise to below 2 degrees. NOT doing anything will ensure it is above that well before the end of the century.
    Its a no brainer that NOT burning ANY fossil fuels is the first step. Then of course there is population increase.

    To fully satisfy you I'll ask a question in answer to your question: HOW LONG IS A PIECE OF STRING? Pretty well puts your question into perspective as you seek to muddy the water rather than provide any solution whatsoever, preferring to stick your head in the sand and cry 'too difficult' like this government has done for 6 years as it pushes our country further and further toward becoming a third world nation.
    KB
    16th May 2019
    1:57pm
    Climate change is a major issue and concern for me just as it is for many families
    KB
    16th May 2019
    1:57pm
    Climate change is a major issue and concern for me just as it is for many families
    inextratime
    16th May 2019
    10:27pm
    So Mick you buy something, have no idea what it costs and have no idea what it will achieve but you do know that it may make omelettes. Good analysis. And why do you think there are so many people on the renewable energy bandwagon, for exactly the reason you accuse Lib voters, MONEY. Check our Alex Turnbull's company.
    inextratime
    16th May 2019
    10:27pm
    So Mick you buy something, have no idea what it costs and have no idea what it will achieve but you do know that it may make omelettes. Good analysis. And why do you think there are so many people on the renewable energy bandwagon, for exactly the reason you accuse Lib voters, MONEY. Check our Alex Turnbull's company.
    Knight Templar
    15th May 2019
    1:28pm
    CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is not pollution. We inhale oxygen and we exhale carbon dioxide. It is not a pollutant and it is not a poison. On the contrary, it is essential for life on Earth and levels as high as 5,000 ppm are considered safe on submarines and on space stations. Current atmospheric levels are around 400. It has also been established that increases in CO2 levels follow increases in temperature not the reverse.

    Al Gore predicted in 2007 that by 2013 the Arctic Ocean would be completely ice-free in Summer. To date, it has never been navigable in Summer without the assistance of massive ice-breakers. Sea-ice has resisted Al Gore's predictions. In fact the annual average coverage of sea ice has been essentially the same since satellite observations began in 1981.

    Readers might recall Australian Professor Chris Turney who launched an expedition in December 2013 (Summer) to prove the Antarctic Sea was also undergoing catastrophic melting only to have his ship trapped in sea-ice such that it could not even be rescued by modern ice-breakers. They had to be rescued by helicopter and flown to the Russian ice-breaker some considerable distance away.

    Africa's Mt Kilimanjaro was also targeted by global alarmists who predicted that it would lose its ice cover. It did lose half its ice-cover between 1880 and 1936 before the major use of fossil fuels and only 30% more in the last 80 years. The temperature at its peak has not risen above freezing (32 degrees Fahrenheit). The melting has been due to deforestation and the dry air rising to the mountain top causing the ice to turn directly into water vapor - a process called sublimation.

    The Maldives and Seychelles were expected to be under water by 2012. The are not. Indeed they continue to be popular holiday destinations.

    People should apply common sense in response to climate alarmism. It is designed to make a few people very rich particularly those with investments in renewables, and transfer wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:41pm
    Another message from our government sponsor?
    I'd bother but why waste my time with government trash.
    libsareliars
    17th May 2019
    10:47am
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/16/thinning-of-antarctic-ice-sheets-spreading-inland-rapidly-study
    Have a read of just this article Knight Templar about CO2. Also why don't you ask how the people in Kiribati are going due to sea level rises.
    Angelique
    15th May 2019
    1:32pm
    Climate change is real and will always be with us. I wish there was a change in the language we speak about it though. Maybe it could be changed to "planet damage" which is something we can do about by getting rid of plastics etc, reducing emissions and being more mindful about the environment. However I do not see the climate changing just because some legislation is passed in government. They may as well ask that the tide will not come in and out.
    Funkee
    15th May 2019
    1:35pm
    I'm beginning to become a little skeptical about YLC. Articles seem to prefer the govt. or popular narrative on most topics, including this. Have any of you ever questioned wether GW/CC might not be all that we've been told. I found out a long time ago that the whole subject is based on fiction, no proof ever, just pure supposition.
    Here, from the horses mouth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k
    Take a look, it's only 16 minutes and will absolutely open your eyes. When the 'father' of climate change says the whole thing has no factual basis you need to take note. Added to this, there is now a large group of scientists banding together to try to get the world to realise this whole thing is nothing but a giant scam. You won't read about that in any MSM outlet but it's true. It's time to wake up folks.... you've been lied to, yet again.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:42pm
    Ha ha ha. Never seen you on this website before either. The government's last desperate attempt to con the public.
    Funkee
    15th May 2019
    1:42pm
    Climate change alarmists have been making false predictions for years. Not one of their calamitous events has happened. In fact, the opposite is happening. The ice is growing back faster than ever according to NASA. When "experts" predict floods and other disasters over and over again, and none of them ever happen, isn't it time to begin to doubt that something is not right here. In the old days they used to stone false prophets, nowadays we give them big flashy titles and endless media coverage.
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    2:22pm
    OMG!
    KSS
    15th May 2019
    3:30pm
    Funkee, That's why it went from Global Warming to Climate Change!
    Rosret
    15th May 2019
    7:42pm
    Its actually Over Population. However that is not PC and since Australians only have 2.3 kids they can't really blame us for that!
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:42pm
    Ha ha ha. Never seen you on this website before either. The government's last desperate attempt to con the public complete with its trolls.
    Mike Omment
    15th May 2019
    2:33pm
    The problem is easily solved: Those that believe can pay the cost of climate change
    Those that dont believe pay nothing
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:44pm
    Fair enough. And when coal fired power is 5 times as expensive as renewables YOU will agree to keep buying the coal energy? Of course you won't.
    Fisherman
    15th May 2019
    3:34pm
    Great to see a rational discussion about Climate Change. For the past 3 years I have been in Tonga in the South Pacific, with NO sign of sea levels rising, EXCEPT during full moon Spring Tides and during cyclones. With that in mind, the latest reports I have seen from NASA indicate that changes will not be gradual, there will be a lot of extreme weather events. Parts of our planet will experience Ice Age conditions and other parts will have droughts and extreme temperatures. The climate models used by IPCC and others are flawed in the assumptions they make and lack of detailed data. Next year 2020, we can expect to see some dramatic events in space weather which will influence every planet in our solar system, starting around Easter. Google NASA+space+weather for more. Also:

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-disruption-not-due-co2/5676064
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:45pm
    Ha ha ha. Rational? From whom? The large number of posters who have never psoted on thsi website until 2 3 days before the election.
    You are a coal troll but don't think that everybody is stupid. People know.
    libsareliars
    17th May 2019
    10:48am
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/16/thinning-of-antarctic-ice-sheets-spreading-inland-rapidly-study
    Why don't you look into how Kiribati's going with their sea levels?
    Eddie
    15th May 2019
    3:47pm
    Climate Change is both normal and natural. Do your research. Try YouTube or realclimatescience.com The arguments used to support global warming were exactly the same arguments, pre 1970 to support global cooling or glacial expansion. There are thousands of scientific papers and even books published on the threat of glacial expansion. Climate change has been happening for billions of years. Humans are highly adaptable creatures. Climate change is both normal and natural. Please do the research....The truth will set you free.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:47pm
    Well it hasn't set you free. What a load of government sponsored BS.
    Look at the graph hald way down the page and then spout more of your BS which cannot be corroborated by any real scientists:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    Knows-a-lot
    15th May 2019
    4:21pm
    Another reason to vote Labor on Saturday: the LNP are well-stocked with moronic climate-change denialists.
    libsareliars
    15th May 2019
    5:21pm
    Very true Knows-a-lot
    Mandy
    15th May 2019
    7:13pm
    It is not whether one is a denialist or not, that is the problem. Destroying Australia's economy in the belief that we can make difference is the problem. If you think other countries will follow our example you must be in la-la land. They are far more likely to be picking over our bones.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:48pm
    Yeah right Mandy. Another LNP post for today. Same BS.
    You cannot live on a dead planet no matter how much money you have. End of argument!
    Mandy
    16th May 2019
    10:33am
    Mick, a dead planet? Even the worst doom prophets only predict a 4 degree rise in temperature. There is not enough fossil fuel left to cause more than that. Uncomfortable in Australia and most tropical areas. Unfortunately there are large areas in North America, Europe and Asia which would welcome a 4 degree rise. Large agricultural areas would become available and if the north-west passage is ice free in summer it would be a cheaper and quicker trade route between Europe, American east coast and Asia. These are also the main fossil fuel burners so what real incentive do they have to change their ways?
    Your assumption that mine was an LNP post shows that you agree that ALP are more likely to destroy the economy.
    MICK
    16th May 2019
    11:00am
    "Doom prophets"? Look at what is happening around the world as well as weather frequency.
    Your post is the normal right wing Abbott post...she'll be right mates????

    I don't normally vote ALP. Have said that on numerous occasions. For this election I did as the dictatorship in forming is good for no Australian other than the wealthy.

    Your spiel about 4 degrees avoids mention of the fact that scientists are saying the climate may spiral out of control and the temperature rise by a lot more than 4 degrees.
    You call climate change a good outcome but it is anything but. The ice caps melting might appear a wonderful thing to you but the processes on which climate works are more complex than the idiot business view of the planet. Did you not know the ocean currents are not random and the whole planet does not work in isolation?

    A pity intelligence has been replaced by money from the top end of town to get support for the worst policies. Do you not understand we ALL depend on the planet continuing on as it has? There's the ultimate ignorance. Business people believing their income is the only thing of value and that future generations can fix the unfixable. Traitors to the planet!

    Cost? What do you think a half a metre (as a starter) rise in sea levels is going to cost, or frequent floods fires and droughts? The rantings of an imbecile or a right wing funded stoolie working to put bread on the table.
    Mandy
    16th May 2019
    12:12pm
    Mick I am an environmental scientist and over the years I have enjoyed receiving funds from similar scares. The scare about DDT and other chlorinated pesticides accumulating in the environment kept me employed for over 10 years. For the record I did not find any of evidence of the projected dangerous accumulation but there was a dreadful increase in malaria in Africa due to the banning of DDT. Good intentions do not always lead to good results.
    I am not a denier of global warming. I just believe there are far better ways of fighting climate change than destroying the economy. I feel very frustrated that now that I am retired I cannot take advantage of all the research funds becoming available to research some of the ideas I have. I am sure can reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by far more than all the carbon dioxide that Australia puts into the atmosphere and at a tiny fraction of the cost.
    Mandy
    15th May 2019
    4:43pm
    Australia being able to take effective action against climate change is a pipe dream that neither party has any hope of achieving. While the plan being proposed by the LNP is a lot cheaper than that proposed by Labor it is still a waste of money. However, while neither party can change the climate of the planet they could change the climate in some parts of Australia. This could be done by revisiting a water pumping scheme first proposed by Bradfield in 1933. A variation of this scheme was proposed and costed at $9 billion to transfer 4000 gigalitres per annum in 2010 by a Sydney Engineer Terry Bowring. For those who believe it cannot be done South Africa already has a system pumping water over the Drakensberg mountains which are considerably higher than any mountains in Australia, never mind the hills over which the Bradfield/Bowring scheme needs to pump the water. The sale of the water to the farmers and towns will soon cover all costs and go a long way to drought proofing a large area.
    MICK
    16th May 2019
    11:04am
    And here's the next bit of BS. Not us?
    Perhaps Australia should lead the world rather than be the bootlicker of America and/or be the last adopter of change. You want to be a bootlicker.
    I want the country to set an example EVERY other nation will follow. Think about what a Carbon Tax being slowly being adopted in other countries. Who led with that one? And if it hadn't been for the wrecking ball the coal industry put in as our PM the policy would have been well established in most countries by now.
    Mandy
    16th May 2019
    1:59pm
    Mick you do know that right now China is refusing to off-load our coal and by co-incidence America and China are negotiating a coal deal and Columbia is waiting with its load. Just think how much easier we could make it for them by refusing to export coal. So much for following our example.
    micreen
    15th May 2019
    5:11pm
    I am one of the people who believe that "climate change" is a hoax like Halal Certification. I cannot understand why all the well meaning people think that we can buy our way out of this so called problem ? in fact all things !! Never a mention of pollution damage caused by active volcanoes world wide. What will they do for that problem, ? call in Superman and drop a plug in the crater ?? Is this part of the problem ??
    MICK
    16th May 2019
    11:05am
    Yeah, never seen you on this website until now either. 2 days before the election? You are another troll by the looks of it posting the lies of the current government. Not working!
    Farside
    16th May 2019
    1:24pm
    you need to get out a bit more micreen, even if you are a troll, because volcanoes are not adding to your argument.

    "Among natural drivers, a large volcanic eruption can have a sharp cooling influence as it spews tiny particles high into the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere where weather typically occurs).

    The massive explosions from Krakatoa (Indonesia) in 1883 and Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) in 1991, for example, can be seen as the two largest downward spikes in the volcanic data depicted in the figure to the right. These particles prevented the full energy of the sun from reaching the surface of Earth and created a cooling trend for several years."

    https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2017/07/History_Climate_drivers.jpg

    If you want to read more about volcanoes and climate change https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Volcano
    Jim
    15th May 2019
    5:36pm
    Some people believe climate change is real, some people believe it’s a scam, at the end of the day we need to look at the cost of any actions we take, I am all for reducing pollution it’s a no brainer to want to improve the quality of life and the air we breathe. I come from a steel making background, if we close all coal mining and stop exporting our coal overseas then I am sure the air quality will improve in those countries we export to, but it would also mean that we can’t produce steel, you need coal/coke to produce iron in a blast furnace I am not aware of any other way to create the exothermic reaction needed in a blast furnace to produce iron efficiently, so if you can’t produce iron then you can’t produce steel, think of everything that is made from steel, for a start the wind mills for generating power can’t be made, solar panels also have metal in them, cars, stoves fridges and a whole range of other things can’t be made without steel, until we can come up with a replacement for everything we currently use steel for I am not sure how we can stop mining coal or iron ore, gas can’t be used as a replacement because the chemical reaction in a blast furnace wouldn’t be the same, plastic can be used to replace some things, but I believe plastic production is more toxic, allthough I don’t know much about plastic production.
    Rosret
    15th May 2019
    7:51pm
    Jim - everything we buy is over packaged, delivered in a ship from a country far away. Yet Labor and the Greens are so intent in shutting down Australian Industry to stop the coal fires burning and pretend we aren't causing carbon emissions.
    The closer the manufacturer is to the selling point the less carbon emissions in freight and the less need for packaging.
    Recycling of those solar panels is going to be a huge problem in the future. They were going to make solar tiles for houses instead of panels. I wondered what happened to that technological advancement.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:49pm
    BS JIm. What is the cost of survival? What is the cost of flooding coastal cities or frequent floods and harsh droughts?
    Your post defies any intelligence but then you is paying you to post such nonsense?
    Jim
    16th May 2019
    7:44am
    Usual bigoted response from the site bully, does anyone still take any notice of this guy?
    MICK
    16th May 2019
    10:42am
    Bully? Better than a paid troll before an election rolling out the crooked party line.
    Post fact and decent comment and I'll give you respect. Post lies, half truths and propaganda and I'll give you both barrels.
    Your comments are shameful in their deceit.
    Jim
    16th May 2019
    11:50am
    There is only one person on this site that is shameful and that is you, check my comments then check your own, Nothing I have posted is deceitful, I have posted nothing but facts, my post doesn’t deny climate change, it doesn’t support one side or other of politics, in fact I don’t know what your comment is supposed to be responding to, but it has nothing to do with my factual comments regarding the manufacture of steel, if you want to disprove any of the science I have stated regarding the manufacture of steel I will listen, but I refuse to listen to your bigoted views regarding anything else, I have stated facts you have responded with abuse as usual, if you don’t like my comments ignore them, just as I have been doing regarding your comments.
    World Prophet
    15th May 2019
    6:34pm
    Of all the Greenhouse gasses, CO2 amounts to about 7%. Of the 7% the portion attributable to human activity is roughly 3%. Australia's portion of the human activity CO2 output is roughly 1.3%. And even if the Greens got their way and we cut CO2 output completely, the saving would amount to 1.3% of 3%, roughly 0.04%. And for that the economy would be comprehensively wrecked. Lunacy.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:50pm
    Another message from out government. Total BS.
    Never seen you on this website before. Is there an election coming or what?
    World Prophet
    16th May 2019
    10:05am
    Well Mick, been a member for quite a while, but just don't get worked up enough to post many comments. As far as politics are concerned, no matter what it is simply like swapping deckchairs on the Titanic, in my view. Cheers old mate.
    MICK
    16th May 2019
    10:43am
    Really? When was the last time you posted. Send me the link.
    World Prophet
    16th May 2019
    2:06pm
    Look Mick, I make it a policy never to argue with the ignorant, biased or plain myopic. End of message.
    Rosret
    15th May 2019
    7:31pm
    YLC trying to make fear another Labor / Greens issue.
    Good grief - this is not the apocalypse. Mankind has the ability to adapt to change when change is needed. The key is to do it sensibly without turning the lights out and shutting down industry.
    Do we need to act? - of course we do. However vote for the Greens policies and we will throw Australia into a depression. If you want to see how badly poor nations handle pollution and garbage take a flight overseas then make an educated vote.
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:52pm
    Rubbish. Tell Scott we are not buying more lies no matter how much the party is paying trolls to post their BS.
    Paddington
    16th May 2019
    5:04pm
    The only argument most of you are going to get is this one:-
    We cannot afford to take the risk no matter how small that the climate sceptics are correct. Cover your bases by doing whatever is necessary to avoid a catastrophe, no matter how tiny you consider the risk to be.
    To do nothing and find you have been wrong all along is too disastrous to contemplate!
    Think of your children and grandchildren and their descendants. Acting won’t hurt but not acting very well might. You won’t be here when it happens but they will be.
    Paddington
    15th May 2019
    9:27pm
    You can check out how all the different countries are doing on meeting targets and how seriously they are taking climate change. It might surprise you.
    https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/
    MICK
    15th May 2019
    11:54pm
    How about YOU do that? I know for a fact we are falling well behind.
    It matters not even what other countries are doing. We need clean up OUR act and the rest of the world will follow anyway. The difference is we'll be in a position of power rather than at the end of the pack....which is what your government sponsor would have us do.
    Vote Labor for a new start before its too late.
    Paddington
    16th May 2019
    5:07pm
    Mick, did I single you out. This is for the sceptics and you are saying you are not one.
    I have already voted and this was my top concern not how much money I will get or lose.
    Kealley McGregor
    16th May 2019
    12:24am
    I am going to re post Vivien Kealley's Say on climate change. The most intelligent Post I've read in a long time! Vivien Kealley The earth's poles are constantly changing positions on its axis - fact- so while one section may melt the other may freeze.. Showing itself in temperature and weather anomalies in areas not normally subject to them. The barrier reef was once a land shelf part of Australia and over ten thousand years has slowly been covered by water, the shallow depth perfect for coral growth. The process continues. The earth has always been subject to the vicissitudes of weather and tempest, however with the Spread of population and communications it is more noticeable and the effects can be catastrophic in loss of life where these areas have become increasingly populated. Some scientists believe we a due for a mini ice age others talk of global warming due to man's effects.... It should be noted that the volcanic eruption in Icelandic spewed more toxic carbon into the air than centuries of man's efforts in that regard.... I see the main problem as the need to regenerate forests to convert these gases to oxygen and press for regenerative energy. Ban fracking which destroys water tables and understand that everything has a life span including this planet, like our bodies, look after it and it will last longer but mother nature will continue to throw curved balls because that is the nature of the beast that is our planet earth.. As for the above article, do what we have done for years, when buying property...research, flood zone, bushfire prevention and preparation, erosion, fault lines and so on.. ie common sense to the best of your ability
    MICK
    16th May 2019
    10:47am
    No such person. You made it up. That's what the destitute coal funded trolls do.
    Perhaps provide real information as well as peer reviewed research. Otherwise don't insult everybody's intelligence by telling the next lie...........
    SFR
    17th May 2019
    10:07am
    Agree Mick, a quick google search brings up nothing credible. Just another wanker troll for the LNP most likely.
    Noticed how many of these newbies never respond to comments to their posts.
    Kealley McGregor, where's the link for this? You must have the intelligence of a gnat to be suched in & believing a non existent post.
    Spondonian
    16th May 2019
    12:31pm
    Just a thought , We are so caught up with rising CO2 levels has anybody thought about falling Oxygen levels ? . The Earth was covered in forest which makes oxygen from the CO2 , but we have cleared so much forest and are still doing it . Also most of the Oxygen was made by life in the seas but we are polluting them so badly that there are now huge areas appearing that are dead because of no oxygen in the water . While this is happening we are using oxygen faster and more than ever burning all the fossil fuels turning back into CO2 .
    World Prophet
    16th May 2019
    2:09pm
    Aaaahhh… no wonder I've been a bit short of breath lately! I was convinced it was my age...
    Couldabeen
    16th May 2019
    7:55pm
    Spondonian, If you are of the generation that predominates on this forum, you will've been raised with the mantra that the rainforests of the Amazon Basin (and all other tropical rain forests) were "the lungs of the world". By the mid 1980's it had been discovered that this wasn't quite the full story.
    The phytoplankton of the oceans are actually responsible for around 80% of the respirible oxygen in the atmosphere.
    There are conflicting opinions as to whether increases in ocean temperatures (that still haven't been found) would cause an increase in phytoplankton activity or serve to hold more O2 in the oceans. So far it's only guess work that only works in the artificial world of a University laboratory.
    Couldabeen
    16th May 2019
    8:39pm
    I'm coming in late here so I hope that some of the active protagonists are still watching.
    Firstly I'll make a comment on one of the locations mentioned in the insurance table. Toowoomba - Mixed. None of the cataclysmic predictions from the AGW/Climate Change fraternity will have any significant effect on Toowoomba. No risks of increased flooding. A very benign climate that even an increase in average temperature of 3 degrees would not be noticed by most residents.
    For over 50 years we have had regular predictions of an impending climate apocalypse. In the 1970's into the 1980's it was an imminent ice age. Both the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries went to great lengths to ensure that their military hardware was operable in the harshest winter conditions. It never eventuated.
    The fashion then flipped to global warming. And a causal factor that could be attributed to the wealthy industrialized nations of west had to be found.
    Variations in global atmospheric levels of CO2 could be tracked through natural processes and taken back to power production and human activity.
    Trouble is, the CO2 levels usually trailed the temperature variations. Not a substantiable causal driver.
    I have a book "The State of the Environment. Australia 1988." In it, the percentage of GHG emissions attributable to Australia was 0.7% of global emissions. In 2007 and Keven Rudd was proclaiming that climate change was the greatest moral challenge facing our generation, he claimed that the Australian contribution was 1.4%.
    Think about that. From 1988 to 2007, many heavy Australian industries had closed down or gone off shore and both India and China had gone through almost explosive industrial growth. On a true proportional scale, Australia should've slipped back to less than 0.5%, You must ask how are those figures were being derived and by whom?
    To date, the sea levels have not risen beyond normal "noise", the glaciers in Iceland are growing, the record summer temperatures in this country only arrive when earlier records are discounted (or as in Adelaide in February, the BoM are unable to convert correctly from fahrenheit to celsius. They lost a degree.) There have been no increases in cyclones crossing our coasts and rainfalls have been within verifiable season variations.
    The push for high proportions of renewable power generation are misguided as both wind and solar only provide less than 30% of their plated output over any period of time. To fill in the gaps continual use of fossil fuels, be it gas or coal is needed. The amount of taxpayer dollars that are being spent on these intermittent unreliables is criminal. If a service of such importance cannot be viable without Government subsidies, there is something not right about it.
    But what would I know? My tertiary education in climate science is essentially the same as Mr Flannerys. Same University, different years. When I was studying the Science faculty had other irons in the fire to chase funding and climate science was not seen as a significant player.
    Mandy
    16th May 2019
    8:54pm
    Thank you, it is nice to see something by someone who knows what they are talking about.
    BillF2
    17th May 2019
    12:24am
    Over what period of time were the listed areas and their disasters recorded? Were similar disasters that occurred before these the result of climate change, or were they considered to be 'acts of God' and part of living in Australia?
    Climate change is the new 'religion' based on a total lack of understanding of the origins and operation of climate and weather around the world. It is an illogical excuse used by governments and so-called 'scientists' for creating fear, and more importantly, raising taxes. In all the hysteria, the damage caused, or yet to be caused, by adverse weather events is highlighted, but the mechanism by which carbon dioxide is supposed to create these catastrophes is never explained. Additionally, there is no explanation as to how the removal of excess carbon dioxide is going to prevent adverse weather events.
    Just like in the 'Emperor's New Clothes', in which a pair of shysters convinced a naked emperor, and the public, that he was wearing the most exotic suit of clothes, so the world is being conned into believing that just by reducing the production of one gas, paradise will be regained. It is also being conned into believing that mankind can actually affect or modify the Earth's climate, when in effect, it has no control over it whatsoever. The Jews have a word for it - chutzpah.
    When the world realises that order does not come from chaos, that this planet did not just pop into existence, and the physical laws that govern its operation did not just happen, then, maybe, they will start to find out why these things are happening.
    Meanwhile, in the realm of human affairs, if we look beyond the fear and hysteria, we should ask who benefits from this new 'religion'? The winners will obviously be governments which create taxes on 'hot air', and their mates who are 'guided' into new businesses and industries when fossil fuel use is restricted. The losers, as usual, will be the mug punters who have to pay increased taxes and costs for everything.
    Wouldn't it be nice to have someone like the little boy who pointed out that 'the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes!', to be able to point out that the climate change 'scientists' are taking everybody for a ride. I won't hold my breath.
    SFR
    17th May 2019
    12:52am
    what drivel
    EarthsConflict
    17th May 2019
    8:59am
    Stupid climate change, a made up belief where there is no proof,
    It's just the Earth life cycle..
    And the stupid greens and Labor trying to destroy AUSTRALIA by bringing in stupid green policies...
    I agree with the outsider's on Sky News who actually proofs Climate Change is a load of crap!!!!
    SFR
    17th May 2019
    9:59am
    More drivel, Listen to an expert who has been watching the earth change over the last 70 years +, his name is Sir David Attenborough
    And while your watching which I doubt wipe your mouth from all the BS dribbling from it
    libsareliars
    17th May 2019
    10:54am
    Outsider's on Sky News - that there says it all! You do realise they are paid by Murdoch and the Fossil Fuel Lobby to confuse poor unfortunates.
    World Prophet
    17th May 2019
    1:51pm
    Lets just for the sake of the debate, all acknowledge that climate change is a fact, whether you believe that climate is always changing from natural causes at one extreme to believing that each and every one of us has caused all of it (kind of like the original sin) at the other extreme. However, it is an undisputable fact that the miniscule amount of difference Australia would make to the total global output amounts to no more than a token gesture, make no mistake about it. It would be much more beneficial to mankind if the effort and money currently expended on a more or less futile gesture was used to research and develop plastics replacements that actually had a fast biodegradability - and I'm talking days in water and no more than a few weeks in landfill or in the open air. Of course that would mean fighting all the vested interests that want to maintain the status quo, but honestly, we have the intellectual capacity to develop these materials, and the global benefit would be so much more than contorting ourselves to reduce our carbon footprint by an amount that is replaced with three weeks by China alone.
    SFR
    17th May 2019
    2:15pm
    Lets just for the sake of the debate, all acknowledge that there is no climate change. So we sit on our hands & do nothing. lol.
    Being proactive is far far better than being reactive. It won't change much in my lifetime but for my grandkids & theirs I would like a descent planet.
    We can all do our share no matter how small & it doesn't start with governments, it starts with you. Clean your own backyard before telling others what to do. Lead by example, practice what you preach. etc etc,
    You only have to watch the latest episodes of Sir David Attenborough who has been watching & observing first hand the earth changing over the past 70 years + & listen to Prof Brian Cox both highly credible people
    Mandy
    17th May 2019
    4:42pm
    SFR with all respect Sir David Attenborough he is not always right. For years he has been telling us that carbon dioxide dissolving in the sea, acidifies the sea and this acid attacks the corral. The simple solution would seem to be to add alkali to neutralise the acid and solve the problem. It would not work because he is proposing the wrong mechanism. What is happening is carbon dioxide combines with calcium carbonate (corral) to form soluble calcium bicarbonate. The reaction does also move in the opposite direction, so as long as the dissolved carbon dioxide remains constant the whole system will be stable.
    ardnher
    17th May 2019
    4:46pm
    omg we are heading for an apocolapse!! we may as well just hope in bed and pull up the doona and take a handfull of sleeping pills..

    people cannot afford their utility bills now...people are having their powr disconnected daily so how in hell are they going to afford all this doom and gloom being peddled.

    i wonder how worried those in the northern hemisphere are going to cope they are the worst polluters!

    as we head for 100% renewable energy most pensioners will probably die from cold or heat anyway as there will not be reliable power and what there is will be unaffordable.
    World Prophet
    17th May 2019
    7:55pm
    SFR, you are obviously someone who is big into token gestures. I don't quite know how to present my point in single syllable words, but I'll give it a try. What I was trying to say is that the difference Australia would make to global CO2 output is so small it would only be symbolic. I also pointed out that we would be better off using our limited resources to do something that would actually be of tremendous benefit, i.e. researching plastic replacements, so that we could rid the environment of the incredible amount of non-biodegradable plastics. So let's make it simple. Would you rather spend many, many billions of dollars reducing the global CO2 output by 41% of 0.04% or would you think that it would be much more beneficial to pour all that money into research and development of super bio-degradable plastic alternatives.
    Mandy
    18th May 2019
    1:38pm
    Ardnher, I have just been watching TV where the "neutral" ABC was showing footage of tourists visiting the Great Barrier Reef and then an American tourist says it is our responsibility to save the reef. The USA is the second biggest fossil fuel burner after China and over history has been by far the biggest burner of fossil fuel. Talk about sweeping your own door step.
    ardnher
    19th May 2019
    9:04am
    two days ago this was announced in the Sydney Morning Herald and also on the unbiased ABC

    "Jakarta: The tiny nation of Timor-Leste hopes to become the world’s first ‘‘plastic neutral’’ country, after signing a deal to create a new chemical recycling plant with Australian technology.

    The ground-breaking Catalytic Hydrothermal Reactor (or Cat-HTR) plant, which will cost about $57.7 million to build if and when funding is secured, breaks down plastic waste into tiny pieces and allows it to be used again to create new plastics, hard waxes or fuels."

    The rest can be read here...great news for the environment worldwide!!

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/east-timor-at-the-forefront-of-fixing-the-global-recycling-crisis-20190514-p51n90.html
    Mandy
    17th May 2019
    4:18pm
    In my last years of research as a environmental scientist I was developing a mathematical to predict runoff from rainfall. In order to calibrate the model I used historic data. It was very comprehensive data. The rainfall from some stations was as intensive as 2 minute intervals, most at 5 minute intervals and the rest at hourly intervals. The runoff data was continuous feed from many flow gauges. The model was calibrated on data for many years. I have given the detail for those who seem to believe that we scientists just thumb suck our model calibrations.
    What I soon noticed was that as time progressed, flood or high runoff, were resulting from smaller and smaller rainfall events. The main change happening during this period was the change in land-use. The population had exploded in the area and more and more land was being converted from pervious to impervious uses such as roads and buildings. Even agricultural land has higher runoff than virgin land, probably due to necessary access paths. Also there was the destruction of wetlands.
    So although I do not believe Australia can do much about changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it can do a lot about improving land-use such as building holding ponds, increasing wetlands and cultivating more pervious areas.
    LJ
    18th May 2019
    12:22am
    Mental note to ring the insurance companies first thing on Monday for the premium discounts if Bill Shorten wins as expected. Mother Nature, Bill has your measure and there will be no more floods, bush fires, storms etc.
    ardnher
    19th May 2019
    8:56am
    save your 25 cents...Bill has GONE!!
    Adrianus
    19th May 2019
    12:25pm
    In hindsight it can now be revealed that climate change has hurt Labor, Greens, and Independents the most.
    World Prophet
    19th May 2019
    12:43pm
    Good. The climate change debate has almost become as toxic as the gay alphabet one. Anyone who has a different view is shouted down or shut down. Rational debate has gone out the window. 'Don't you believe the science' is the catchcry, but the 'science' is a set of models that purport to predict the temperature of the earth to the 'nth degree in fifty or a hundred years from now. Any history that contradicts the current hysteria is conveniently not aired. I read somewhere that they found out from ice coring that a while ago the earth was six degrees warmer than it is today. And the world carried on. And other fluctuations have occurred previously. And the world carried on. The mass hysteria reminds me of the RSI epidemic in the '90s. Everyone had it, and then it was recognised for what it was and went away. The biggest benefit of the elections was that Bill Shortened his career. If the Labour Party had any brains, they'd elect Tanya as leader.
    Mandy
    19th May 2019
    2:43pm
    World Prophet I agree. When I developed environmental mathematical models, they always had to be calibrated with real data. It is important to include the minimum and maximum points. So when using the model you always work within these extremes (interpolation), never outside these points (extrapolation). You are only using models because there are many factors that can effect the outcome. If you extrapolate beyond your known points you have no idea whether some of the factors might cause exponential change or act as a barrier to further increases. So when someone extrapolates beyond the extreme points, the output is little better than an educated guess and can be worse. GIGO
    Adrianus
    20th May 2019
    9:38am
    Mandy, It would not surprise me at all if researchers used a method of expectation maximisation during their extrapolation. Strangely, the hysteria is being generated by those who appear not to care so much. Where are Zali Steggles' solar panels and electric car? Where's Bill's electric car? Bill's lack of knowledge on the time it takes to charge a car transfers to a lack of interest in my opinion. Because of this it appears to be socialism masquerading as environmentalism. This only serves to erode confidence in our CSIRO and BOM.

    World Prophet, if the Labor Party were true to their word, as stated by Bill Shorten during the start of the election campaign.. "when Labor loses a man we replace that man with a woman." Then Tanya should have the front running if she wants it?
    Mandy
    20th May 2019
    10:49am
    Adianus it is like looking at a rising price on a share in the stock exchange and assuming the price will continue to rise. Many an investor has lost a fortune assuming just that. There are just too many variables.
    Adrianus
    21st May 2019
    5:02pm
    Mandy, not me, I'm a dividend investor who is happy when I get some growth from time to time. But I don't count on it. I know exactly what you mean though.
    Adrianus
    21st May 2019
    5:02pm
    Mandy, not me, I'm a dividend investor who is happy when I get some growth from time to time. But I don't count on it. I know exactly what you mean though.
    Gra
    19th May 2019
    4:48pm
    Climate change or Seasonal Changes? Is the Climate Council another George Soros funded scare mongering organisation?

    20th May 2019
    7:10am
    This article was published here just before the elections to scare ppl into voting for labor
    Hahaha - didn’t work
    Aussies are sick of climate change scare campaigns
    Labor lost because of the retiree tax. Negative gearing and climate Change
    Adrianus
    20th May 2019
    9:53am
    Maureen I agree. Further I think Labor lost because they have reached a point in their evolution which moves them edge cliff close to communism. Labor tried to disguise this by throwing in a wage rise for some child care workers. This was to mislead us, while they planned to rake in $34B by cutting wages for other workers, cutting incomes on retirees and offered to get a measly $2B by closing loopholes from the top end of town. Gosh, the Morrison government has been raking in an extra $5B, so Labor was planning on reducing that take. Voters have emphatically rejected a move closer to Russian style socialism.
    Farside
    20th May 2019
    10:50am
    "edge cliff close to communism" "Russian style socialism", really, we're going back to the 1950s?? Check to make sure there are no reds under your bed Comrade Adrianus.
    Adrianus
    20th May 2019
    12:33pm
    Farside, how do you explain Labor's love affair with saving the planet at the expense of the workers? I suppose as one poster eluded to, the workers are not union members, and therefor Labor has no obligation to preserve/encourage employment, as well as, fostering wage growth. Labor had a plan to shrink wages by increasing taxes. They will be hoping for an LNP win of 77 or more so the tax cuts can sail through. Don't listen to what politicians say, watch what they do. Its the ignorant and party faithful who are irresponsible. Its those who ridicule the messenger who are the problem, not the messenger.
    Andy
    20th May 2019
    2:45pm
    way past time you stop wasting time and money on climate change there is nothing that can be done about it fgs wake up what we can change is pollution, like planting trees in the right places and cleaning up plastic rubbish, plastic rubbish, is our biggest problem at the moment and the waste of water is not climate change
    Charlie
    20th May 2019
    5:49pm
    What proportion of the population is looking far enough ahead to even consider climate change.

    I am renting in a block of flats where I am lucky to get a sheet of iron on the roof that hasn't rusted, let alone insulation in the ceiling. The solution is to sell these problems to somebody else, not to raise the building standard and spend the profits.

    Half of the tenants have at some time, used the recycle bins for putrid waste


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles