longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:16am:


Perhaps we need some "direct action" on Venus.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:16am:


You are correct and so was progressiveslol, I stand corrected and apologise to progressiveslol.

See, that how it's done when one is wrong Longy. And instead of fool, idiot etc, "you are mistaken", here is the evidence...
Now if you'd like to revisit who uses the most coal in the world, feel free.

Just as nothing will persuade the Michael Smiths of the world that Julia Gillard is innocent, we are well past the point where more evidence will persuade climate sceptics or those vested interests opposing climate action to change their tune.

Remove price on carbon. Check. Avoid international climate talks. Check. Deny fossil fuel subsidies. Check! This is your captain Tony Abbott speaking, and Australia is cleared for take-off, destination: last century.

Yesterday brought another sensible report from the annoying Nicholas Stern spelling out the economic benefits (not to mention every other benefit) of acting on climate change before it’s too late. But the Abbott government still doesn’t seem convinced  — and repeated denials that we are subsidising the fossil fuel industry are killing Australia’s credibility.

Stern’s 2006 report made front-page news around the world as the first attempt to weigh up the costs of action versus the costs of inaction on the climate. The conclusion reached was the obvious one — that acting early is cheaper than acting later — but critics complained that depended heavily on the discount rate used. That is, the rate of return used to calculate long-term costs.

Yesterday’s report by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate — of which Stern is co-chair — tries to put that argument to bed by reining in the time horizon, pointing out the economic benefits of action are apparent over the short term too and we can have both economic growth and climate risk mitigation together, right now.

Just as nothing will persuade the Michael Smiths of the world that Julia Gillard is innocent, we are well past the point where more evidence will persuade climate sceptics or those vested interests opposing climate action to change their tune.

Particularly in Australia. Abbott just doesn’t want to talk about climate change at all. He wants climate off the G20 agenda. He won’t be going to the climate talks starting in New York next Tuesday, which will be attended by over 100 heads of state, including US President Barack Obama and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, as momentum builds for agreement on a new post-Kyoto climate deal in Paris next year. Australia will be represented by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop — at least that’s one better than last year’s Warsaw talks, when Environment Minister Greg Hunt stayed home.

High on the action agenda — for the rest of the world, at least — is abolishing fossil fuel subsidies. Yesterday’s report cites estimates that fossil fuel subsidies are running at US$600 billion a year, far outweighing clean energy subsidies of US$100 billion a year.

The most hardened sceptics must concede there is no reason on earth why the taxpayers of the world should subsidise production of coal, oil and gas to make global warming worse.

Everybody wants fossil fuel subsidies abolished, including the G20, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Energy Agency.

See more Crikey.com

Its time wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 5:34pm:


if they were economically viable projects then they can get funding from banks or IPO...