"This election cycle has seen an unprecedented number of announcements
from all parties on renewable energy, reforestation, and other items
generally reserved for only the greenest on the political spectrum. So
much so that some are calling this the ‘climate election’.
But elections are expensive things, and politicians rarely turn down a
cheque. So if climate change really is going to be a vote decider, it
makes sense to take a look at who is funding our politicians. In
particular, where have those known to support climate science denial
campaigns in the UK put their cash?
DeSmog has analysed donations registered on The Electoral Commission database
and found that — by a very long distance — supporters of climate
science denial have donated predominantly to the Conservative Party and
Tory politicians. "
New research
from Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson questions the
climate and health benefits of carbon capture technology against simply
switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Carbon
capture technology is premised on two possible approaches to reducing
climate pollution: removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere anywhere
in the world, an approach generally known as direct air capture, or
removing it directly from the emissions source, such as the smoke
stack of a fossil fuel power plant.
In summary: emails from the University of East Anglia in the UK were hacked, and many journalists assumed that where there was smoke, there must be fire. Even the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart
jumped on the bandwagon, accusing climate scientists of trying to
“trick you” based on a few selective, out-of-context quotes from the
hacked emails (though he also later ripped the media
for not covering the debunking of the Climategate myth). Commentators
at the time were divided over whether this was a media storm, or just a
storm in a very British teacup. Nonetheless, the Copenhagen climate summit a few weeks later was widely considered a failure.
That wasn’t only because of the hacked emails, just as another cache of
emails aren’t the sole reason for the words “President Donald Trump” —
but in both cases the media-amplified story played a significant role in
shaping subsequent events.
Nine separate inquiries
into the email hack exonerated the climate scientists, but came well
after the damage had been done. And a decade on, many of the climate
science denial myths that emerged from the email hack are still in play.
So, on the 10th anniversary of what came to be known as
‘Climategate’, let’s examine three of the key email quotes that so
captured the media’s attention, and how the associated science has
since evolved.
Unprecedented
bushfires in eastern Australia have turbocharged demands the country's
conservative government do more to tackle climate change, and have
rekindled an ideological fight over the science behind the blazes.
The
huge fires have touched communities up and down the east coast, killing
four people and affecting millions of Australians threatening homes and
blanketing major cities in hazardous smoke.
For
many, the scale and intensity of the conflagrations, weeks before the
Australian summer, have brought the dangers of climate change home.
"The
whole east coast is on fire," said Julie Jones, who almost lost her
house in the Blue Mountains. "I think it's climate change."
A
group of ex-fire chiefs on Thursday warned climate change is
"supercharging" the bushfire problem and they challenged Prime Minister
Scott Morrison over his failure to confront the issue.
"I am fundamentally concerned about the impact and the damage coming from climate change," former fire chief Lee Johnson said.
"The word 'unprecedented' has been used a lot, but it's correct."
For
days Morrison has refused to address the link between climate and
bushfires, arguing the focus should be on victims despite being heckled
about climate change while touring fire-ravaged areas.
Photo Credit : AFP / Laurence CHU
Morrison
has made no secret of his support for the country's lucrative mining
industry, which accounts for more than 70 percent of exports and was
worth a record Aus$264 billion ($180 billion) in the last financial
year.
He
once carried a lump of coal onto the floor of the Australian parliament
and recently proposed banning environmental boycotts of businesses.
His
government insists Australia will meet its Paris climate agreement
target of reducing emissions by 26-28 percent on 2005 levels by 2030.
But
the approval of vast coal mines like the controversial Adani project
which will ship most of its product overseas to be burned make global
targets of keeping warming below 1.5 Celsius more difficult.
'Woke greenies'
Until
now that has been good politics for the Liberal leader. His party
unexpectedly won re-election in May, in part by framing the climate
debate as a choice between jobs and higher energy costs in places like
coal-rich Queensland. Morrison's allies have also deployed the issue as a potent wedge issue to divide the electorate.
Photo Credit : AFP / Jonathan WALTER
When
the Australian Greens attacked the government response to the bushfires
this week, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack went on the
offensive. "We
don't need the ravings of some pure, enlightened and woke capital
cities greenies at this time, when (people) are trying to save their
homes," he said.
But
the scale of the bushfire crisis has made it more difficult for
Morrison to dismiss his political foes as out-of-touch lefty city
slickers.
And
after several exhausting days of spearheading crisis response,
commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons said Wednesday the New South Wales Rural
Fire Service acknowledged the new reality.
"We are mindful that the science is suggesting that fire seasons are starting earlier, and extending longer," he said.
Politicians who refuse to discuss climate change
have been heckled as they tour areas destroyed by fire Photo Credit :
AFP / WILLIAM WEST
The
government's own Bureau of Meteorology has acknowledged human-caused
climate change is "influencing the frequency and severity of dangerous
bushfire conditions".
Scientists say the link between climate change and bush fires is complex, but undeniable.
Wind
movements around Antarctica and sea surface temperatures in the Indian
Ocean can also help determine fire-friendly conditions in Australia.
But warming provides key ingredients for fires to thrive: high temperatures, low humidity, strong winds and drought.
"Bushfires
are not directly attributable to climate change," said Janet Stanley of
the University of Melbourne. "However, the fast-warming climate is
making bushfires more frequent and intense."
"The
mountain of irrefutable evidence linking global warming to bushfires
makes the federal government's failure to act or even talk about the
problem extremely hard to explain," she said.
Away from the political bickering, a growing number of Australians appear to agree.
A
2019 survey by think tank The Australia Institute found 81 percent of
people are concerned climate change will cause more droughts and
flooding, while 64 percent want the government to set a target of
net-zero emissions by 2050.
Claire
Pontin, a deputy mayor in badly-hit northern New South Wales, told the
ABC it was "always" the right time to discuss climate change.
"It's not going to go away if we bury our heads in the sand."
Politicians who fail to act on climate change should be held
responsible. At the very least they are guilty of dereliction of duty
and very likely the day will come when they are charged with ecocide.
Governments large and small are making irrational decisions that fly in
the face of both science and common sense. This is clearly evident in
Italy, Australia and the U.S. All three countries are experiencing the
effects of climate change in real time yet are opting to do nothing
about it.
Just after the Veneto regional council in Italy voted down climate
action, the chamber in which the vote took place was flooded. The
council chamber in Ferro Fini Palace began to take on water a couple of
minutes after the climate amendments were shot down on Tuesday November
12. This is the worst flooding Venice has seen in more than five decades
and it is the first time Venice's Grand Canal has flooded. The council
rejected funding for renewable energy, replacing diesel buses and highly
polluting stoves.
As wildfires rage in Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison vowed to
outlaw environmental boycott campaigns. Four people are known to have
died in these fires and crews are still battling over 120 fires in NSW
and Queensland. More than one million hectares have been burnt across
NSW since September and both Sydney and port city of Geraldton are
threatened by these fires. Morrison has refused to acknowledge the link
to climate change despite the spike in heat, drought and wildfires.
Nowhere is the situation worse than in the United States. In the face of
unprecedented heat, wildfires and extreme weather, President Donald
Trump has unleashed an orgy of deregulation.
In the three years that Trump has been in power he has eradicated more
than 70 rules and regulations designed to combat climate change,
conserve the environment and protect the health of Americans. This
includes killing the clean power plan and cleaner car standards. As part of an insane energy strategy he opposes renewables while supporting fossil fuels (including subsidies). Likewise, his actions on
efficiency, the Arctic, and plastic oppose common sense. He has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for science. This includes gutting the ESA and his war on wildlife which threatens the survival of a number of species from the top to the bottom of the foodweb.
Besides being stupid and greedy, we are
genetically handicapped to deal with this situation. We simply don’t
live long enough to plan ahead. By “planning ahead” I don’t mean
decades. I mean centuries. The reason is that people with money and
power, the people with the means to do something, just don’t care. They
would have to give up some of that money and power to change things.
They figure they won’t be around to suffer the consequences of climate
change anyway, so they just don’t give a damn. It would require
Biblically long lifetimes to plan ahead for the human race. For now and
the near future we can, at most, hope to live to a hundred, not the 969
years of Methuselah. If you were going to be around for the consequence of your actions or inaction for as long as he was, you would care."
