The deadly climate change and carbon tax swindle
June 27th, 2011 · Greg Atkinson · 116 Comments
Over the last few years I have watched the debate about global warming descend into a political and celebrity ego-fuelled circus event where hard science plays merely a supporting role. It’s not clear what such measures as a carbon tax will even achieve on a global scale besides generating tax revenues for governments and making plenty of bankers happy. Meanwhile millions of people die from hunger and disease every year and there is no tax being implemented to help them.
Firstly let me make my position on global warming or climate change clear. I do not deny that the climate changes nor have I ever met or heard about anyone that does. I don’t doubt that in some way humans are affecting the climate however what I do question is by how much our activity is affecting climate change on a global scale and if it is truly the most serious threat humankind faces.
Back in 2009 I suggested that the global community might be focusing too much on climate change and as a result not directing resources to far more deadly threats as I outlined in Are climate change and global warming dangerous distractions?
In that article I outlined my concerns as follows:
“I am not saying that using more renewable energy is a bad thing, it isn’t and it makes perfect sense to me that we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I am also not against reducing pollution or trying to pump less CO2 inter the atmosphere as these also appear to be fairly sensible long term objectives.
But I do worry that we are now becoming so obsessed with the climate change/global warming story that we are failing to appreciate there are much bigger problems and that these are potentially a much bigger threat to humankind than a return to the warm old days.”
I also outlined in that article some of the threats to our existence that I considered more serious than humankind driven climate change i.e: A Global Pandemic, Nuclear Weapons and War.
When was the last time you saw for example any significant media coverage dedicated to the subject of non communicable diseases? I wonder how many people appreciate the true extent of the problems associated with these diseases and are aware of the millions of people who die annually from these?
The reality is that this subject doesn’t get much coverage because journalists prefer to track issues that Al Gore and Cate Blanchett like to promote. Science or reality has little place in the mainstream media these days.
So here we are now, in the midst of what I call the deadly climate change swindle. Why is it deadly? Because on a global scale we are directing resources to address a high profile issue like climate change but this is not probably not the most deadly issue we face. For every dollar we spend (or waste) on the climate change swindle we deny funding to other areas of research or on projects to help people out of poverty or improve their standard of living via better healthcare for example.
One of the big global killers is disease and so let’s look at non-communicable diseases (NCD’s) in a little more detail. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) these diseases kill 3 out of every 5 people on the planet or 36 million people annually. Quoting from the WHO website:
“The main NCDs are cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic lung diseases and diabetes, which share four modifiable risk factors – tobacco, harmful alcohol use, poor diet and physical inactivity. A quarter of NCD deaths are of people aged under 60, who are in the prime of their lives, while 9 in 10 of these people are from developing countries.”
Source: World takes action on noncommunicable diseases (WHO)
Now ask yourself this simple question: How will a carbon tax or emission trading scheme save any of these lives?
Perhaps the death of 36 million people isn’t enough to attract celebrity or media attention hey? But it gets worse because by 2030, the WHO predicts that NCD’s will kill 52 million people annually.
So how many people die from climate change annually at the moment..surely it must be millions right? Well according to the WHO:
“Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually. “
Source: Deaths from climate change (WHO)
All deaths are tragic, but to be focusing more global attention on 150,000 deaths versus 36 million seems a little perverse to me.
It is also critical to remember that the deaths from climate change are not all due to human activity alone. Most climate change is in fact naturally occurring so only a small faction (if any) of the people who die annually from the impact of climate change would be saved if humans never built a single factory.
I have read a lot of scary reports and media articles about climate change and at the top of the scale it seems that 10 million people ‘may’ die as a result of climate change by 2030. So even if every one of these deaths could somehow be linked to human activity (which is highly unlikely) then climate change will kill 42 million less people in 2030 than non-communicable diseases (NCD’s).
But the reality (and scientific fact) is we know that even if humans were not on the planet the climate would change. So leaving emotion aside let’s just calmly take a fact based look at climate change courtesy of The Geological Society. According to a statement on their website:
“The Earth’s temperature and weather patterns change naturally over time scales ranging from decades, to hundreds of thousands, to millions of years. The climate is the statistical average of the weather taken over a long period, typically 30 years. It is never static, but subject to constant disturbances, sometimes minor in nature and effect, but at other times much larger. In some cases these changes are gradual and in others abrupt.”
Source: Climate change: evidence from the geological record
So we know the climate changes and has done many times, so let’s move away from the stupid debate regarding if climate change exists or not since this appears to be a way for those pushing a carbon tax to try deflect attention away from tax itself.
Wanting to look after this planet of ours does not mean people have to support a new tax. You can oppose the tax (like I do) and still want to reduce pollution, lower our dependence on fossils fuels and hope we can save millions of lives each year by wasting less and helping people out of poverty.
(By the way, I would recommend people read for themselves the entire statement from The Geological Society since it is one of the best overviews I have seen regarding climate change.)
Another interesting passage from The Geological Society statement is as follows:
“In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels, and from related human activities, could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event – some 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes. Further contributions from ‘natural’ sources (wetlands, tundra, methane hydrates, etc.) may come as the Earth warms.”
Now the chances that we will be using coal and oil at the same rate as today for centuries is unlikely since our reserves of both of these will run out within the next 150 years or so. So one wonders if that has been fed into the models used by The Geological Society and other groups? But even if we do the result “could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event”.
Since when does ‘could’ mean the science is settled?
Yes climate change is a threat to future generations, but is it the biggest threat? I doubt it. Can we do something smarter to reduce the damage humans do to the environment and save lives beside implementing such mindless policies as a carbon tax? Of course we can. We simply need to get politicians, celebrities and journalists out of the way and get scientists, engineers and other problem-solvers more involved.
We certainly don’t need the climate change debate stifled via name calling or via advertising campaigns by actors living in ‘eco mansions’.
If someone can explain to me how a carbon tax will help save the lives of millions of children who die annually of starvation then I would be very interested. The reality is that we would do more good by taxing over-consumption and imposing penalties on individuals, organisations and corporations that waste food but I guess that just wouldn’t work too well at the Oscars or at those lavish climate change conferences.
So let’s keep the debate open and encourage people not to be swayed by the emotional rants from either side of the climate change debate, because if we make the wrong decisions – they may just turn out to have very deadly results.
Greg Atkinson is the editor of Shareswatch Australia, the Managing Director of Ohori Capital and a Director of Eco Marine Power. He is originally from Australia but currently resides in Japan. He can be followed on twitter via @GregAtkinson_jp
Search terms: carbon tax australia statistics
 image banner 69637)
116 responses so far ↓
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
101 Richard // Nov 12, 2011 at 8:59 pm
can we talk about everyone’s beef with the IPCC briefly? Why you say they are trying to shut down debate etc? I understand that because it’s a UN body maybe there would be Western bias but you guys have brought them up in suspicious ways a couple of times now
here’s a cut and paste from the wiki about the 2007 assessment report. Guessing you will have read all this but it was news to me (as in, I have got all this info second hand from people, such as the 90% thing)
* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).[41]
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1–23 in) [table 3].
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves, and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones, and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years.
So if this is true then I don’t understand ur arguments, you must have some reasons for questioning its integrity, that’s clear from a coule of comments but I’d like to know so I can make up my own mind
Also I’m making an art project for my local community about climate change and my discussions with y’all have been invaluable, thank you
it’s a beach 43m above sea level in Brunswick melbourne for rising sea levels, so people can come together and talk about climate change and create a common ground sorry probably should have mentioned it earlier
102 Stillgotshoeson // Nov 12, 2011 at 10:05 pm
I will try and be brief Richard.
* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Global temperature has not risen for nealy a decade, this in itself has the pro (man made) global warming scientists puzzled.
Then the issue gets broken down to. a) Is a natural occurrence in the earths weather. b) Is it mankinds influence and if so to what degree (no pun intended) c) Is it Solar and Volcanic activity.
I am not a scientist so can only go on the information I have read about climate change.
Many areas of the planet were not under water but are now, many areas were under seas and are now not, these changes occured naturally tens of thousands of years ago, long, long before man had any impact on the planet industry wise.
Earths atmoshpere is poor at retaining heat, one need only be in the desert at night time to realise how cold it quickly becomes. Another simple test is with your home central heating, turn it off on a cold night and your house cools down very quickly, even with insulation. Heat the house with an open fire and that radiant heat physically heats the building not just the air so stays warmer longer after the fire goes out than if it was using central heating.
Water on the other hand is better at retaining heat. From all the information I have read on the subject it makes more sense to me that volcanic and solar activity heating the oceans plays more part in the change in our weather patterns than does the questionable impact of CO2.
Not suggesting for a minute than we need not take positive steps to reduce all pollution, not just emissions. If not for the questionable benefits to the climate but for the unquestionable benefits to our health.
Destruction of rainforest and forests in general without replanting new forests to replace them can not be good for our long term future either.
So in short, I believe there is not enough proof that mankind is the major cause of climate change.
I also fail to see the sense in Australia “symbolic” gesture of a carbon tax ( to become an emissions trading scheme) that has the potential to damage our economy and will drive investment off shore for absolutely zero benefit to the climate.
103 Ken McMurtrie // Nov 13, 2011 at 8:37 am
Yes, Richard, as ‘shoeson’ intimates, (#102), the IPCC reports contain much that is blatantly incorrect or questionable.
To not have an open mind when reading their, and much other ‘official’ AGW claims, leaves you open to many misconceptions.
My website “http://tgrule.wordpress.com” has a great deal of relevant information and links to many other sites which may be more authentic than mine. (WUWT, for a start.
I am ‘biassed’, if you like, and labelled a “denier”. The site explains why.
You don’t have to believe in my side of the picture, but you can at least give yourself a chance for a balanced understanding by reading further.
104 Richard // Nov 13, 2011 at 8:43 am
Ken do you have a specific post about IPCC? Or the 2007 report? Sorry I don’t have time to read your whole website at the moment because of building the beach
105 Stillgotshoeson // Nov 13, 2011 at 10:10 am
The report is full of words like probably, likely and could.. That in itself is enough, or should be enough for someone to read information on all sides of the debate and make a decision based on what they believe to be the most accurate or likely. Parts of both arguments are valid. After reading the arguments for and against I believe that mankinds influence on the global climate is not as great as reported and that nature and the sun play a bigger part in the historic and future impact of global climate change.
106 Richard // Nov 13, 2011 at 12:01 pm
from what I remember of maths >90 is a really high probablility, yes it is not absolute but it means if you had a 10 sided dice and rolled it, the chance of a 6 coming up is the same as the chance that we have not contributed to rising temps.
Also there is not just for and against arguments there is many arguments about many things, it’s not black and white like that I reckon, you actually don’t need to make that clear decision.
You might say their language was actually too soft, for example I haven’t read the thing but if you were to describe >90 as “likely” or “could” these would be the wrong terms. It would be more accurate to use terms like “extremely likely” or “almost certain”. but they could have been under political pressure to moderate their language.
I don’t have central heating just a little gas heater. I turned it on for a bit last night and then turned it off. The heat disappeared really quickly. But we have really big windows that let the heat out. And also it was a warm night, so when I say the heat disappeared really quickly I mean it was still pretty warm after it had disappeared. And also I didn’t leave it on for that long beacause I felt bad about wasting the energy for heating when it was a warm night anyway. So I’m not sure what conclusions we might draw from this. We have central heating at my folks place and from memory the idea with it is that you can leave it on 24/7 and it perpetually heats the house and doesn’t waste energy, so I don’t see how it would disappear quickly, that would be an inefficient system.
107 Stillgotshoeson // Nov 13, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“leave it on 24/7 and it perpetually heats the house and doesn’t waste energy, so I don’t see how it would disappear quickly, that would be an inefficient system.”
They are incredibly innefficient.. It is just that gas is cheap and central heating on a thermostat is far more convenient than fire places. Wall and roof insulation, double glazing and heavy window furnishings all help keep the warmth in and improve efficiency of central heating.
I question their modelling and math to come up with these figures.
Industrial revolution may have started around 1800 but really there was no significant industry and population until the early 1900′s. Earths population was around 2 Billion, it took around 50 years to get to 3 Billion people and industry really kicked off around WWII. It seems illogical to me that mankind can have that much influence on the global climate in such a short period of time, considering the geological proof of climate change that has occured over tens thousands of years prior to the industrial revolution. Both warming and cooling of the climate. Rising and falling of seas and the changing of the landscape due to this.
108 Richard // Nov 13, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Yeah fair enough it’s their claim not mine -- I was always a bit suss about it. Still seems weird that it would dissipate faster than a gas heater.
Dunno about your logic on the industrial revolution seems to me like we’ve been increasing our stuff exponentially it’d make sense to me that our environmental effect was also exponential with small gains for efficency and technological progress.
But yeah climate did surely change before there was much pollution in fact I think the dinosaurs were killed because it got too hot or at least that’s one of the theories, doubt they were causing much pollution, although T-rex farts -- pretty leathel surely.
109 Stillgotshoeson // Nov 13, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Personally, I think destruction of rainforest and habitat for urbanisation plays more part in raised CO2 levels.
110 Greg Atkinson // Nov 14, 2011 at 7:37 am
Certainly the clearing of trees on a large scale can’t be doing any good for the environment. That is one of the issues we should tackle directly and not via a tax.
By the way, the link between when the planet apparently started to warm and when modern instruments for measuring temperature became available is interesting. When did both these events happen? During the industrial revolution. That’s why most those long term temperature charts start in the 1800′s.
200 years of reasonably accurate climate data compared to how long life has been on the planet doesn’t appear to me to be the best set of data to basing assumptions on. There would appear to be room for huge errors and mus-interpretations I imagine.
111 Stillgotshoeson // Nov 14, 2011 at 11:06 am
Those very same advances in technology show us hoe tectonic plates have and continue to move, continual volcanic activity both above grouns and below sea level creating more land mass. It is logical to conclude that sea levels would rise due to this.
Sampling of geological sample shows that oceans/seas were once in places they no longer are and are now in places they once were not.
Fossilised remains give indication to the types of flora and fauna of certain periods give indications that certain plants grew in areas that are now not of sufficient climate for them to grow in those same areas.
With all the climate/landscape changes the planet has gone (and continues to go) through, I find it hard to believe that mankind in the last 60 years has had such dramatic influence on the earths climate, destruction of ecosystems without a doubt, yes, pollution, ye it is bad and we should do more to reduce it. Such a dramatic change to climate? No sorry, I don’t buy it.. We may have some influence, not to the extent as the AGW mob would have me believe.
I cetainly do not support the redistribution of wealth for the symbollic only gesture (no difference will actually be made to the worlds climate from the ETS). Encourage alternate fuel sources, is the reply.. This will occur naturally as existing forme so energy become too expensive.
112 Leigh // Nov 14, 2011 at 5:09 pm
I too am a sceptic on how much humans are involved in global warming. However I don’t think we should even be debating the issue . We should as someone said, give the planet its best chance by doing all we can not to pollute it.
On the Carbon Tax,get this. My neighbor has, over the past thirty years, cleared his land and sold all the timber so he is now eligible to get a carbon rebate if he replants. I have kept my trees and have been storing carbon for those thirty years that he hasn’t, but I cant get anything because it is considered business as usual for me. My incentive therefore is to cut them and reap the benefit of their timber value. When my place is cleared we will be back to square one as far as carbon storage is concerned but we will be paying the neighbor for his seedlings.
113 Lachlan // Nov 14, 2011 at 7:33 pm
AGW is pseudo science…created for a reason…which anyone can work out for themselves.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
An excerpt….
But how do we know if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the temperature record?
This report, by meteorologist Anthony Watts, presents the results of the first-ever comprehensive review of the quality of data coming from the National Weather Service’s network
of temperature stations. Watts and a team of volunteers visually inspected and took pictures
of more than 850 of these stations. What they found will shock you:
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units,
surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and
near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail
to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations
must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating
or reflecting source.
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the
U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is
likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
114 Greg Atkinson // Nov 21, 2011 at 9:02 pm
One thing that’s for sure is that AGW theory covers all bases. When it’s hotter than normal it’s due to AGW. When a big freeze hits that is also due to AGW. AGW also cause droughts, floods, storms & I am told was also responsible for the Beatles break-up
Sorry..I may have lost it. I have just spent the last seven days unpacking boxes after moving house.
115 Ken McMurtrie // Nov 22, 2011 at 8:57 am
Hi Richard, ref #104.
You were asking about my site having anything on the IPCC.
This aspect of the AGW story is included in “IPCC and related Organzations”. Admittedly it is currently a hotch-potch of articles, not yet summarised or co-ordinated. However, the gist of their suspect bona-fides can be seen.
Here is the link:
http://tgrule.wordpress.com/carbon-attack/ch4-ipcc-and-related-organizations/
Hope this helps. Ken.
116 Greg Atkinson // Nov 23, 2011 at 7:45 am
Here is a very good article from Spiked Online about some ‘interesting reporting’ regarding climate change data etc: Not the BEST way to debate climate
Note that the writer provides links to sources and references which few mainstream journalists do -- especially at the ABC & BBC.
I think this passage reflects my view of much of the reporting by the mainstream media:
“Complex debates are reduced to simple, moral stories of ‘scientists versus deniers’, in part because of the shortcomings of news organisations and their journalists’ attachments to the debate. Anxieties about the end of the world give moral orientation to commentators. Taking a stand to ‘save the planet’ elevates journalists who, without the narrative of possible climate disaster, would quite probably struggle to overcome mediocrity and define a sense of purpose for themselves. It looks like bravery, but it is merely vacuity that drives sensationalism.”
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All