Australia fires a climate wake-up call - experts
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Reuters
Australia
The frame of twin chairs pertrude from the ruins of the home where John and Sue Wilson died when a bushfire swept through the town of Mudgeegonga in the Victoria Alps.
In pictures: extreme global weather
Weekend bushfires in Australia that killed 173 people are a climate change wake-up call for the public and politicians and a window to the future, experts said on Tuesday.
With the death toll still growing from the nation's deadliest fires, some analysts say the sheer scale of the tragedy might prompt industry to back-off calls to weaken the government's emissions targets or delay a carbon-trading scheme set for 2010.
"What the bushfires might do is suck the oxygen out of the debate. I think public awareness has been focused now on climate change again. We knew what the scientists had predicted and we've actually seen it in action," said Matthew Clarke of Deakin University in Melbourne.
"It may be very difficult for those who want weaker carbon reduction scheme targets or those who want to see it delayed to put those arguments into the public sphere. The atmosphere might be more hostile to those arguments," said Clarke, associate professor at the School of International and Political Studies.
The fires tore through communities on the outskirts of Melbourne, fuelled by heatwave conditions and strong winds. Melbourne's temperature on Saturday hit 46.4 degrees Celsius (115.5 degrees Fahrenheit), a record for the city.
The Australian government released a policy document, or White Paper, in December outlining its plans for carbon trading as part of its strategy to fight climate change.
Under the scheme, the government set a target to cut carbon emissions by 5 percent in 2020 from 2000 levels and 15 percent if there is global agreement at the end of this year on a broader pact to fight climate change.
But the Greens, citing the fires and severe flooding in northern Australia, are calling for tougher targets.
The Greens and two independents hold the balance of power in the Senate and the government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is expected to face a tough time getting the emissions trading legislation passed by the Upper House later this year.
BIG AGENDA
Industry and particularly big coal-fired power generation firms, say the trading scheme will be too costly. The liquefied natural gas industry, which earns billion of dollars in exports, has said the scheme could force them to move offshore.
"Climate Change is a big agenda that should be considered in its own space and it would be irresponsible to find cover for a climate change argument in the bushfires," Heather Ridout, Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, told Reuters in a statement.
Some analysts say the fires were predictable and that climate scientists have been warning for years about Australia's vulnerability to rising temperatures and declining rainfall across much of the nation's south.
"I would compare this current bushfire event to one of the ghosts in Dickens' Christmas Carol that visits Scrooge and showed him what his future would be like if he didn't change his ways," said professor Barry Brook, director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.
"The government should be taking an international leadership role. They are not listening to the ghost whispering in their ear saying this is your future," said Brook, who called for an emissions cut target of 40 percent by 2020 if there is a global climate agreement.
"The real danger in the White Paper is not the 5 percent target, it's the 15 percent target. So that's what the Greens should be advocating, changing the international negotiating target and make it as hard as possible."
But there was also a risk to investors if the government kept changing the targets because of financial or climate shocks.
"The fundamental flaw with the policy of the White Paper is that it's a political compromise, not a clear plan. And a political compromise will be blown in the wind, depending on what shock comes along," said leading climate change policy analyst Warwick McKibbin.
"It's very important to have a clear, transparent plan that builds constituencies and clarity about the future so that when something comes along, the policy doesn't fall over," said McKibbin, executive director of the Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis in Canberra.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
We have changed the climate on this planet and we continue to do so.
There is NOTHING we can do, except sit and watch the outcome.
Why?
If we _STOPPED_ carbon emissions COMPLETELY today, it would take
decades or maybe centuries for the climate to stabilize, under the proviso
that we would take out what we have already added to the atmosphere.
So sit tight and pray that you live in a part of the world that will bear the brunt
less than other places.
Jim Hansen et al for instance, suggest an immediate cut down on emissions, abandoning coal as a fossil fuel. Hansen says carbon levels will peak, but then decline in a decade or two, as plants, and the ocean, soak up carbon dioxide. This limits warming, avoids catastrophic climate change. Note this takes a decade or two. Not "decades or centuries".
If we do this - we have a few decades of warmer climate, then the climate cools. In short if you are teenage now and do this - you can look forward to being able to retire (as things are stable you continue to earn) and retire in comfort not heat.
This can be done - it is a huge ask, but it can be done. All we lack, is politicial will & individaul will. We have managed Ok with less power before. 1980s miners strike. And other countries seem to get on OK on less power than we do.
If you had been following the news in the Australian press - you would know things are differnet this time, and that many people realise that things are no longer what they were.
Recommended precautions , recommended techniques to survive them - that worked time and time before - this time, no longer adequate. Why? The precautions have, if anything, improved over time.
The day before the fire, State govt warnings were published, that fire risk was the worst ever. The worst risk ever. The warnigns are based on things including weather.
Victoria recorded its highest temperatures ever during these last few days. The record highs are in recent years - not spread over 150 years since records began.
There are still bushfires burning, people still at risk. They need to get the message - this time things are different, it might not be enough - take extra care.
But the issue now is not what caused it - it is the humans affected. Callous of you to ignore this -your comment says nothing on this, but is quick to exploit their disaster, as a means for you to push your own agenda. Which seems to have to do with politics, not fact and not saving lives.
A large donation to the bushfire appeal, at www.salvos.org.au - might redeem your sins a little!
Now the question. Why was this tragedy not reported in the media unlike the tragedy in Australia?
The real way to save the planet -drastic reductions in actual CO2 emissions- is not even on the agenda!
It is almost certainly too late, since the oceans are dying from acidity , forests are dying from overheating and drought, and numerous positive feedback mechanisms have been triggered.
But the business-as-usual community take absolutely no notice and continue destroying the next generation's future, even as I write.
very well said!
doing otherwise is not only irresponsible, but verges more on "destructive paranoia"
Incidentally "biochar" may or may not be a useful mechanism, that is by no means clear, but at best it is a tiny part of greenhouse gas reduction strategies. There is no magic quick fix that lets us go on using carbon at the rate we have been.
This Australian Fire is a tragedy and I do not wish to comment too much regarding this article but to your comments I feel that I have to respond.
The Greens are destroying this planet if their focus be CO2 ignoring environmental issues that we as humans can change and influence.
A leading Catholic Charity has described the Green Ideology as deadly as Communism
If it were not for Farm Machinery and derivatives obtained from Fossil Fuel which help in Farming then millions and millions of people on our planet would have died from starvation. And if those who see CO2 as being a pollutant have their way then this be the case.
So justgreenie just stop calling me Ignorant
The ferocity of bush fires started by fire bugs in Victoria have absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change but everything to do with the madness of environmentalism.
For thousands of years the Aborigine peoples curtailed bush fires by low intensity burnings in the winter. That practice was adopted by white settlers until a few years ago when it was argued by environmentalists that high intensity fires was better for the bush and for forest biodiversity.
The fuel load in the Victorian bush has been allowed to build up to 8 times its normal levels. That explains the very high itensity of the fires experienced under these weather conditions.
The fire bugs may have lit the fires but it was the environmentalist lobby who supplied the fuel.
Today many Australians are pointing their fingers at Green party and blaming them for what has happened.
There is no evidence that Aborigines "managed" the bush with fire, and absolutely no evidence that they did anything remotely resembling the demands of the "prescribed burning" "hazard reduction" advocates. On the contrary, if they had done anything like that there would have been massive small species extinctions and radical fire-related habitat changes in the last 50,000 years, neither of which are seen.
There is no evidence that prescribed burning would make any desired difference to major bush fires, and anyone watching images this week of the fires racing through grasslands, exploding single trees, burning trees spread out through owns, would realise that prescribed burning would have made no impact at all. In any case there is evidence that prescribed burning may actually make forests more liable to fire, by changing plant species composition, and will certainly irreversibly reduce biodiversity. There isn't room to go into this at length here. For those interested there is a summary here
http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/84
items about fire here
http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Fi
and a general introduction to Aborigines and the environment here
http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Hi
Please note that I am not saying don't burn around towns to act as a fire break if you really think this might work (I doubt that it would have in Victoria this week). I am saying don't try to deliberately burn every square inch of Victoria. The plant and animal specie have enough to contend with trying to survive climate change without the further pressure of prescribed burning.
Oh and those of us trying to do the best for the world we live in could do without the spewing of abuse at Greens whenever we try to suggest that dominance and destruction of the biosphere may just not be in human interests either.
I have wept tears for the victims of this terrible event al week. Al of us can identify with the heartbreak and loss, particularly those of us, like me, who are farmers. But this shouldn't be an occasion for people to ride hobby horses roughshod over the environment.
The cooling effect of an inactive sun is certainly something we should worry about. For the past 10 years the earth has been cooling gradually, but that cooling is likely to accelerate if solar cycle 24 doesnt get going soon.
You thought that you were worried about global warming. Far more destructive is a global cooling event. It looks like it is on its way if the weather in the UK is anything to go by.
Put your money where your mouth is. If you are a farmer then go and plough your fields with ox and plough. Take whatever you produce to the market in pony and trap. If you have children let them study by candlelight and write their lessons on slate using chalk. And whatever you eat let it be raw for cooking using fire is bad for the environment. And then follow Jonathon Porritt diverting money from illnesses to increase abortions and worship his belief that having more than two children is irresponsible being bad for the environment.
Also write to governments to stop providing bailouts for the car industry and building more roads and encouraging air travel. Use sailing boat to travel and for export of produce. Sack all who work with that associated with fossil fuel and CO2 production. And finally forget about running water draw from a well and let all that is waste be dumped in your back garden and lets hope it neither produces carbon dioxide nor methane.
The alternative of course is for nobody to change anything about the way they live and continue on to a desolate planet.
Hard choice, eh?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/02/0
showing statistically significant warming.
Melbourne's temperatures have been high. However what is not mentioned is how temperatures in this area have been recorded in the past and also the vicinities of where these temperatures have been recorded in the past. All very important in making comparisons. Again not the whole truth is being told.
Florida has also been experiencing hot and longer hot seasons. Scientists have collected data going back six decades showing that the hot season has got a lot hotter and longer in some areas but not others. The change is not related to "global warming". What has been found is the lesser-known phenomenon of local warming. The analysis shows that weather can be very local and weather can be a function of population growth. It has been noted that the most notable climate changes happened where development and wetland drainage has been the most pronounced. Neither the water temperatures of Atlantic nor the Gulf had any affect on the local temperature.
Conclusion. Local hot spots are caused by local land-use changes that accentuate the urban 'heat-island'effect.
I am a conservationist and fully endorse anti-pollution policies that are based on sound and sustainable and achievable principles. But to say that CO2 is a pollutant that drives climate is just nonsense. One thing that this 'global warming' hypothesis has achieved is the corruption of Science. Dr Vicky Pope and Dr Peter Stott should know this and if they are unaware of this should read the book 'Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats Fraud And Deception To Keep You Misinformed'
By Christopher C. Horner
Dr Claude Allegre was one of the first to speak in favour of the hypothesis CO2 as a cause of "global warming."
His view now:
"The Cause of This Climate Change Is Unknown."
Dr David Bellamy also changed his views. Perhaps you can ask yourself the question why.
The list is endless.
How many more are the greens prepared to kill?