Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Environmentalists have crossed the Rubicon

By Max Rheese - posted Friday, 18 December 2009


Despite the compelling lack of evidence to link man-made carbon dioxide emissions with constant climate change, the environment movement is in overdrive seeking the imposition of an ETS to bring about a change in our energy use.

Climate realists continue to push for open and transparent debate on the science used to justify reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and that is resisted at almost every turn. That they continue to seek empirical evidence is hardly surprising given the continuing exposure of manipulation and fraudulent data, such as the hockey stick graph (PDF 188KB), promoted so keenly in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report, but absent without explanation in the Fourth Assessment Report.

While efforts to find efficiencies in energy use and replacement forms of energy are to be applauded and supported, the introduction of the proposed, prostituted ETS will not provide a good environmental outcome but will divert massive resources away from genuine environment issues.

Advertisement

The notion that spending $120 billion to reduce Australia’s 1.5 per cent of emissions by 5 per cent is a good idea is preposterous.

Harking back to Peter Spencer and thousands of other hard working farming families that have been devastated by our compliance with the Kyoto Protocol and one could ask: for what gain? Political point scoring by the Howard government, aided and abetted by an indifference of city based media and the populace at large to an unseen and marginalised group in society. But, citizens of a supposedly fair and just Australia all the same. We have collectively basked in the righteous glow of meeting our Kyoto targets, while ignoring the cost borne on our behalf by rural communities.

Divide and conquer, incremental campaigns that see rural communities further marginalised with little fallout in city based electorates that are the green movement heartland, ambit claims and a willingness to distort the truth manifest itself in an attitude that the end justifies the means: this has unfortunately become the hallmark of environmental campaigning.

Environmental advocacy needs to return to an evidence based approach in order to serve people, communities and the environment, rather than ideological agendas promulgated by minority green groups practised in manipulating the political system to their own advantage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

22 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Max Rheese is the Executive Director of the Australian Environment Foundation.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Max Rheese

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 22 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy