Janet Albrechtsen (writing in The Australian, of course) is asked a question by her teenage daughters:
Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the draft Copenhagen treaty.
You can read a transcript of Monckton's claims here. Monckton reckons that the environmentalists "are about to impose a communist world government on the world". (As opposed to imposing a communist world government on just one country, I suppose.)
Even after Monckton's speech, most of the media has duly ignored the substance of what he said. You don't need me to find his St Paul address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true.
So naturally Albrechtsen did some research and discovered that the PolitiFact Truth-o-Meter judged Monckton's claims to be "pants on fire" dishonest and that Monckton's conspiracy-finding skills are better than his reading skills. Alex Koppelman writes:
Problem is, Monckton's reading of the proposed framework for negotiation -- hardly a completed treaty -- was woefully inaccurate. And that's a nice way of putting it. The document clearly does nothing whatsoever to promote any sort of world government, and indeed, it refers to the efforts of national governments repeatedly.
Here's the sole evidence in the framework for Monckton's claim:
The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(The COP to which that language refers is the Conference of the Parties, which the official UN Web site explains as, "the 'supreme body' of the Convention, that is, its highest decision-making authority. It is an association of all the countries that are Parties to the Convention ... [and] is responsible for keeping international efforts to address climate change on track.")
Unfortunately for Monckton and those who've fallen for what he said without doing some rudimentary checking of the document's language, there's more than one meaning of the word "government." There's the conventional definition, the one he used, and then there's this one, which is very clearly the one intended in this case: "direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct."
Albrechtsen reassured her daughters and wrote a column debunking Monckton's nutty conspiracy theories. Ha ha, just kidding. Albrechtsen decided to check it out herself. She has, after all, a doctorate in law from Sydney University.
So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18.
And that, for Albrechtsen, settled it. The rest of her column is devoted to reporting Monckton's conspiracy theories.
Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do," he says. ...
Monckton's warning to Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever" is colourful. But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty. ...
why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? ... So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable? ... And what explains the media's failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness?
The UN's black helicopters, I would think. If we don't hear from Albrechtsen again, you'll know why.
- Log in to post comments
Are they just describing a new body like the IAEA or WTO?
Or something like the Berne convention, carrot. Would Janet and her pals be OK with killing off the copyright?
How about international maritime law? Was that the start of the slide to the New World Order Janet's pissing her pants over?
How about those rules like "you shall not invade another country 'cos it's naughty" that keeps china from invading Australia and taking their coal?
So it's a race, right? Who will be the first to impose a socialist/communist government on the U.S. â the Copenhagen cabal or the marxist muslim Obama?
;-)
You know, I bet Osama is REALLY pissed off.
He gets none of the cred any more.
There is a certain segment that writes screeds starting "we don't need a new body .." because they need a new brain.
I wouldn't mind repealing some of those copyright provisions actually. Especially the self-help provisions.
"So it's a race, right?"
Race was never brought up, but it is typical of leftists to try to make everything about race and accuse us right thinking individuals of bigotry.
#7: no, we were only adding colour to the language.
Oh, no, hang on.
Uh...
There's no race involved, actually, didn't you know that Obama's our first Danish-Kenyan President?
Nah, he's a lizard, not a dane.
Test him: ask him to eat a lizzard.
Yugoslavia's brand of communist control was marked by massive military spending, warrantless wiretapping, a secret island where alleged terrorists were tortured, and constant demands for less federal government control and more local government control.
And lots and lots of guns. Which red state party does that sound like?
See, this is why Chicago's Olympic bid failed. Obama wasn't in Copenhagen to help the bid. He was there to put the final details to a framework to impose a Marxism-Fascism World Government on us all.
Does this framework have death panels in it too?
> Does this framework have death panels in it too?
> Posted by: Alex
I hope so, they're my favourite bit of the Olympics!
Modern day pansies don't like it.
Bah. Remove the surplus population, I say! (Just don't point it at me)
It's a little unfortunate, considering that Albrechtsen graduated from the same university that I'm currently in...
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
CRASH
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
<headfloor>
Tim, could you please close all of David's tags, before they run away and ruin the internets?
it all must make sense.
in their own little world...
i see the headline already: "World leaders were unaware (or part of a conspiracy) and signed of a treaty that creates a communists world government, which will do nothing but TAX TAX TAX us all! we are doomed!
Shrill right-wing retards used to really upset me. Now they just make me laugh out loud (or lol as my daughter would say)
I'm not going to waste my time going to the source and reading Planet's latest excursion from reality, but she always sounds unhinged. This is nothing new. She just gets to combine two of her obsessions: climate change denialism and the totalitarian tendencies of liberals. (I mean genuinely liberal people, not Liberals in the Australian sense. They've always had a barely-contained impulse to fascism.)
I have it from an insider that Monckton's "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever" has been exciting the (fertile) imaginations of oil & gas company boards across Australia. Australia no longer to be free. Monckton apparently is now seen as definitive on constitutional law as well as everything else. Reminds one of that Lomborg bloke who also knew everything about all kinds of stuff he'd never studied, at least according to the usual bright sparks.
"But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty". It's all in the colour, once you've measured that the matter is settled. If both sides have bright shiny objects they both cancel out. QED.
I love this ahistorical nonsense. When has a country every given up it's military independence -- without an invasion?
The closest is the US states, the Canadian provinces, and the Australian states. The first one -- well, apparently a lot of folks weren't in agreement and weren't aware that they had, so it didn't fully work until the guns were drawn. The latter two had just been part of an empire so it was a decentralization of the military, and not a centralization.
But the nutcases imagine that a World Government is going to be formed by signing an environmental treaty. Yeah -- it's going to be via a treaty on carbon emissions that the US, Russia, China, England, Brazil... all give up their guns to a third party.
The stupidity -- it hurts. Maybe they just don't understand what a government is? They imagine that it's like their churches, composed of hot air and theological squabbling?
I can't speak for the world at large, but when this was floated at WUWT a large percentage of Watts' regulars said it was bullshit, that our constitution would not allow it.
They're right.
For once (since the issue was politics rather than science).
Tim, Monckton is appearing in a few weeks at an IPA conference on climate change
http://conference.ipa.org.au/
Its a pity. Groups such as the IPA - and indded the libertarians - have a legitimate pressure group role in emphasising the role of markets. Including loonies like Monckton decreases the quality of their contribution but also reduces the overall quality of the public debate.
@Sir Christopher Monckton: I think he meant race as the "ready, get set, GO!" kind - not the "where do you come from" kind.
Anyway, anybody have the urge to play Deus Ex again?
A friend of mine sent me the Monckton video, and he, too, was ranting on and on about socialist world conspiracies. I simply dug up the Copenhagen documents, sent them to him, and challenged him to find the phrases about world government Monckton claims are there.
So far, it's been awfully quiet around here.
Finally, you'll have to forgive me for this, but watching Mr. Monckton stroll around the stage and pontificate made me think of a buffoon.
Planet Janet is a very weird place, where words mean just what she wants them to, and truth is determined entirely by which political and 'moral' ideology you view the world through. Nothing more, nothing less.
So... watching Monckton makes you think of Monckton? That's really weird. Watching Monckton makes me think of Elle MacPherson.
Actually the more I hear and read munchkin, the more convinced I am to call Poe.
Hey! There is [hope for journalism](http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174…) yet.
Made my day.
I watched the ep of Q&A (Aust ABC) the other week that had on the panel both planet Janet and Germaine Greer. Planet Janet was sounding sensible and saying "I agree" to things that the other panelists were saying including Greer. From the things she was saying it seemed that Janet had decided to emigrate from planet Janet and join the real world. Then I realised that with a straight shooter sitting beside her like Greer, Janet most probably realised any stupid thing she came out with would be instantly and mercilessly dealt with by both Greer and the audience. Our Janet could most probably ignore the audience because she is sooo much smarter and more aware than such people but with Greer tearing new holes in her she would find herself exposed to.....herself and self realisation isn't pretty on planet Janet.
Regarding monckton, gees it would be fun to see Greer wipe, I mean debate Monckton, on any topic. Shall we take up a collection and if Greer is otherwise engaged how about my 12 year old niece.
Hey, you're all being a bit hard on Janet. She should be praised for her major advances - at least she's correctly attributing Monckton, unlike her earlier history of Plimer-like faking, plagiarism and fabrication...
See http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/111102_s11.htm
> Watching Monckton makes me think of Elle MacPherson.
> Posted by: pough
One hopes this is displacement activity, rather than associative memory...
I'm beginning to think that people who make those types of ridiculous claims have to be at least slightly mentally ill.
Richard
Stallman -- Linux -- penguins -- Algore the Fat
| \ / |
| \ Free Global Warmism -- Copenhagen
| Software | |
| | the government ----- UN
-----|--- net neutrality ---- will use law
| X to control
copyleft all your Y
| ************* |
------* MARX MARX *----
* MARX!!! *
*************
Watching Monckton makes me think of Elle MacPherson.
Posted by: pough
>One hopes this is displacement activity, rather than associative memory...
Mark,
Think 'boobs'.
> Think 'boobs'.
> Posted by: luminous beauty
Great.
Now I can't get to the meeting about to start...
>-(
Munchkin has boobs?
Iâve just had a read through the latest draft UN treaty on Climate Change (Note 1) and I find it rather worrying. One of my major concerns is that it invokes (rather than restates) text about redistribution of wealth from developed to developing economies, which is one of the main reasons for this UN propaganda in support of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. What the latest draft says is QUOTE: Financial flows for mitigation will be sourced and governed in a transparent and balanced manner in line with [chapter 4][paragraphs 173 and 174] (of FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1) [text][agreement].] UNQUOTE. Thatâs just over one line of text, easy to skip over. Para. 173 from FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1 22 June 2009 is not just a line of text but covers pages 156 â 160 so must not be overlooked. This would be very easy to do, since it does not even appear as âsmall printâ in the latest draft. I suspect that this was done quite deliberately, but then I am a sceptic. Come on PeggyB, convince me that my concerns are exaggerated.
Page 85 Para. 64 says QUOTE: An Executive Body on Finance and Technology for Mitigation (EBFTM), accountable to the COP, shall be established. UNQUOTE. This is the part of the UNâs global government that will collect and distribute funds collected from global taxpayers.
It is claimed on Page 86 Para. 68 c) that QUOTE: Have an equitable and geographically balanced representation of all Parties within a transparent and efficient system of governance UNQUOTE. It goes on to say on Page 137 Para. 22 QUOTE: The COP shall appoint a board which shall function under the authority and guidance of and be accountable to the COP, to manage the financial mechanism and the related facilitative mechanism, funds and bodies, which shall have an equitable and balanced representation of all Parties within a transparent system of governance, to address all aspects of the means of implementation for developing countries, for both adaptation and mitigation. UNQUOTE.
I donât recognise this as âwestern styleâ democracy but more akin to some of the dictatorships which are already receiving from the developed nations vast sums which never reach the deprived people for whom it is intended.. Come on DigitA, Iâm sure youâll have something to say about this âconspiracy theoryâ.
This draft agreement goes on and on in this manner, with horrendous consequences for developed economies if it is approved by our representatives, yet how good an understanding do they (or ourselves) have of its implications. There are several paragraphs that typify the politically correct nonsense coming out of the UN, e.:-.
Page 6 PP15 QUOTE: Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportionate use of the remaining global carbon space. UNQUOTE.
Page 7 Para. 4 QUOTE: 4. [Developing countries face not only the additional challenge of adaptation but also the need to put their economies on a sustainable path. All Parties agree that developing countries face serious adverse effects of climate change as well as threats to their future economic potential due to insufficient access to shared global atmospheric resources.] UNQUOTE.
Page 7 Para. 6 QUOTE: These adverse effects [also] [further] [undermine the equitable development needs of present andfuture generations] [demand a more equitable utilization of the global atmospheric resource to reflect the needs of present and future generations], and have a range of direct and indirect implications for the full and effective enjoyment of human rights including the right to self determination, statehood, life, food and health and the right of a people not to be deprived if its own means of subsistence, particularly in developing countries. UNQUOTE.
And so it goes on for page after page after page. They even bring âsexâ and âgenderâ into the debate.
Para 56 QUOTE: and recognizing gender equity as an integral part of effective implementation of adaptation UNQUOTE and Page 55 Para 63 QUOTE: utilizing scientific as well as sex-disaggregated socioeconomic data UNQUOTE ???!!!!!
What a farce â and our representatives appear to be swallowing it all with hardly a whimper.
But reading all of the carefully considered comments here I have obviously misunderstood what I read in the draft. Perhaps one of you geniuses can show me where I have gone wrong.
NOTES:
1) see http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic.
Peter wrote:
If you can scare yourself with a reference to some bog-standard data handling, you'll be able to see one-world govt conspiracies and black helicopters everywhere.
I don't think anyone can help you.
You've gone wrong in thinking the draft will be accepted in anything like its current form.
The United States Senate would never ratify it in anything like it's current form, nor would Obama sign it. There's no expectation of a treaty arising from Copenhagen at this point anyway.
And even if ratified, unconstitutional provisions would be shot down in the US Supreme Court.
So take those panties of yours and untwist them from that tight little knot you've twisted them into.
Even the majority of the RWingnutsos at WUWT understand that this isn't happening.
Is this the source of the "one-world dictatorship government" crap being spewed by the RWingnutosphere?
Bingo!
All organizations have governance. That's how they're run. References to "governance" aren't not equivalent to well whatever bozo seems to think they are.
>>*The COP shall appoint a board which shall function under the authority and guidance of and be accountable to the COP, to manage the financial mechanism and the related facilitative mechanism, funds and bodies, which shall have an equitable and balanced representation of all Parties within a transparent system of governance, to address all aspects of the means of implementation for developing countries, for both adaptation and mitigation.*
> I donât recognise this as âwestern styleâ democracy but more akin to some of the dictatorships which are already receiving from the developed nations vast sums which never reach the deprived people for whom it is intended
Pete, I'm not surprised you don't recognise this as a Western World Democracy. If it was we have a one world government (with China having more votes than USA, Australia and every Anglo dominated nation on earth (I'm sure you'd whine about that). Instead the UN propose a board accountable the the COP and the COP are accountable to the UN and the UN is disproportionately accountable to the USA, so don't fret you've still got rich Whitie in charge and you'll still get the net flow of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Rich Whitie can rest assured he's still bent the rules in his favour.
Pete, perhpas you could suggest a workable alternative that would mitigate deeper harm, and compensate the victims for losses caused by the greed of western democracies?
Pete, you're being completely silly. Rest assured that the negotiators from every nation will be rather zealously looking after their countries' interests.
The language you are seeing is a preview of the different faultlines between the nations:
Countries like China and especially India often try to argue that given the emissions history of the entire industrial age, it's the West who should shoulder (or at least pay for) emissions cuts. So such countries will try to get a deal along those lines; others will fight them. It isn't "politically correct nonsense coming out of the UN"; it's realpolitik playing out between countries.
India also loves to point out that their per capita emissions are miniscule compared to the West, so it isn't fair to pick on them, anyway.
Similarly with the flows of money: the countries that will probably fare the worst with the effects of climate change are also the least well equipped, being poorly developed. So they are going to demand cash to help them deal with it. They're demanding outlandish sums, but they'll probably get something, though who knows what the mechanism and amounts will be. They'll likely get some transfer of technology, too.
As for your worries about world government, you're just paranoid.
_______
Just watch, everybody - the guys who say we shouldn't avoid climate change, but rather just adapt to it are now going to start objecting to any effort to helping poor nations do exactly that.
[I]How about international maritime law? Was that the start of the slide to the New World Order Janet's pissing her pants over?
How about those rules like "you shall not invade another country 'cos it's naughty" that keeps china from invading Australia and taking their coal?[/I]
Actually, it's fear of Australia's fleet of SeaSprite helicopters that keeps the Chinese at bay....
Actually, it's fear of Australia's fleet of SeaSprite helicopters that keeps the Chinese at bay....
More likely the Chinese sense of general practicality about the amount of resources and global goodwill they would have to burn trying to a) initially invade Oz, and then b) occupy it, compared to what it would cost them to just buy our resources at going market rates.
Not to mention that the US, UK, Europe, etc, etc, etc, would probably help Oz out militarily in a fairly substantial way. I suspect the Indonesians would also side with Oz, if push came to shove with China. Or at least not assist them in any way. They would much rather remain neutral.
The Chinese government are not stupid. Imperfect, rather authoritarian, and sometimes displaying a quite belligerent nationalism. But they are not stupid. They have never made a habit of invading other countries. Unlike some I could mention.
What a farce â and our representatives appear to be swallowing it all with hardly a whimper.
You don't have a flipping clue how international negotiations are conducted, do you? Your 'interpretation' is hysterical nonsense, completely out of touch with reality.
> Not to mention that the US, UK, Europe, etc, etc, etc, would probably help Oz out militarily in a fairly substantial way
Precisely.
And such action would not be countered by, say, Russia, horning in because international law (or One World Order to the right wingnuts) says that invasion is naughty in our sight.
Just like the UK did (belatedly) with Poland in 1939.
Pete,
Many of these dictatorships you refer to were installed by western democracies (= plutocracies) and have been supported by them in order to maintain capital flows ostensibly going from the underdeveloped south to the developed north. The ratio of capital flow in 1970 was an already abominable 3 dollars to north, one dollar back south, but by 2000 the ratio had increased to 7:1.
Much of western economic policy has always been based on outright expansionism, keeping elites in the south in power whilst the bulk of the populations lived in dire poverty. Samir Amin, perhaps Africa's most respected senior economist, said at the World Social Forum at Puerto Allegre (Brazil) in 2003 that western foreign policies towards the south are not based on cultural elitism but are aimed simply at the "looting of resources". This may explain why the Congo is one of the poorest nations on Earth, and yet is mineral rich: all of this nations resources are owned by companies based in the G-8 nations. Given that every developed nation on Earth fosters an ecological deficit which can only be offset through "trade" (read: plunder) whose rules are ostensibly created by financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF (read: US Treasury), it is no small wonder that nations in the rich, white world are scared to death of social justice and equity occurring in the south. Janet nailed it in her posts. China has just set out on the same course that Britain set out on in the 18th century and the US set out on in the 19th and 20th centuries. The problem is that there are not enough resources on the planet to support western-level consumption; more Earth-like planets would be required and Earth-like planets are hard to find these days. So the aim has always been to dump luxury goods on the south, keep the ruling elites happy and keep the capital flowing north.
I would also like to point out that the word "aid" should always be put into quotations, because in reality little actual "aid exists"; this "aid" is, in fact, loans, provided with strangling strings attached to it. Moreover, if you doubt that western policy towards the poor world is based on looting, I suggest you check up on quotes by influential planners and politicians like Smedley Butler, George Kennan and Henry Kissinger. These men spoke the truth, even if it sounds (and is) an abhorrent truth. Maintaining the status quo has always laid at the heart of western economic policy.
> Pete, I'm not surprised you don't recognise this as a Western World Democracy. If it was we have a one world government (with China having more votes than USA, Australia and every Anglo dominated nation on earth
Janet, doesn't Australia have a one world government with the dominant whites having more votes than the indigenous aborigines?
USA: WASP dominated politics (see how much vitriol was going around because Obama is *half* black: the US couldn't manage a full black president so went for the "lite" version) yet they are not the majority and again the indigenous amerindian have no power.
It seems like your problem is that you are white and want white rule.
You also seem to have a problem with democracy: surely if more chinese are affected by a global issue, they SHOULD have more votes than WASP Auzzies. One man One vote. It seems you would prefer the authoritarian rule like the Chinese or indeed any communist dictatorship. So long, of course, is it's a whitey in charge.
WotWot (46): "The Chinese government are not stupid. Imperfect, rather authoritarian, and sometimes displaying a quite belligerent nationalism. But they are not stupid. They have never made a habit of invading other countries. Unlike some I could mention."
Exactamundo. Whatever else the Chinese guvmint may or may not be, pragmatic it certainly is.
Well, apart from Tibet.
Should also add that, despite fear campaigns to the contrary, the Chinese are not really in a position to be running long distance invasions of anybody. They can barely handle North Korea. They have far too many internal problems in a number of areas to deal with, such as environmental just to name one biggie. The internal material & natural resources available to them are limited, especially relative to population size, and are not increasing. If they get too aggressive, the rest of the world will simply cut off the supply of raw materials in particular, and cripple them.
Main international issue with China is Taiwan. Once that is settled, the limited invasionist desires they do have will be largely satisfied. They are not interested in running the world, they are not expansionist empire builders. Never have been.
Sounds like Australia, the US or the UK or, really, the majority of the western world...
> They have far too many internal problems in a number of areas to deal with, such as environmental just to name one biggie.
The weird thing about tibet is that there's almost no reason to keep it. But they insist it is theirs.
It's like someone insisting they keep the old cricket bat because they have the cricket bat and don't want to give it to the charity shop, even though it gets in the way when looking in the cupboards.
There may be a reason but I've never heard anyone say what it was.
>You also seem to have a problem with democracy: surely if more chinese are affected by a global issue, they SHOULD have more votes than WASP Auzzies. One man One vote.
I think this is exactly the problem rich whitey sees with growing UN influence. Hence roll out the propaganda machine to make the UN the next totalitarian monster, paid for by the oligarchs such as Murdoch and his minions. (Cue Janet and the cream the rise because their views are consistent with the interest of elite oligarchs).
>Janet, doesn't Australia have a one world government with the dominant whites having more votes than the indigenous aborigines?
Out of mind out of sight.
We need the Aboriginal Australians to disappear or to be really unworthy to justify our theft. That way we can proclaim property rights as the most sacrosanct moral standard.
We're nearly there.
Janet, on a thread about Janet Albrechtsen, it would behoove you not to work the irony thread. Talking in a way that is aping the idiocy of the wingnut is OK when you don't share a name, but damn confusing when you do.
(that's about as far as apologies get from me :-))
Mark, there are several reasons that come to mind.
China has historically considered Tibet to be a part of the country, and it is the Chinese way to not let parts of their realm secede.
There are apparently reserves of copper, lead and zinc under the Tibetan Plateau that may even match the current Chinese reserves of these metals.
Tibet is strategically located in the Indochina geopolitical context.
And something that I have not seen corroborated, but which I personally wonder about - Tibet may represent a sigificant source of water for a large part of China proper.
Others may have more to say about these points.
> There are apparently reserves of copper, lead and zinc under the Tibetan Plateau that may even match the current Chinese reserves of these metals.
At least that makes some sense geopolitically.
"Because we always had it" isn't much cop because it's expensive to hold on to tibet and they get nothing but grief from it.
> And something that I have not seen corroborated, but which I personally wonder about - Tibet may represent a sigificant source of water for a large part of China proper.
Water runs downhill, though, Bernard.
The only way tibet could politicise this as an independent nation is if they then built a few dams like Middle East countries do, to nerf their neighbours.
Given tibet will never have much of an army, that would be a terrible mistake...
Mark.
I guess my musing with the water issue has to do with whether the controlling of Tibet allows China to control piping of water to other watersheds than where the water would naturally flow; and also whether, by controlling Tibet, the Chinese effectively hinder any hopes that a thirsty neighbour might have of walking in and diverting rivers a la the Snowy Scheme.
As I said, this is just me engaging in idle wondering - mostly given the very obvious issues that India and Pakistan have with water.
An old cricket bat? AN OLD CRICKET BAT?!!
Humph.
> AN OLD CRICKET BAT?!!
> Humph.
> Posted by: Dalai Lama
Well, yeah.
That I'm crap at cricket has *nothing* to do with it...
> As I said, this is just me engaging in idle wondering - mostly given the very obvious issues that India and Pakistan have with water.
> Posted by: Bernard J.
If you think that's bad, look at the North east african states. Water wars and control of the sources of rivers have been a long feature there.
And easily become a global issue with AGW unrestrained.
Jeff Harvey #48,
It may surprise you that I have a certain amount of sympathy with what you say but I think you are also somewhat biased in your approach.
I would ask you whether you agree that overall the vast majority of people on the Earth today have a better life than was the case 100 years ago? Of course the world population has more than doubled since 1950, but again the vast majority of these people have a better life now than in the past.
Millions and millions still suffer from grinding poverty. But how are your prescriptions going to raise them out of that poverty? You don't want them to aspire to Western standards of living, indeed you don't want anyone to have those standards. You want everyone to go backwards. You have no vision about the future other than doom and destruction.
Well, I say to you that the doubling of world population in the last 60 years and the growing prosperity of the vast majority of those people, prove you wrong.
The world has always changed and adapted. You want it to remain in stasis.
Dave Andrew.
Do you think it is possible to keep doubling the population, without any regard for the carrying capacity of the planet?
Dave Andrews,
I never said some of the things you intimated that I said. My point is that western planners have never been seriously interested in addressing poverty in the south because they are well aware that the over-consumptive north monopolizes most of the planet's natural capital, and they have promoted policies and agendas aimed at maintaining that disparity.
There is no way that the entire planet's populations can sustain - even for the medium term - the kinds of consumption enjoyed by those in the north, and especially elites in the world (both north and south). This is why there has been such a backlash by the United States and its proxies against any kind of independent nationalism as promoted by the likes of Allende, Sukarno, Lumumba, Arbenz, Mossadegh, Aristide and, more recently, Morales, Chavez and Correa. Western policies have maintained vast inequities in wealth in the south by keeping the ruling elites happy. When their control of power was threatened in any way, mass propaganda campaigns were made demonizing politicians or groups that threatened the status quo.
The solution, of course, is social justice and equity (egads I hear the cry! Socialism!) but there has always been socialism for the rich, but capitalism has been reserved or the poor (see how the banks were bailed out by governments last year). This means that, unless there are vast increases in the efficiency of economic systems in the developed world, that the privileged few there will have to consume and monopolize less of the planet's resources. IMO, unless this happens there will be a long, slow road to catastrophe. There is not no "third way" to solve many of the planet's burgeoning environmental and social problems. Grinding poverty must be made a thing of the past.
How the future will play out is anyone's guess, but one is for certain: we are not headed in the proper direction.
One final point to quash DA's simple worldview: there are more starving people in the world now than there were people alive in the world 60-70 years ago. Some progress. There has not been any growing prosperity of half of the world's people, and the number of those living in urban slums is growing at a rapid rate. DA's world is an illusion.
Humans do not possess the technological capabilities to counter the growing (and accelerating) loss of natural capital. It is also unlikely that we ever will. Vital ecosystem services are being vanquished through over-consumption and at some point the ecological debt will have to be repaid. I am afraid that crossing our fingers and wishing for the tooth fairy will not suffice in this case.
Jeff Harvey,
Sixty years ago, in 1950, the world's population was about 2.5 billion. In 1960 the UNFAO said 200 million were going hungry.
Today, the world's population is over 6 billion and UNFAO estimate around 930 million are going hungry.
So you are right,in absolute numbers. there are more people going hungry today than in 1950. BUT THERE ARE NOT MORE PEOPLE GOING HUNGRY TODAY THAN WERE ALIVE THEN.
But there are also a lot more people alive today. So in 1950 around 2 billion people were not going hungry whereas today over 5 billion people are not going hungry. This is surely progress.
( As an aside, because definitions of 'hunger' have changed over the years it is quite possible that the UN 1960 figure underestimated the true situation whilst today's figure overestimates the true situation)
Obviously there are a multitude of problems that millions and millions of people face. One way of addressing this would be to concentrate resources on eliminating poverty rather than on futile attempts at mitigating climate change which might not actually be necessary.
>So in 1950 around 2 billion people were not going hungry whereas today over 5 billion people are not going hungry. This is surely progress.
Given Dave Andrews' record of misrepresentation, I would understand if readers have little confidence in any data he puts forward, but the blatantly obviously point he overlooks is; what is the cost and hence sustainability of keeping 5 billion people well fed and (including obese)?
Dave might be better able to justify one dimensional thinking if the ecosphere was not already screaming warming signs, unfortunately the exosphere is screaming, and our response is more and more growth, consumption, and devastation.
A particular scary thing is that the ecosphere response in non-linear fashion, i.e. just because we've taken 200 years to reduce large fish populations by 90%, doesn't mean we can use this information to say we've got x years before large fish extinction. When ecosystems switch, they switch.
Furthermore ecosystems are interdependent, i.e. loss of species creates imbalance in further loss of diversity and richness. So basically the progress Dave describes in his one dimensional thinking is also progress towards collapse.
Dave, I put it to you this way, is it better to have as higher population as possible with maximum decadence, even if we severely damage the planet life ecosystem for hundreds of thousands of years? Even creating the 6th mass extinction event? Or is it better to have population that consumes within limits that are respectful of ecosystem limits?
A separate question then would be, how do we distribute resources fairly? But perhaps that too many dimensions at once for dear Dave.
*One way of addressing this would be to concentrate resources on eliminating poverty*
Dave Andrews, go back and read the entire text of George Kennan's infamous memo. The world economy has grown by a factor of 13 or 14 since 1950 and extreme poverty is nowhere close to being eliminated. Like Bjorn Lomborg, you give the impression that a triage strategy will work, when there is no serious effort on the part of western governments and the ruling elites they support in the south to eliminate poverty. This is because western planners know full well that there are not enough resources to share equitably in the world, and thus they pursue policies aimed at maintaining levels of disparity in wealth(and ways of looting resources) whilst forever proclaiming their desire to eradicate the scourge of poverty (guess what: they are lying).
Your so-called choices are thus non-existent. To claim that it is a choice between investing capital in ways to combat climate change and to eliminate poverty is creating a strawman. The United States, Britain and their proxies are spending billions of dollars in wars aimed at controlling regions in Asia containing vast amounts of mineral wealth - a small fraction of this money would go some way towards reducing childhood mortality in Africa, for example. The problem is that the poor have never been a priority for the world's rich. Again, western planners like Kennan made this clear 60 years ago and at that time the ecological deficit maintained by developed nations was not even being discussed.
As Mark Byrne said, overconsumption in the developed world (constituting 15 or so per cent of the planet's human population) is driving ecosystems towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain themselves, and - ultimately - us. The challenges faced are (1) how to create a sustainable future in which economies are based on "stable state" economics, (2) how this can be achieved when the planet's capital is being hogged by 15% of its population, (3) how we can divide resources more fairly in order to eliminate grinding poverty whilst not undermining natural systems and the services that emerge from them which permit humans to exist and persist.
These challenges lie at the heart of the human dilemma. At present we are heading rapidly towards a cliff in the dark, as humans continue to assault our ecological life-support systems in a myriad of ways. Social justice lies at the heart of any policies aimed at preventing the disaster our current course will bring about. But, sadly, I see little effort on the part of western governments, financial institutions and corporations to deal seriously with the approaching storm. If anything, these three "ugly sisters" are doing everything in their power to block measures - including climate change mitigation - that will help to create both social justice and a sustainable future.
The final point is that climate change will hit those in the developing world much harder than those in the north. These countries do not possess the technologies that will enable them to deal with increased droughts and other extreme climatic processes, nor for the loss of vital ecosystem services like pest control, nutrient cycling or pollination that are sure to be affected.
> One way of addressing this would be to concentrate resources on eliminating poverty
And the best way to do that is to mandate a maximum wealth per person or company.
Tax the pants off the rich and give it to the poor.
Though I guess that you aren't *that* concerned about the poor, are you...
Dave Andrews' cornucopian economic thinking is, quite simply, thermodynamically unstable.
His concept of desirable wealth, where "standard of living" is maintained in western cultures, is hugely entropically expensive, in terms of the entropy-debt required to maintain the sand piled so high in our corner of the sandpit. And in Andrews' model, 'inviting' the third world to partake of our overconsumptive way of living isn't about flattening the piled sand (as Mark hints at in [his post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/janet_albrechtsen_warns_that_a…)), it's about making the sandpit bigger and piling the sand ever-higher in the corner.
There seems to be a bit of an argument with the Second Law in this circumstance, in terms of how the entropy-debt is paid.
Andn a finite system there's only so much room for a sandpit, and for the resources that can be continuously devoted to that pile in the corner... Oops, was that the First Law clearing its throat too?
Blasted laws of physics, getting in the way of a good Chicago yarn. Still, if you talk fast enough, you might be able to squeeze your economic fairytale out and have the audience believe it, before physical reality can stand up and have its say.
Trouble is, physical reality will have its say, even after the fawning Chicago crowd leaves the auditorium. Physical reality is a bit like death in that regard, and it's really a matter now of which of the two comes knocking on our doors first - there are people alive today who will see profound ecological arse-kickings that will dwarf what we have seen thus far.
And you can take that to the bank.
I don't know, but whatever we try to come out with, your side will have been there first.
You're a trailbreaker, Meg.
> 'inviting' the third world to partake of our overconsumptive way of living isn't about flattening the piled sand (as Mark hints at in his post),
That wasn't a serious suggestion.
However, those who wish to say "we HAVE to solve poverty first" should be required to give away all savings to the poor.
Put your pennies where your mouth is, Ducky.
All,
Not sure when the economy started to operate according to the law of thermodynamics Bernard. Plus I'm not "inviting" anyone to join our standard of living - they want to do that for themselves.
Jeff, your assertion that extreme poverty has not been alleviated in the last 50 years is patently false. Just look at China and India, for example. 50 years ago they were both truly 'third world countries' (in the then parlance). Today, comprising around one-third of the world's population, they have risen to the point where as countries they can consider themselves as rivals to the West. Sure they still have enormous problems with poverty but you cannot say this in anyway equates to the position they were in 50 years ago. The same is true of most other Asian countries also.
Mark, I put a lot of pennies where my mouth is. What do you do?
>Not sure when the economy started to operate according to the law of thermodynamics Bernard.
Can you really believe the economy is exempt from the laws of thermodynamics, Squiggy?
Dave Andrews @ 73 demonstrates ([as suspected](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/janet_albrechtsen_warns_that_a…)) that 2 diminsional thinking is beyond him, let alone the 3 dimensional thinking required.
Squiggy,
The rest of the world actually has some [ideas](http://www.gnh-movement.org/) quite different than merely emulating the planetary consumption model.
Not sure when the economy started to operate according to the law of thermodynamics
The nanosecond the first economy began.
your assertion that extreme poverty has not been alleviated in the last 50 years is patently false.
Argument from anecdote notwithstanding, there is still plenty of poverty in the world, hence the 'famine', 'starvation', '1$ a day', '1Bn without adequate water' headlines still being printed weekly.
I just saw a series of graphs that showed the change in global per capita income over the last century - wish I could find them now. They showed wealth growing but a long tail on the left, mostly in Africa.
[/shoots in barrel]
Best,
D
Just look at China and India, for example
Not the best examples to pick, Dave. Why? Because with that rise in income and material consumption has come extremely serious pressures on their local environments (and beyond). This is not a sustainable situation, not even close, particularly given their population sizes.
There are only three possible answers to this general situation humans face: We drastically reduce the human population (by drastically reducing the birth rate). We drastically reduce per capita resource use (which is not the same as saying we go back to living in caves, BTW). Or we find some magical way of producing material wealth that does not deplete natural resources or otherwise adversely impact the general environment in any significant way.
My money is on the first two options. But I am pessimistic that it will happen.
Sorry to say it, but my prediction is that at least half of the human population is going to die prematurely from the direct and indirect results of famine and thirst, including resource related wars, disease, environmental degradation, etc, before maybe 2060. And we will have nobody but ourselves to blame for not heeding the warning signs and acting on them.
WotWot,
I don't deny that the rising living standards of China, India and other Asian countries are going to have dramatic effects. The question is what are your prescriptions for doing something to alleviate the effects of this inevitability?
I would say, first, tackling poverty should help reduce population growth. Second, techological advances will reduce per capita resouce use and also MAY provide the 'magical element' in the sense that new possibilities will open up that were not available before.
But, like Jeff Harvey and Bernard J you shy away from the logical conclusion of what you say which is , there has to be a drastic REDUCTION in human population. So when and how are you all going to initiate the cull?
But how will these slightly richer people live when they have been made refugees by drought or flooding?
Concern trolling again, Ducky?
> Dave Andrews @ 73 demonstrates (as suspected) that 2 diminsional thinking is beyond him, let alone the 3 dimensional thinking required.
> Posted by: Janet Akerman
Heck, I don't think 1 dimension has caught on with Ducky. He's still stuck at "thinking". He'll need to start before he can manage the complex idea of "dimension".
> Mark, I put a lot of pennies where my mouth is.
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
Obviously not enough, Ducky.
There's still plenty of poverty around.
Go Spend More.
> What do you do?
Ensure that they'll have somewhere to live despite the lies and destructive delaying by the likes of you to undo the damage that will remove their lifestyle and their lives from them.
Don't spend money you don't need on them: you're just making yourself feel better. It's not a charity, it's ego-fluffing. Give up what you CAN'T.
Luke 21 verses 1-4:
> 1 As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury.
> 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.
> 3 "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others.
> 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."
>from the logical conclusion of what you say which is , there has to be a drastic REDUCTION in human population. So when and how are you all going to initiate the cull?
Unlike denialists, who'd leave the cull up to to current undemocratic concentrations of power, I'd advocate putting a cost on destruction, much of which is free under the current fraudulent accounting system.
Once we pay closer to the full cost of our actions (carbon price, tigher pollution controls, protection of forest, natural ecosystems etc. Thereby societies will be better able to organise themselves according to natural feedback mechanisms.
Without these feedbacks our societies are operating like a body diseased with leprosy, where the powerful decisions makers are immune to the damage suffered by those of the edge.
Dave, please describe your proposed alternative to carrying on ignoring the mounting evidence of unsustainable destruction, and ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (the most fundamental laws of physics)?
Describe a model were you do not leave our well-being upto the cull determined by wealth, where you die at a rate inversely proportional to your concentration of wealth?
WotWot @ 78, I think you're underestimating the future misery. But don't worry, folks! As has often been the case in the past, the true costs of growth capitalism will be paid by people with brown skins who live a long way away. At least at first.
Has anyone seen Janet's effort [in the Oz today](http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theau…)?
So when and how are you all going to initiate the cull?
As I made very clear in my previous post, we do it by drastically reducing the birth rate. Only you could twist that into notions of 'callous death squads culls'.
You do yourself no credit with that kind of nonsense.
The choice is simple, though not easy: We control our numbers (and general resource use) by relatively peaceful and ethical means, or war and nature will do it for us by much more brutal and impersonal means.
I agree that one of the best ways of controlling birth rate is for women to have economic independence. But that is not even close to the same as saying everybody should be consuming at the high per capita rates that the industrialised nations currently indulge in. That way lies complete disaster, and very quickly.
We have no easy choices left. We passed up on them about 3-4 decades ago.
And that starts with getting rid of stupid, ideologically-motivated schemes such as Australia's "Baby Bonus".
Mark,
As you become better off you don't need so many children to ensure someone can look after you in your old age. You also open up new possibilities and don't need to be a shrimp farmer in the Bangladeshi deltas.
Plus don't make assumptions in regard to my personal situation that you know absolutely nothing about!
> As you become better off you don't need so many children to ensure someone can look after you in your old age.
What does this have to do with giving the poor (who aren't you or your children if you're better off) their lives rather than your money?
Nothing.
> You also open up new possibilities and don't need to be a shrimp farmer in the Bangladeshi deltas.
You do. Someone has to clean the toilets. Someone has to shuck peas. Someone has to catch shrimp.
Now if their land is flooded or their crops fail because of encroaching desert, how will they become rich enough not to have to be a shimp farmer and do something with better pay?
They're now refugees or dead.
This is not an improvement.
So like I said, unlike you who give ego-fluffing money to the poor people (money you won't miss), I work to ensure that they have lives and a home to live it in where, if luck and hard work combine they can LIVE to make a better life for themselves and their children.
You don't want that because you may have to risk giving up the comfortable lifestyle you have inherited.
So you doom the poorest to a risk of refugee status or death but think you're a *nice guy* because you give up some pittance to eke out a living on borrowed time.
> Plus don't make assumptions in regard to my personal situation that you know absolutely nothing about!
Why?
You make assumptions about the lives of IPCC scientists.
Dave Andrews [said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/janet_albrechtsen_warns_that_a…):
and then manages to [squeeze out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/janet_albrechtsen_warns_that_a…):
Andrews, you yourself have made two assumptions about me, without justification.
I do not "shy away from the logical conclusion of what you say which is [sic], there has to be a drastic REDUCTION in human population".
If you cared to UTFSE you might discover that I have openly said on a number of occasions that the planet has too many humans to be able to support them sustainably, and that if humans do not take it upon themselves to reduce their numbers, ecological (and anthropological) processes will do it for them. As an ecologist whose PhD involved a significant degree of population analysis, this is in fact a conclusion that has not escaped me, and I am notorious amongst my colleagues for emphasising the disjunct between human population size and human resource exploitation, and the simple fact that the resource debt incurred by human population size will unavoidably have to be paid in the future, one way or another.
It's also rather disingenuous of you to assume that I would in any way advocate a "cull". You're pulling a rather grubby strawman out here: but then, your amongst your modi operandi here it seems to be a fairly typical tactic.
No matter though; I can cop it with rather less consternation than Keith Kloor or Tom Fuller have exhibited recently.
For your edification, my favoured methods to contain population growth start with the granting of equal rights to women across the world, even if it impinges upon contrary cultural traditions. Every woman has the right to decide her own choices, and to not have them made for her by some misogynistic/paternalistic male (or indeed, an older-generation female) in her life. Given genuine equality of rights in education, in work, and in ownership of property, women rapidly decide to raise fewer children, better.
Secondly, the religions around the planet need to keep their fevered minds out of the bedrooms of the world. It is not any institution's right or responsibility to dictate sexual and reproductive choices to families, and if the fundamentalists in all religions (and governments) kept their ideas to themselves, there'd be far fewer unwanted/unsought children (-> people) in the world, and there'd be a darned sight less sexually transmitted disease too.
Of course, there'd probably also be fewer fundamentalists, which I guess is their issue, but the more that such institutional thinking insists on maintenance of their empire-building habits, the harder Nature will kick the arses of their 'empires' down the track.
In terms of a more benign approach to human breeding behaviour modification, I would start by agreeing with [Chris O'Neill](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/janet_albrechtsen_warns_that_a…) that subsidies for 'breeding' should be withdrawn. I find it gobsmacking that conservatives especially, who are always loathe to part with their money, are happy to dole public taxes out to breeders, and I say this as someone who has bred. Having children is a very fundamental human desire, but I can't see that it needs to be encouraged by cash payment to parents.
Of course, this is counter to the inherent growth paradigm underpinning the economic philosophy of the governments that engage in this practice, but that's a story for another thread. Suffice to say that we don't need to be encouraging people to have kids just because there's a buck in it, and we especially do not need to be encouraging teenagers in this regard.
And speaking of teenagers, another simple mechanism for reducing population growth is to simply delay the onset of first birth. This is probably, in part, why Western countries have seen a decline in their birth rates, and if you doubt it, play with a growth model where all parameters can be held constant other than age-of-first-reproduction. Alterations in AoFR can have profound effects over time, and delaying the age at which a family starts is one of the least inherently discriminatory mechanisms possible.
Before you bluster and speak of walking the talk, I put off having kids myself until I was over 40 for just this reason. And for a number of reasons I am glad that I did.
The other obvious mechanism for limiting population growth is to limit family size. Again, I chose to limit my family to two pregnancies, although we were caught out the second time, but that's statistics for you. Another statistic that I heard today, and have yet to confirm, is that China's 1 child/family policy, which was dictatorial by anyone's standard, has nevertheless resulted in 400 million less people being born.
That is a difference...
Societies could also reward couples that choose not to have children at all, but that is a very tough ask for most people (my children's mother included), so I would be much more circumspect about such an option. There are also demographic reasons why one would not encourage too much of this 'cold turkey' strategy.
How to implement these mechanisms is a political/social matter, and not a scientific one, so I choose not to comment on them. I am simply suggesting the best ways, from a scientific/anthropological point of view, to limit population growth.
Whatever choices humanity decides upon to reduce its population growth, I doubt that we will be sufficiently successful that we will avoid the negative consequences of having too much livestock in the paddock. I fear that it is inevitable that humanity will encounter greater occurrences of war, disease, famine and other resource (including ecosystem service) depletions, and it's going to hurt. How much it hurts is up to us, and what we are willing (and not willing) to do to minimise the crunch.
Conveniently, many policy-makers alive today will probably not live to see the grimmer times ahead, but as I said [above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/janet_albrechtsen_warns_that_a…), there are people alive today who will. I rather suspect that they will not be thanking the generations that preceded them for the lack of serious action that most nations of the world have evidenced.
Bernard J,
I am in sympathy with most of what you write. But that does not address the problems of the major part of the developing world. They do not have what could be called the 'luxury' of being able to make the decisions you did. Their overriding priority is surviving from day to day.
Improving their economic position by concentrating resources on poverty reduction could drastically change their prospects and their outlook so that eventually they would agree with you and act accordingly.
Dave Andrews.
On your last point I agree with you whole-heartedly.
It was in fact a point that I had intended to include above, but as you might be able to figure from the time stamp it was the wee hours of the morning in eastern Australia when I posted, and fatigue won out over thoroughness.
Africa especially bothers me in this matter, because there are many countries in that continent that are extremely wealthy in natural resources, and that should by now be enjoying the fruits of the exploitation of such abundance. Instead, the profits have been channelled out through Western corporate black holes, and the citizens of these nations remain as poor as ever, or indeed even more so, as they watch their wealth disappear over the seas. Congo is a pertinent example: as an ecologist, I am horrified by the incalculable damage to the republic's ecosystems that occurs both as a consequence of unregulated overexploitation of its mineral resources, and by the desperate actions of the country's poor to extract (unsustainably) some subsistence from their ecosystems and their resident species, simply because they have no other option. If the Congolese had properly benefited from their own natural wealth, their country would be decades ahead in standards of living and of social advancement.
In this aspect of global population growth and human welfare, it is the Western nations and their attendant governments, corporations, and apathetic citizens that bear culpability.
And still we wonder why so many in the Third World do not really seem to like us.
It is for reasons such as this, amongst others, that Western countries have at least as much responsibility (including financial and other material responsibility) in participating in a humane global population response as do the heavily populated Third World nations. And given the disproportionately heavy footprints of Western nations, that responsibility is in reality greater still.
Coincidentally, the ABC ran a story about population control last night: links [here](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2734710.htm) and [here](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2734712.htm).
My friends, the Heartland 'Institute' has done it again.
As I've said, there's no significant climate denialism on the left.
That said, there's moderate disagreement - I would call it precious, sort of PC blindness - with the very idea of overpopulation. Not only your (Sydney MH, etc.) Bob Ellis - who's definitively left on most issues - but made some false claims about what size you could fit the world's population into if it were all one hellish, polluted city and pointing out that in his opinion big Irish families are happy. More to the point, George Monbiot has said population per se was not the problem, just consumption, and that's only defensible by an outrageously narrow focus, because populations don't stay stable, and the more consumptive ones tend to reduce their birthrates, so if most of the world was up to what we think of as basic Western standards for things like child survival and old-age pensions and basic women's rights, the world population would be shrinking.
If there was only 1 person on the Earth, (take away less than 7 thousand million) he could live as lavish a lifestyle as he wished without destroying the ecology. Conversely, if we had, say, a little under 14 thousand million (add the same amount) people on Earth, there's no possible standard of living, however miserable, that would sustain that or be anything but the end of the line for most large species, world petroleum supplies, and the climate regime.
Frank Bi:
One of the things Deltoid's done for me directly and because I read sites like Crikey and a couple of others in Australia is gotten me to watch/listen to the ABC more.
Marion, this explains your remarkable knowledge of the players in our little continent.
How does the ABC compare with the CBC in your opinion?
(Did you know that our last PM put Janet-from- another-planet on the ABC board?. The board also excluded the staff elected representative that had until then represented them at board level.)
Janet, Albrechtsen's time on the ABC board is up. Conroy has made it known she won't be reappointed when her term ends in February. Windschuttle has until August. Sic transit gloria Howardi.
Wot [Marion said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/janet_albrechtsen_warns_that_a…).
[Hal9000](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/janet_albrechtsen_warns_that_a…)... woohoo! Finally - the backsides of two people who were never more inappropriately placed.
Marion, in this climate change debate the ABC has its detractors, but there are always gems to discover. Like this radio interview with Richard Tol, a contributing author with the IPCC.
'My big issue with the Garnaut review is that its not been subject to independent quality review. It's essentially a report that came out of the Australian government...'
Nuff said.
Bernard J.:
I wonder if the crank in that story from the Population Research Institute, Steven Mosher, is the same Steven Mosher who indulges in a certain amount of Climate Science denialism.
Also, I noticed Paul Ehrlich said:
"The problem isn't too many poor babies, it's too many rich babies. They are the ones putting huge pressure on life support systems, so there should be gigantic penalties on rich people for having too many children."
Of course, Australia is doing the exact opposite with its stupid, ideologically motivated baby bonus introduced by the previous government. This policy is bipartisan so the present government is to blame for its perpetuation.
Population control worked remarkably well in China, but Oz isn't a dictatorship. That's why it's bipartisan, because its politically unpalatable.
el gordo:
Gee I wonder how governments survived before they introduced the baby bonus.
I was talking about the baby bonus, idiot.
That last anonymous was me.
Wait a minute. How can you be two people at the same time? Are you really Tim's alter ego?
Baby bonuses go back a long way, to the beginning of the previous century. It is always popular and bipartisan.
Actually, the baby bonus won't be bipartisan because the Labor party says it will remove it:
'Last night at North Melbourne Library, Federal Government backbencher Kelvin Thomson launched a 14-point plan to contain Australia's ''runaway population''.
His plan included winding back Australia's annual immigration program to 70,000, abolishing the baby bonus, and restricting family benefits for third and subsequent children.'
At least not every politician in the major parties has a mind taken over by ideology.
el gordo:
The Baby Bonus (a big, one-off payment at birth) only began in 2003 or 2004 at $3000 and later ramped-up to $5000.
Chris O'Neill,
Ehrlich predicted massive starvation by the 1980's. It didn't happen, largely through the ,nowadays, unsung efforts of Norman Baulogh.
He's also made comments that cheap,abundant, energy would be equivalent to giving an idiot child a machine gun. And that economic growth is a disease. (Funny that he coulnd't also see that economic growth and other developments would avert the starvation catastophy that he predicted)
But the most amazing thing is, despite being totally wrong in what he predicted, he has been allowed to continue an academic career in a top US university ever since! Seems academics are not held to the same standards as the rest of us,
Self-contradict much?
Dave Andrews:
I don't know what his arguments were, as opposed to the assertions, but the argument that there are too many rich babies because of the CO2 problem stands without assertions from Ehrlich.
Chris O'Neill,
Help me here. Are you saying that you want there to be fewer 'rich babies', bearing in mind that birth rates in the developed world have already dropped significantly over the last 40 years or so?
So how do you propose to achieve this further decline in 'rich babies' to help your supposed CO2 problem?
Dave Andrews:
Haven't you been paying attention? I said:
i.e. get rid of the Baby Bonus for a start which, thankfully, at least part of the Labor Party thinks is a good idea.
By the way, birth rates in Australia have started increasing again, partly due to the Baby Bonus.
Hmn. Here is a snippet from a CRU email:
Sounds like science to me. Political science. Or just politics. And not Laissez-faire, but rather, command and control.
I wonder why people think so many climate alarmists are communists.
interesting article and analysis, however because of the vagueness of item (a) one can interpret as one likes, so too a government bureaucrat and politician.
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
Yikes!
[Bray-fart](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/janet_albrechtsen_warns_that_a…) is a growther.
Why am I not surprised...?
Is it too late for irony?
In [Crikey today](http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/01/a-mutiny-in-the-liberal-partyroom/):
>*Janet Albrechtsen, Columnist, The Australian, writes: Re. "Mungo: why Turnbull is an uncomfortable fit" (yesterday). What a shame that Mungo MacCallum did not bother to ring me to check his latest wacky, unprofessional story.*
>*[...] I appreciate the facts are boring but please try to keep your readers informed of the truth nonetheless.*
So the biggest tax in the history of mankind, based on junk science that will regulate everything we do by a non elected group is not communism!
Hehe, followed to twawki's blog, noticed a huge number of links to "skeptic" sites and articles, from Morano to Monckton. Oh, and under "climate", a link to [here](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/).
Yay for Poe's Law!