Download Submission on setting Australia`s post

Submission on setting Australia’s post-2020 target for
greenhouse gas emissions
Lack of substantiated basis for setting a post-2020 target
The Issues Paper’s claim that “climate change is a global problem that requires a
global solution” is invalid, as it is based on a false premise.
The claim has been promoted on the hypothesis that human-induced greenhouse
gas emissions (especially of carbon dioxide (CO2)) are the driver of dangerous
global warming -- the process known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW), also
defined imprecisely as 'climate change'. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) and climate scientists promoting the AGW hypothesis have
assiduously defended it by asserting that natural variations in climate have only a
very minor effect, and that the dominant determinant of climate change is
anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
However, the AGW hypothesis remains unsubstantiated, as scientists -- including
scientists from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation and the Australian Academy of Science -- have not been
able to table scientific evidence to prove that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a
significant driver of global warming.
Climate change is real. It is a natural process that has been going on since Earth’s
beginning.
Climate scientists have developed computer models with which to make projections.
These have received wide media coverage, as they predict alarmist outcomes.
However, these models are invalid, as they do not adequately represent the
interaction of the factors that influence the climate change process. In fact, these
factors still are not properly identified, let alone understood. Contrary to climate
model projections, there has not been any statistically significant global warming
since about 1998, despite anthropogenic CO2 emissions continuing to increase.
There are no scientific papers that report the measure of global warming that is
attributed to human activity. This is clear indication that the human contribution, if
any, is miniscule, and that the AGW-believing climate scientists have grossly overestimated the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on global warming.
Despite the lack of substantiating scientific evidence, the AGW believers claim that
there is scientific consensus and assert that climate science is settled -- whereas, in
fact, it is not.
Climate scientists have resorted even to unprofessional behaviour to defend their
belief in AGW. Witness the Climategate emails in which IPCC lead authors
effectively conspired to hide the fact that the world is not warming as their theories
predicted, e.g. IPCC co-author Kevin Trenberth, in an email to other members of the
group: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it’s a travesty that we can’t.”
(http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/colu
mn_the_warming_conspiracys_most_damning_emails/). Another example is the
infamous ‘hockey stick’ curve that played a central role in the launch of the IPCC’s
Third Assessment Report in 2001.
Let us be clear about what is not scientific evidence:
. the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause dangerous global
warming has not been substantiated -- it remains an hypothesis (the AGW
hypothesis);
. the assertions of AGW made by the UN political organisation, the IPCC, are not
scientific evidence;
. the alleged scientific consensus on climate change is not scientific evidence;
. climate change models are not scientific evidence -- they have not been validated.
There has been no significant increase in average global temperature since about
1998, despite significant increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions;
. the belief of the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and university research
scientists in AGW is not scientific evidence;
. the belief of various science academies in AGW is not scientific evidence;
. applying the precautionary principle is not appropriate as there is no empirical
scientific evidence to justify government spending on allegedly controlling climate
change.
It is clear that there is no scientific justification for proposing a target for greenhouse
gas emissions, whether post-2020 or otherwise.
As there is no scientific justification, it follows that there is no economic justification
for such action.
The Government has been misinformed.
Setting greenhouse gas emissions targets is contrary to National Interest
Given an agreed government target, the emissions reduction action implemented by
past governments, particularly by the last two governments, was based on their
erroneous belief in AGW, and consequently has resulted in the following
dysfunctional effects:
.. it has caused mis-allocation of scarce resources, viz. it has subsidised the
replacement of low-cost, reliable coal-fired electric power generation by inefficient,
costly renewables, wind turbine power and solar power;
. it has cost taxpayers billions of dollars that could have been deployed much more
efficiently elsewhere;
.it has forced up electricity prices such that Australia has lost its natural cheap energy
advantage;
. it has raised the costs of local industries, and thereby simultaneously lowered the
price of competing imported goods and services;
. it has forced the closure of local manufacturers, some moving offshore;
. it has caused significant loss of employment;
. it has caused income redistribution from low income people to the better-off who
are paid subsidies for solar power panel installation and operation;
. it has caused visual pollution by way of installation of unsightly wind turbines;
. it has caused adverse health effects for residents located adjacent to wind turbines;
. but, it has had absolutely no measurable impact on global warming.
Implementation of bad policy can never be in the national interest.
No justification for setting greenhouse gas emission targets
As discussed above, there is no scientific or economic justification for setting a
greenhouse gas emission target.
Nor is there political justification for setting such a target.
That Australia is regarded as having the highest per capita greenhouse gas
emissions is an interesting statistic, but totally irrelevant.
The Government should refuse to be influenced in international forums by pro-AGW
foreign governments, such as the USA and EEC countries.