This was the theme of Robin Batterhams lecture last night but can anyone specifically remember the 3 things we were meant to take away from it?
If I took it all in correctly I think that the first was that Climate Change is occurring but unable to be pinned on human activities, the second was that there are few other options other than Carbon Sequestration if we wish to continue growth in energy sector (and therefore continue raising living standards) but for the life of me I cant remember what the last may be (or indeed if I got the first two right). Can anyone help me out here?
Comments 5
To address Robins first point about the inability to connect the dots between CO2 emissions, Climate Change and Biodiversity (which I believe is a Straw Man argument anyway) I have found this interesting quote from Professor Carl Wunsch, who is the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.”
Posted 13 Sep 2007 at 1:03 pm ¶I think Robin agreed that climate change was anthropogenic based on the modeling. However specifically linking decreasing biodiversity with that climate change is a different question.
I guess the thing that struck me was how could he be so certain about the costs and viability of CCS when it has never been done – especially when he was prepared to admit that the cost of Nuclear energy is largely unknown because no plants have been built recently.
Posted 13 Sep 2007 at 2:16 pm ¶Here is an article that discusses the possible conflict of interest of Robin being the Government’s chief scientist while working for Rio Tinto:
http://oj.hss.uts.edu.au/oj1/oj1_s2004/riotinto_chiefscientist/index.htm
Posted 13 Sep 2007 at 6:16 pm ¶I must say that I am impressed by Professor Batterhams remarkable ability to simultaneously direct climate change policy for the Australian government whilst making strategic decisions in the best interests of the huge GHG emitter Rio Tinto and its shareholders.
Posted 13 Sep 2007 at 6:30 pm ¶I found an article which is very interesting. It says that Australian Geosequestration research is mainly dependent on the American $Billion research. Prof. Batterham’s controversial dual role and the associated conflict of interest goes back to the days where he signed the Maxygen contract (An US company). With direct relation to Maxygen – Rio Tinto – Government POlicy Making, I can see why he is so confident on Geosequestration (not saying that he has a conflict of interest – may be he believes that this is the ultimate solution for a greener world).
Anyways, I find it hard to believe against Keith Karlo’s quote on the whole issue. “The Prime Minister would see it as a way of making him look like he’s solving the climate change problem, while solving the coal industry’s problem of facing oblivion.”
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 1:14 pm ¶Check out the full story at
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s1006343.htm