CSIRO bid to gag emissions trading scheme policy attack
Nicola Berkovic | November 02, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE nation’s peak science agency has tried to gag the publication of a paper by one of its senior environmental economists attacking the Rudd government’s climate change policies.
The paper, by the CSIRO’s Clive Spash, argues the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is an ineffective way to cut emissions, and instead direct legislation or a tax on carbon is needed.
The paper was accepted for publication by the journal New Political Economy after being internationally peer-reviewed.
But Dr Spash told the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics conference that the CSIRO had since June tried to block its publication.
In the paper, Dr Spash argues the economic theory underpinning emissions trading schemes is “far removed” from the reality of permit markets. “While carbon trading and offset schemes seem set to spread, they so far appear ineffective in terms of actually reducing GHGs (greenhouse gases),” he says. “Despite this apparent failure, ETS remain politically popular amongst the industrialised polluters…”
Dr Spash said trading schemes did not efficiently allocate emission cuts because their design was manipulated by vested interests. For example, in Australia, large polluters would be compensated with free permits while smaller, more competitive firms would have to buy theirs at auction. The schemes were also flawed because: global warming was caused by gases other than carbon; emissions were difficult to measure; carbon offsets bought from other countries were of dubious value; and the schemes “crowded out” voluntary action by individuals. He concludes that more direct measures, such as a carbon tax, regulations or new infrastructure would be simpler, more effective and less open to manipulation…
…his presentation to the ANZSEE conference in Darwin last Wednesday stated: “The CSIRO is currently maintaining they have the right to ban the written version of this paper from publication by myself as a representative of the organisation and by myself as a private citizen.”
Dr Spash said CSIRO managers had written to the journal’s editor demanding the paper not be published…
…under the agency’s charter scientists were forbidden from commenting on matters of government or opposition policy.
The CSIRO charter, introduced last year, was trumpeted by Science Minister Kim Carr as a way to guarantee freedom of expression for scientists…
via CSIRO bid to gag emissions trading scheme policy attack | The Australian. [my emphasis]
Posts
Archives
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
There is very serious doubt that the IPCC temperature predictions will come true. This chart shows NASA mean world temperatures up to 1 July 2011 and you can see that the last 12 months was cooler than 2003. http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg
The real reason that extra CO2 is having no effect is that there is already about three times as much up there than would be needed to capture all the available photons. You cannot create energy. Carbon dioxide is not energy – photons are.
The IPCC based their argument on laboratory tests which had enough photons for the amount of CO2 they had in their test. This was nothing like the real world.
Also, they overlooked obvious cycles in temperatures which can be proven statistically with Fourier transforms. They made their predictions when the 60 year cycle was rising between 1970 and 2000. Now it is starting to fall, though the long-term (934 year cycle) will continue to rise but only by about 0.3 degrees and only until 2059.
I don’t care if the majority of scientific opinion is that CO2 raises temperatures. The majority is wrong. CO2 went up linearly whereas temperatures are going down slightly since 2003. The cycles predict that 2059 will be the maximum and then there will be a steady decline for 450 years. We are at a similar point to about the year AD 1077 and heading for a little ice age after the next 60 year mini peak in 2059 (60 years after the 1999 peak which was 60 years after the 1939 peak and 60 years after the 1879-1880 peak etc.
See the new theory at my site http://earth-climate.com
I know you will be reluctant to be branded a denier, but at least recognise the fact that the current temperatures are not rising and ask what’s the urgency? Temperatures won’t rise until about 2029 and by then the IPCC will have to admit they got it wrong.
This is what will happen to temperatures: http://earth-climate.com/planetcycles.jpg and it is actually based on planet orbits.
ETS is useless.