If there’s anything that Crikey readers have learned from several decades of climate-crisis awareness, it’s that the government will ignore it no matter what language you choose to use. Expecting them to turn around to the incoming catastrophe is about as likely as expecting the Coalition to wake up to the need for stimulus — another topic readers weighed in on over the weekend.
On climate change
Jim Feehely writes: As Kishor points out, the terms global warming and climate change have been childishly exploited by those who think the earth is simply a resource from which money can be made. Having said that, one would think that political leaders would be concerned with the problem, not its bloody name. But we know that is a fantasy. Morrison’s performance at the Pacific Islands Forum is mortifyingly embarrassing to Australia and its interests in the south Pacific. The shame is that Morrison clearly does not appreciate what a complete fool he has made of himself and Australia. This is like a children’s pantomime and Morrison is the idiot all the kids are yelling “It’s behind you!” at.
Lindon Wing writes: As a scientist I continue to shake my head at the mentality of our current crop of politicians and their inability to accept the evidence relating to global warming. One has to hope that in the next round of climate catastrophes — be they fires, cyclones or floods — that enough politicians are personally affected that they might start to see some sense and do something sensible for our country.
John Bushell writes: The term “climate change” deliberately robs humans of any agency in taking responsibility to effectively address this existential problem and if we are to survive we need to accept a “man-made planet emergency” and actually do something effective about it.
On Frydenberg
Bob Weis writes: The hypocrisy of the LNP on the economy is monumental. They oppose stimulus during the GFC and even denied that external factors, other economies, had anything to do with ours. Thank you Wayne Swan for achieving a great result for Australia. Listening, Josh? Australia has been known as the “Lucky Country” — with these fools in charge we may find that you eventually need more luck. Intelligence, the ability to understand empirical data and removing your ideological goggles are crucial too. Or we can follow Trump down the wormhole of failed despots.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.
I reject the sexist term: ‘man-made planet emergency’.
I suspect that if the only CO2 pollution we had to deal with were that produced by the actions of women the global heating emergency would be a lot further away.
I doubt that.
If we take transport and food alone, what on Earth makes you think women consume less of these in the first world than men, or have done so historically? Did women not live in heated, lighted homes? Were they all vegan without anyone noticing? Did they walk everywhere?
The case for women having had no control over society is pretty rubbery itself, but even if one accepts it, not being in positions of power doesn’t equate to less consumption.
Women are mostly not in a position to make industrial and government decisions. Men control the great corporations and most government positions. That was my point. Of course women use air conditioning and eat food but they don’t get to decide how these items are produced. Hence in my opinion, as a man, the term “man made” seems apt.
I agree that men are much more powerful than women, and further that they are more responsible for global warming than women. But I doubt that is the author’s meaning. I think the author is using ‘man made’ as a synonym for ‘anthropogenic’.
If one wanted to state that men were more responsible for global warming than women one would use the type of phrases used to state that men are responsible for more mass shootings and domestic violence than women.
Gavin Moodie, yes I’m sure you’re right. I was giving a tongue in cheek response to what I took as a tongue in cheek comment, but at the same time trying to point out where most of the responsibility lies for the mess we are in.
Point out the easily understood facts like how Iceland’s glaciers are disappearing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49345912
…..and they would still deny it.
“Mourners have gathered in Iceland to commemorate the loss of Okjokull, which has died at the age of about 700. The glacier was officially declared dead in 2014 when it was no longer thick enough to move…….Oddur Sigurdsson is the glaciologist at the Icelandic Meteorological Office who pronounced Okjokull’s death in 2014. He has been taking photographs of the country’s glaciers for the past 50 years, and noticed in 2003 that snow was melting before it could accumulate on Okjokull.”
“politicians… inability to accept the evidence relating to global warming”
It is for scientists to accept evidence and declare consensus. Rather, our politicians fail to accept responsibility to fix global warming. One way to assign responsibility is through the law courts, where the predictions drawn by expert witnesses could be used to assign culpability. Once a few legal cases have been won by climate groups, the media will be assigning blame for inaction. Consequently the politicians will then display more responsibility.