Doing a number on warmy propaganda. - TIM BLAIR, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH, JULY 21st, 2014, 12:00am. ONE beautiful little number might have helped turn the climate change debate in Australia, ultimately leading to last week’s triumphant demolition of the carbon tax. Beginning around 2005, people gradually became aware of just how tiny was Australia’s contribution to the world’s overall amount of human-caused carbon dioxide. In opinion pieces, radio talkback shows and online, the figure “1.4%” began appearing. It became a “did you know” question during conversations and quarrels over global warming. Sceptical parents encouraged their children to ask gullible warmy teachers about it. Once alerted to that number, obvious implications followed. If our contribution is so small that even erasing it entirely would do nothing to lower the planet’s temperature, what is the point of wasting several billion dollars to drop the figure from 1.4% to, say, 1.2%? Until Australia’s minuscule contribution became part of the climate discussion, it was relatively easy for warmists to convince the public Australia was a major factor in the planet’s carbon-led destruction. After all, we’re wealthy, industrialised and make lots of money from mining. On a superficial level, it makes sense to assume we’re a big-time carbon polluter. But we’re not. Australia barely counts as a destructive entity, which forced warmists to another line of argument. You might have seen this kicking around climate catastrophe propaganda outfits: Australia is, per capita, the world’s worst carbon offender. This is nonsensical. It assumes that the source of carbon, rather than the overall amount, is the issue. Let’s look at it this way. Suppose an international gang were to beat someone up (Vladimir Putin, for example?) in Brisbane this November, and then set his stupid face on fire. It seems to me that the Russian President would be rather more concerned about the totality of his torching experience than by the fact that 1.4% of his facial injuries were caused by an Australian. (Incidentally, if the above scenario ever does occur, I urge the Aussie to go for the eyelids. When there isn’t much to work with, you’ve really got to make it count.) The per-capita line works on simple people, which is why it got a re-run from several Twitter folk last week. Over time, it’s morphed from “worst per capita” to “Australia, one of the world’s biggest polluters.” Sorry, friend. We’re only a 1.4% minnow. There are probably individual Chinese cities generating more carbon dioxide than us. ***(And it doesnt matter a fig, anyway, because carbon dioxide is NOT ....N-O-T...a pollutant!)*** So the argument shifted again. According to some on the over-heated side of the debate, Australia’s carbon tax would set an example to other nations that they, too, must join in the great heroic struggle against trace element plant food. I suppose this is why China and India followed our previous example and abolished capital punishment. Except, of course, they haven’t. Neither have 20 other nations that carried out executions in 2013. If international consensus is such a big deal to our climate change pals, they should be pushing for Australia to join in this widespread global movement. An added advantage: it’ll make that per capita carbon figure even more impressive. Developing nations couldn’t care less about Australian hand-wringing over carbon, which in their case is toxic black stuff on the walls of huts heated by burning cattle dung and not an asinine Q & A talking point. What they do care about is nudging general standards of living above a level that would not have been acceptable in Australia even in the late 1800s. They can only reach those standards by following an Australian example we should be proud of; properly exploiting resources to provide wealth, employment and services to a happy nation. Instead we’re fussing over a weeny sum of airborne vegetable nutrients that may or may not make NSW a little more like Queensland in 100 years or so. Labor is now vowing to re-introduce the carbon tax, or a variation of it, if it is returned to office at the next election. On Ten’s The Bolt Report, former Labor minister Craig Emerson hailed Labor leader Bill Shorten’s commitment to reducing carbon, pointing out that Prime Minister Tony Abbott and John Howard once backed an emissions trading scheme. They did, it’s true, but in the 1970s they also used to wear flares and massive lapels. Like carbon panic in 2007, they were the style at the time. But the times have changed. As an example of just how different now is to then, former chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery is no longer pulling down $180,000 of your taxes for a year of part-time climate commissioning. Recently he turned up on YouTube asking for donations to “help support me”. If Labor wants to again link itself to a policy that can be brought down with one simple statistic, please proceed. Old 1.4% cannot wait to take another scalp. ONLY THE BEST FOR SUPER RANGERS On reflection, perhaps we were wrong to dismiss so quickly Mosman council’s plan to give its parking rangers the power to book motorists for traffic violations. Maybe the plan just needs a little fine tuning. Such as making sure Mosman’s elite super rangers are wearing an appropriate outfit to match their increased authority. I suggest an innovative silk jumpsuit as the main garment. Silk allows great freedom of movement, which would assist the rangers as they dash from one traffic infringement to another. To ensure the rangers stand out, the garment should be a dazzling white with large multi-coloured dots to emphasise the rangers’ multiple roles. Safety is a crucial issue for all law-enforcement personnel. Motorcycle-style helmets impede hearing, however, so let’s instead try a head covering composed of thousands of springy polymer filaments. This would be bright orange, in the tradition of work safety clothing. A conundrum: parking officers with the capacity to fine drivers would need to carry a great deal of equipment. But that equipment, worn on the body, must surely slow down a Mosman super ranger and make him or her less able to carry out vital Mosman ranger duties. Problem solved! Extra-large footwear, with storage bins forward of the toes, could easily accommodate a ranger’s equipment plus provide handy balancing pontoons in case of flash flooding or other water emergencies. Police are able to signal their presence with red flashing lights, but a Mosman parking ranger will spend at least as much time on foot as in an official ranger vehicle. Again, the solution is obvious. A prominent red orb, worn somewhere in the nose vicinity, gives a dominating touch to an already imposing ensemble. Finally, a daub of colour around the mouth is required to focus attention on a ranger’s verbal attempts to deal with law-breakers. And there you have it! It all adds up to the perfect image of Mosman council. - Tim Blair.
Posted on: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:20:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015