Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

Climate change community grants

By johnboy - 27 June 2011 24

Simon Corbell has announced the lucky winners of his ACT Climate Change Grants which he says “were introduced in response to the continued interest from the community in generating awareness and action on climate change.”

And if some in the community are interested in doing things Simon wants to be seen to be helping then they get the money!

The winners are:

Group

Project

Amount

The Living Green Festival (ACT) Inc

Living Green Festival (ACT)

$19,940

SEE-Change Inc

A festival of young ideas – reducing Canberra‘s Carbon emissions by 40% by 2020

$21,054

Australian Institute of Landscape Architects

Carbon Advantage Landscapes

$25,576

Canberra Electric Vehicle Festival Inc

2011 Canberra International Electric Vehicle Festival

$30,000

ACT Sustainable Systems

Residential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Awards

$46,000

Canberra Environment Centre

Step Outside the Greenhouse – Canberra’s Carbon Challenge

$60,000

SEE-Change Inc

SEE-Change brokered solar community consortium – feasibility and preliminary implementation of Canberra’s first community solar farm

$77,830

Canberra Loves 40%

Champions of the 40% target

$99,600

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to
Climate change community grants
p1 8:39 pm 28 Jun 11

fragge said :

That’s right. Reducing the amount of CO2 you pump into a box doesn’t reduce the amount of CO2 you’ve already pumped into the box. Carbon dioxide doesn’t just magically disappear because you stop creating it.

Mmmm, so in your analogy, the atmosphere is the box? …and carbon dioxide never leaves the atmosphere eh? Or is the planet the box? …and we are pumping the CO2 in from outside? I don’t get it.

Classified 7:35 pm 28 Jun 11

Thanks to The Loraxes for edumacating me…

shadow boxer 6:25 pm 28 Jun 11

housebound said :

shadow boxer said :

Well if we stop producing it, it seems logical it will go away, or at least stabilise.

Feel free to address my other points…

Well, we’ld all better stop breathing and distribute corks to cow and sheep stations.

Agriculture is exempt from the carbon tax and their emissions are more than absorbed by the trees,

Next….

fragge 6:07 pm 28 Jun 11

pajs said :

Fragge, thanks for the rant. Always good to see people who don’t ‘believe’ in anthropogenic global warming prepared to argue from their evidence base, scanty, absent or wingnutted as that may be.

Oh pajs, your response is almost cut and pasted from every other e-hero I’ve talked to, does that website you linked have a template for arguing with people that strongly disagree with anthropogenic climate change? First of all, I resent your usage of the word ‘believe’ – if you need to ‘believe’ in something, its not worth ‘believing’. Let me go through your counter points and put us both on the same page here so you don’t seem quite so lost.

pajs said :

If I have it right, you argue:
1. Reducing or ‘levelling-out’ emissions won’t make a difference to global temperature.

That’s right. Reducing the amount of CO2 you pump into a box doesn’t reduce the amount of CO2 you’ve already pumped into the box. Carbon dioxide doesn’t just magically disappear because you stop creating it.

pajs said :

2. Because a person does not live for nearly as long as Earth has been a habitable planet, individual (and communal?) actions on emissions and climate change are pointless.

This one you’re way off on – the point I was trying to make is that humans have a psychological tendancy to inflate self-importance (one basic example is Narcissism) and the importance of elements of their life, because its required for us as a species to succeed and survive. I was trying to draw a link as to why this is, and why this shallow view of the Universe (100 years lived out of 16 billion, less than 0.0000001% of the Universe’s matter observed collectively over that time) means that any conclusion we draw about the workings of a machine (Earth, in case you misinterpret that too) that is billions of years old using only accurate data from the past 200 years (and only proper global data from the past 100) is going to be FAR from perfect, nor is it an accurate representation of patterns over long periods of time. Now, if we don’t have an agreeably accurate representation of climate patterns over a long time, how on earth can you say to me that the planet is DEFINATELY warming? You can only claim that, statistically, using a model (based again, on the same data that is being fed into it), you have determined that your model/record shows a warming in itself. Its like tuning a guitar to itself – sure it sounds right, but check it against an accurate reference and it no longer sounds right.

As an aside point (tied to the one above), because humans are biased by their short life-spans as well as the perceived fickleness of our species, they have a tendency to exaggerate in order to provoke change. This is probably why the idea of “Global Warming” took off so rapidly, just as “Global Cooling” did – its like firing a rifle whilst standing in a flock of birds.

pajs said :

3. Something about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (or changes in that amount) being small means it can’t be significant (or is pointless, or something).

? You mean because I said 400 ppm is laughably small? That’s because IT IS. In the past 600 million years, only the Carboniferous Period and our present age have had atmospheric levels of CO2 less than 400 ppm. Sure, CO2 increases temperature in a system. I don’t dispute that. But my point still stands, if the carbon dioxide concentration of this planet increases, the planet will not die. We might. But the planet’s fine. Don’t act like its anything otherwise.

But I stated that pretty clearly didn’t I pajs? Ohhhhhh pajs, if your understanding of the english in my comment is weak, how can I expect that you understand climate science? Perhaps you simply think you do? Why, because you watched an Inconvenient Truth once? SMH says that 9/10 climate scientists agree that climate change will kill your children?

pajs said :

4. We should not pollute, including polluting the atmosphere (perhaps not following on from #3).

If you disagree, by all means provide a reason why. My reason for why we should not pollute is simple – its good practice not to recklessly spread waste. You don’t throw your cutlery and crockery into the garden when you’re done cooking, you wash them. You don’t let the rubbish build up for the life of your home, you dispose of it properly. Surely the same applies to generating energy.

pajs said :

5. But if we are not to pollute, we should act slowly, even if the need to act is urgent.

You’re assuming the need to act is urgent – its only urgent to an idiot. If we are to provide a realistic, economical and thorough solution to the world’s pollution problem, we must take the time required to nut out all the fine details with all relevant parties – none of this bullshit pressure like Copenhagen, where world leaders are pressured heavily into agreeing with others rather than questioning the benefits of action. Kneejerk reactions are almost always ineffective or at best are not the most desired solution.

pajs said :

6. But CO2 emissions are not linked to warming.

Pajs, again? Read my comment, I said that the increased CO2 emissions of the past 100 years are not linked to the warming we are seeing in the past 20. Heard of a thing called El Nino?

pajs said :

7. And anyway, the planet is cooling.

Hard to know where to start in response to that, really. But how about at the bottom of that list? is it really correct that the planet is cooling or cooling since 1998?

Not really. 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. Both of these come after 1998. If you pick a single data set, perhaps one that does not include parts of the Arctic, and then cherrypick a convenient timeseries, it is possible to claim to havefound cooling. But if you remember the ‘global’ part of global climate change (or global warming) and look broadly across the data, including over appropriate timescales, the story is unequivocally one of warming as the planet accumulates more heat.

Try the Intermediate level explanation at http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm for a starting point.

Ok, first off, please link me to whatever analysis of raw data shows that 2010 is the hottest year on record, and then show me that the temperature in 2010 is hotter than anything Earth has experienced since life has been present on its surface. Secondly, the link above explicitly states that although the global temperature may appear to cool over short periods, but if you take into account “Earth’s total heat content”, overall the planet is accumulating heat. What isn’t taken into account is that the earlier records in the dataset do NOT include “Earth’s total heat content” – using new information to prove a difference between itself and old information is bad science. This guy is justifying his stance that although the ATMOSPHERE has cooled since 1998, the PLANET has warmed using inconsistent data. Considering the only measurements used for the first half are atmospheric, that kind of defeats the argument doesn’t it?

pajs said :

As for your points about taxation not in and of itself guaranteeing a consumption response (ie reduced emissions), this is the very reason the current proposal is to start with a fixed price (tax) and then move to a floating price under a fixed (reducing) emissions cap – a cap and trade/emissions trading scheme.

What? So it might not work, but lets just permanently tax a COMPOUND just in case, until we work out all the details on how we’ll screw big business over for its money without looking politically unpopular? Good argument.

pajs said :

And as for your last point suggesting that science was predicting global cooling and an impending ice age forty years ago, well, not quite right either. Only a small portion of relevant science at the time suggested cooling – 6 times as many relevant scientists around the time of 1970 predicted warming than cooling. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm for more.

So? This was still a serious concern at the time, and the alarmists jumped to the exact same arguments I’m seeing now, the point is valid – humans are fickle, and generally wrong about most things concerning long-term projection. Besides that, you seem to be arguing that the number of scientists that agree on climate change is a measure of whether or not climate change claims are realistic? I’d like to say I expected better of you, but I didn’t.

housebound 5:59 pm 28 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

Well if we stop producing it, it seems logical it will go away, or at least stabilise.

Feel free to address my other points…

Well, we’ld all better stop breathing and distribute corks to cow and sheep stations.

Anna Key 4:55 pm 28 Jun 11

I’m not convinced about this heliocentrism malarkey either.

Anna Key 4:40 pm 28 Jun 11

Why didn’t the ACT Libs get a grant?

shadow boxer 3:45 pm 28 Jun 11

Well if we stop producing it, it seems logical it will go away, or at least stabilise.

Feel free to address my other points…

Gungahlin Al 3:16 pm 28 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

and it will all go away

Sigh…

You really need to read a bit more.

shadow boxer 2:59 pm 28 Jun 11

I was at school in the late 70’s early 80’s and I can tell you ice age was the accepted wisdom.

I am happy to take on face value climate change exists and according to the CSIRO we can expect a 1 degree warming over the next 20-30 years. This is the same warming the world has apparently experiencd over the previous 100 years.

The flaw in the carbon tax for Australia arguement that people aren’t buying is we know any Aus reduction will be a miniscule portion of the 1 degree and we aren’t buying the argument that 1 degree will have any significant effect on the way we live.

We will deal with the minor impacts, some land becoming better for farming some worse, higher sea levels etc. and in 50 to 80 years we will have better ways of producing power and powering cars and it will all go away.

The sky is not falling tomorrow and there is no need to put people out of work or punish the middle class.

pajs 2:28 pm 28 Jun 11

Fragge, thanks for the rant. Always good to see people who don’t ‘believe’ in anthropogenic global warming prepared to argue from their evidence base, scanty, absent or wingnutted as that may be.

You’ve managed quite a gallop through some different claims and positions. If I have it right, you argue:
1. Reducing or ‘levelling-out’ emissions won’t make a difference to global temperature.
2. Because a person does not live for nearly as long as Earth has been a habitable planet, individual (and communal?) actions on emissions and climate change are pointless.
3. Something about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (or changes in that amount) being small means it can’t be significant (or is pointless, or something).
4. We should not pollute, including polluting the atmosphere (perhaps not following on from #3).
5. But if we are not to pollute, we should act slowly, even if the need to act is urgent.
6. But CO2 emissions are not linked to warming.
7. And anyway, the planet is cooling.

Hard to know where to start in response to that, really. But how about at the bottom of that list? is it really correct that the planet is cooling or cooling since 1998?

Not really. 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. Both of these come after 1998. If you pick a single data set, perhaps one that does not include parts of the Arctic, and then cherrypick a convenient timeseries, it is possible to claim to havefound cooling. But if you remember the ‘global’ part of global climate change (or global warming) and look broadly across the data, including over appropriate timescales, the story is unequivocally one of warming as the planet accumulates more heat.

Try the Intermediate level explanation at http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm for a starting point.

As for your points about taxation not in and of itself guaranteeing a consumption response (ie reduced emissions), this is the very reason the current proposal is to start with a fixed price (tax) and then move to a floating price under a fixed (reducing) emissions cap – a cap and trade/emissions trading scheme.

And as for your last point suggesting that science was predicting global cooling and an impending ice age forty years ago, well, not quite right either. Only a small portion of relevant science at the time suggested cooling – 6 times as many relevant scientists around the time of 1970 predicted warming than cooling. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm for more.

fragge 12:59 pm 28 Jun 11

Waiting For Godot said :

What a waste of money. And why does “Canberra Loves 40%” get $100,000 to continue campaigning for a 40% reduction in so-called greenhouse emissions?

This whole climate change/green thing is rapidly falling off the rails elsewhere with more and more people rejecting it, but here in the city of the true believers with the highest Green vote in the country it might take a bit longer for the glassy-eyed brainwashed disciples to see the light.

We just have to hang in there and wait. It might be a long time, but sooner or later people will wake up and we will look back at this whole sad episode with a measure of pity, shame and revulsion at the thought that so many otherwise intelligent people fell for a huge con and were willing to sell themselves out for a false, soulless and selfish ideology.

Hear hear. To the misguided people presenting this rubbish, climate change is something that needs to be dealt with urgently – fear is a good motivator. To the rest of us, its just a bad in-joke. Honestly, good luck making any difference to the temperature of the planet by levelling out carbon emissions (I’m yet to see any plausible plans to actually actively reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and not just reducing the amount we pollute – its like dumping rubbish on the side of the road but never actually cleaning it up, then dumping less and less and wondering why it looks dirty). Whoever came up with this marketing scam is sitting on the biggest money maker since sliced bread – I’m seriously considering creating a green-energy startup consulting firm purely to take advantage of these kinds of government grant. This market – fearful rich young families who have plenty of expendable income and inflated sense of importance to the world – is perfect to trick into paying me to reduce the carbon output of their house from 0 actual tons of carbon p/year to 0 tons p/year according to the government.

Its all about scale really – your life is going to last on average between 65 and 105 years. That’s very roughly 1/65,714,285th of the earth’s life as a stable planet. Its understandable that those 70 odd years seem like the most important thing in the world, and to your brain they are – you have no other physical reference to go by. But within the the bigger picture you’re nothing but a blip in an otherwise uninterrupted cycle of life on this planet. Earth has survived meteorites, meteors, a planet/planet collision and ice ages, plus countless other catastrophic disasters, all whilst harbouring large amounts of life, and we’re still here. You think diluting the atmosphere so that 420 parts per 1,000,000 are carbon dioxide is going to kill all life on earth? How naive. If anything, it is US that might be screwed, but don’t make it out to be some fluffy save-the-environment bullshit campaign. It detracts from the entire cause – the focus should be, and always should’ve been, on renewable, pollution free energy. Not because it will cool the planet down, not because we’re doing it for the kids, or the possums, or the whales, but because ITS GOOD PRACTICE NOT TO POLLUTE OUR ENVIRONMENT WITH WASTE – we fucking live here. All these other bullshit ideologies that have been attached to this have pretty much guaranteed this global deadlock on any kind of action on pollution caused by coal-fired power stations.

And that’s if there’s even a pressing need for action, surely this is something we should take the time to confirm, plan and prevent/mitigate if we’re serious about making any kind of difference to global climate. I’m still not even remotely convinced that the warming seen in the 20th/21st century was linked to the amount of CO2 polluted in that time frame – if this were the case, surely after 1998 the temperature should have continued to increase (and should still be increasing – our CO2 emissions haven’t lessened globally), but this isn’t the case at all, in fact it started cooling again as early as 2002. Sure, you can show a correlation between heat increases and carbon increases – because our largest ramping up of pollution has occurred in the past fourty years, as has the hottest temperatures on proper record for the century (though it must also be said that the coldest temperatures on record have also been recorded in several areas of the world in the past fourty years). Just because the two happened simultaneously doesn’t mean one caused the other. Show me that the temperatures today in 2011 are irregular or inconsistent with temperatures experienced on this planet in the past 100,000 years. What’s that? We don’t have an actual accurate temperature record prior to the industrial age? Well done, you’ve just caught up with the rest of us. Without using carbon, we wouldn’t have even been able to accurately tell that carbon is warming the planet. And to think we’re about to be involuntarily taxed on this compound. I wonder if you can cap and trade the approximately 1kg of carbon dioxide you exhale each day.

The parliamentary library responses weigh in well on the carbon tax debate, taken from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/climatechange/responses/economic/carbontax.htm

” – Where such taxes have been implemented (mainly in Europe) lobby groups have been successful in gaining exemptions for highly affected industries. This reduces the effectiveness of these taxes.
– If the tax is set at too high a level, activities that are particularly vulnerable to it may relocate to a location that does not have such imposts.
– They are potentially regressive, with the impact of a flat carbon tax potentially highest on the lowest income households. This effect is offset by the higher consumption of wealthier households, that is, as they consume relatively more energy than low income households they may be paying a higher rate of tax.”

And my personal favourite:

” – There are no guarantees that emissions will decline if consumption of the goods and services that produce carbon emissions remains unresponsive to price increases.”

Says it all really. If it succeeds in going through, people may (read: will) continue consuming electricity regardless (as they did with other recent tax increases, ie: petrol, alcohol, tobacco), except for the low-income households who appear to get shafted by the government (but don’t worry, I seem to remember Julia Gillard being all about the weeeeeeeerking faaaamilies, I’m sure she’ll take some of the money she taxes from you and give it back to you as a “benefit” later ;]). If only we had a competent political party available to criticize and scrutinize these ridiculous knee-jerk, public-relations styled responses to “climate change”. Notice how its no longer “global warming”? Hell, fourty years ago it was all about the “global cooling” and “impending ice age” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling) – people really do look at the universe with selective blinders on.

shadow boxer 9:26 am 28 Jun 11

What a nonsense,

They should have given all the money to the electric car festival. At least that seems a positive and constructive win/win for everyone instead of PR campaigns on why we should be taxed and charged more for everyday living.

Did I read somewhere that if we meet our targets it will be the equivalent of 5 days worth of Chinese carbon output.

welkin31 8:37 am 28 Jun 11

Well said – how easy it is for politicians to throw other peoples money around. How many ways to reward GreenLabor mates.

Waiting For Godot 5:55 pm 27 Jun 11

What a waste of money. And why does “Canberra Loves 40%” get $100,000 to continue campaigning for a 40% reduction in so-called greenhouse emissions?

This whole climate change/green thing is rapidly falling off the rails elsewhere with more and more people rejecting it, but here in the city of the true believers with the highest Green vote in the country it might take a bit longer for the glassy-eyed brainwashed disciples to see the light.

We just have to hang in there and wait. It might be a long time, but sooner or later people will wake up and we will look back at this whole sad episode with a measure of pity, shame and revulsion at the thought that so many otherwise intelligent people fell for a huge con and were willing to sell themselves out for a false, soulless and selfish ideology.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site