Professor Garnaut’s final report on climate change came down this week just as the planet’s economy looked as though it was about to do some weird quantum thing and collapse down to a little black hole the size of a pea. Still those little black holes, as the scientists tell us, can be as heavy as a million planets.
Our economy is a thoroughly sooty, carbon based one – as black a hole as black gets and a damned big weight on the environment.
The professor, as he said, was being realistic – a ten per cent cut by 2020 and more if a few other big countries decide to hold hands together. But don’t you hate realism? Wouldn’t it be nice if there was someone who could repeat the words spoken by JFK when he talked about sending people to the moon – something like, we choose to do it, not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard. But as my kids would say when they have done something disappointing – ‘oh well’.
Tucked in the Garnaut report was a little diamond about farming kangaroos, which garnered the obvious and unintelligent reponses from animal libbers and shock jocks. Take this from Miranda Devine in the SMH:
I don’t want to eat kangaroo. Ever. It’s dark, chewy, gamey and smelly. But, says Ross Garnaut, the Government’s economics guru on climate change, kangaroo is what we will all have to eat in a few years. Beef and lamb will be reserved only for the very wealthy in the brave new future he envisages, in which Australia leads the world on tackling climate change.
If we don’t, he said on Tuesday, releasing his 652-page study on the cost of climate change, “the failure of our generation will haunt humanity until the end of time”. Cue spooky music.
Anytime she likes I will gladly come over and cook her a meal of kangaroo and guarantee it will be the best plate of red meat she has ever tried.
Really, though, the thing about eating kangaroo, is that it’s an Australian thing to do. Devine has a fetish for the bovine.
Sheep, as some senior scientists like to point out, are the number one feral pest in Australia, responsible for dozens of extinctions. And you should see what cattle have done to the property where I live.
It was a happy week this week – if you are a a doomsayer that is. Apart from the hundreds of articles and stories about climate change and business sectors trying to wriggle out of their carbon reduction responsibilities, there was this in Herald.
The Amazon is being deforested more than three times as fast as last year, Brazilian officials say, acknowledging a sharp reversal after three years of decline in the deforestation rate.
The Environment Minister, Carlos Minc, said the coming nationwide elections were partly to blame, with mayors turning a blind eye to illegal logging in hopes of gaining votes.
Environmentalists blame the global rise in food prices for encouraging soy farmers and ranchers to clear land for crops and grazing.
And you think it’s only happening in the Amazon? Think again. As the SMH, reported:
The NSW government has been accused of illegally logging almost 20,000 hectares of listed red river gum wetlands in the Riverina.
The National Parks Association of NSW (NPA) report accuses the state government body Forests NSW of logging the wetlands in southwestern NSW.
It said five football fields a day had been lost over the past five years.
I will leave you this week with the letter that everybody should read not just the Rudbot:
Dear Prime Minister,
The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by hundreds of climate scientists and representing a consensus view of the best available peer-reviewed science, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is primarily due to human activities.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising at an alarming rate due to human activity – currently by over 2 parts per million per year. The concentration of several other important greenhouse gases is also increasing rapidly.
If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people from around the world will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, fire, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, vector-borne, water- and food-borne diseases will spread rapidly, food yields and water supplies will be impaired in many regions, and many ecosystems, plant and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. Some of Australia’s natural assets such as the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the Daintree World Heritage areas, which bring great wealth and recognition to our nation, could be damaged for all time.
Australia is especially vulnerable as pointed out by Professor Garnaut in February when he says we “would be a big loser–possibly the biggest loser amongst developed countries–from unmitigated climate change. The pace of global emissions growth under “business as usual” is pushing the world rapidly towards critical points, which would impose large costs on Australia directly and also indirectly through the effects on other countries of importance to Australia.” (Garnaut, February 20, 2008, Interim Report).
The critical next round of focused negotiations for a new global climate treaty is now underway. The prime goal of this new regime must be to limit global warming to no more than 2°C above the pre-industrial temperature, a limit that has already been formally adopted by the European Union, South Africa and a number of other nations.
Based on current scientific understanding, this requires that global greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the long run, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450 ppm (parts per million; in CO2-equivalent concentration). In order to stay below 2°C, global emissions must peak and decline before 2015, so there is no time to lose.
As highlighted by the Garnaut Review: “… analysis suggests that a global objective of 450 ppm, with discussion of transition to 400 ppm once the 450 ppm goal is being approached with confidence, would better suit Australian interests.” This statement, taken from the “Targets and Trajectories Report”, is consistent with the climate science cited above. Indeed, there is broad agreement in the reputable science community regarding these targets.
The Garnaut Review concluded that an emission reduction target for Australia of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 would be an equitable contribution to the international effort required to achieving this outcome. As a group of Australia’s leading climate change scientists, we urge you to adopt this target as the minimum requirement for Australia’s contribution to an effective global climate agreement.
Failure of the world to act now will leave Australians with a legacy of economic, environmental, social and health costs that will dwarf the scale of national investment required to address this fundamental problem. Other nations have taken action and have committed to further action. We urge you to act decisively to maintain global momentum and to protect Australia’s future.
Sincerely yours, etc, etc
What’s needed is a kangaroo cook book I reckon: from curries to stir fry.
I’m dissapointed in Garnaut’s recommendation – he has tried to second guess the politics of what will be practical for politicians instead of staying neutral and presenting a target that our planet actually needs. What’s the use of a 10% target if we still loose our natural assets like the GBR – why bother doing anything? And can anyone please answer this simple question….We keep getting told that Australia’s carbon emissions are negligible (on an international scale) and even if we start clean power tommorrow, the worlds biggest emitters (like China) will continue to warm our planet. But if we shed our dubious title of the worlds largest coal producer and exporter (28.9% of the total world trade), isn’t Australia actually placed perfectly to make a very significant difference to climate change in the next 50 years?
I acquired a licence last year to cull Eastern Grey Kangaroos on our property in Kangaroo Valley NSW. We are about to do the same this year and hope to eat a couple of animals as we did last year. I have always been a strong advocate of eating kangaroo as I have seen the damage done by sheep and cattle. Sure it can be tough and gamey meat but some cuts are delicious and there are ways to reduce the gaminess (eg soak in lemon juice).
On the subject of rainforest clearing, I was in Malaysia in July and the rate of rainforest logging and clearing for oil palm plantations is alarming. The orang utan’s future is bleak and many remaining areas of jungle are now very isolated and species richness will decline. Rainforest clearing and the resultant fires account for nearly 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. Surely some of our huge budget surplus could go to countries such as Malaysia or Indonesia or Papua New Guineau to buy up tracts of rainforest, employ local people to look after them, promote tourism to those sites and thus make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 production.
I’ve rambled on too long!
When Ovis & Bovis were first introduced into the western division of NSW,ie west of the Darling, it was found that 10-25 acres (4-10Ha) was needed per sheep (cattle were a non starter). Today with all our scientific advancement etc etc it is around 50 acres (20Ha). That ought to suggest something to the most myopic grazier. Oddly, neither Ovis nor Bovis are suited to Oz with our erratic rainfall and fraguile soils but macropods are. Wooda thunk it?
Interesting read. I’d warn against inviting Devine around for dinner though, just on the off chance that she might show up.
Lots of comments about kangaroos, but what about the emu? Tastes just as good beef, has no fat and loads of iron, and the animals are far hardier and much more efficient in their use of food than any of the introduced rabble. Then there’s the high breeding rate, the fat, and the fact that the industry has been up and running for over 25 years. A bit of sensible investment in mobile abattoirs and consumer education could make a real difference to this industry, and the health of both people and the environment.