Discussions are nice but actions are needed

2599 climate change OK


Sir – The past month saw the release of some important climate documents at a Territory, National and International level.


First, the Australian government released its quarterly emissions figures, showing that greenhouse emissions across Australia have risen again – an ongoing trend since the end of the carbon pricing mechanism.


The following week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relseased its latest and most urgent report reinstating the critical difference between a 1.5°C and 2°C rise in temperature and the exponential shift in climatic consequences for each fraction of a degree rise.


We’ve already seen the climatic chaos across the globe from the 1°C rise that has already occurred and it’s terrifying to think of global weather events occurring with more ferocity in the very near future.


Here in Alice Springs we’re experiencing chaotic weather, including the hottest summer on record followed by the longest dry spell on record.


Only days after the IPCC report was released, the NT Government released its Climate Change Discussion Paper and Survey. Repower Alice Springs welcomes the release of the paper and the opportunities for feedback from the general public.


But what these documents show is that there is no window for acting on climate change.


Emissions need to be reduced now, in accordance with the Paris Agreement, which we signed up for but are failing to meet.


It also shows that despite the work done by communities to reduce their emissions by putting solar on homes and businesses and other means, our emissions have still risen.


Not only are carbon dioxide emissions rising, we are now seeing escalating fugitive emissions from gas.


So, while the release of the discussion paper and survey are welcomed, what we really need is to end emissions from fossil fuels, get to zero net emissions within 12 years and go 100% renewable.


Hayley Michener

Repower Alice Springs


Photo by Thomas Hafeneth on Unsplash.




Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor

6 Comments (starting with the most recent)

NB: If you want to reply to a previous comment, start your comment with this notation: @n where n is the number of the comment you want to reply to.
  1. Ian Shepherd
    Posted November 20, 2018 at 4:30 pm

    Earlier this year the American Meteorological Society published a paper by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry titled “The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity.”
    The following summary of their paper is from Dr Roy Spencer, “Basically, the paper concludes that the amount of surface and deep-ocean warming that has occurred since the mid- to late-1800s is consistent with low equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to an assumed doubling of atmospheric CO2. They get a median estimate of 1.66 deg. C (1.50 deg. [ ], which is only about half of the average of the IPCC climate models. It is just within the oft-quoted range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C that the IPCC has high confidence ECS should occupy.
    Wikipedia lists just over 80 scientists (who have had articles published in peer reviewed journals) who disagree with the IPCC consensus view.
    The science is far from settled and we should not be interfering with our reliable power production, both with our own efficient gas turbines or with coal powered stations around Australia, except to build new, more efficient coal fired power stations.
    The Paris Agreement was never going to reduce CO2 emissions to any level that would impact on world temperatures, despite imposing a heavy cost burden on developed economies like our own. Since Trump did the smart thing and abandoned the agreement there will never be the promised billions for developing countries, including the Pacific Island nations. Sadly for them they will not be receiving the cash, but fortunately as shown by the Curry and Lewis Paper, the climate is not warming at the rate predicted by the IPCC and in any case the Pacific Islands are growing more than they are sinking.
    The good news is that we can ignore catastrophic narratives like the one peddled by Repower Alice Springs. Hopefully no action is taken to “Depower” Alice Springs.

    View Comment
  2. Erwin Chlanda
    Posted November 20, 2018 at 1:13 pm

    Hi Richard Bentley: Well, this letter from Hayley was published seven days ago. Fairly current?
    Cheers, Erwin Chlanda, Editor.

    View Comment
  3. Richard Bentley
    Posted November 20, 2018 at 12:56 pm

    @ PG and @ PW: It is unfortunate that you show little understanding that in the short term while coal / gas / nuclear may provide back up to renewables (not the reverse), ultimately the cost factor will mean renewable will become the dominant form.
    And yes Chinese cities are polluted comparable to Australia but every molecule of CO2 is a problem no matter where it is emitted.
    With our resources in Australia we can run our country on renewable energy and export power directly as electricity or as gas with renewable energy the primary source.
    Alice Springs had 50 energy experts deliberating on current power issues in Alice Springs. Why has there not been more reporting on this, editor?
    Go well RePower Alice Springs. Go well Hayley.

    View Comment
  4. Psuedo Guru
    Posted November 14, 2018 at 4:55 pm

    You can’t breathe in Beijing or Mumbai – Oz is no problem.

    View Comment
  5. Brijet Pilder
    Posted November 14, 2018 at 4:29 pm

    Your comment, Peter Wilkins, has [little] to do with the article. Next time time you have an opinion why don’t you keep it up your back passage where it came from?

    View Comment
  6. Posted November 13, 2018 at 10:20 am

    There is that threatening Greenspeak again. Sentences punctuated by “most urgent, critical, consequences, chaos, chaotic, terrifying, ferocity” etc.
    Lessons from the Great Exaggerator, Bob Brown. (Directly responsible for some of the power problems we are having due to his crusade leading to the blocking of the Franklin Dam in Tasmania.)
    Wind and Solar will never solve the problem, as you admit in your article. We need coal fired and nuclear base power, supplemented maybe by solar and wind to salve the common conscience.

    View Comment

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *