Climate change and government inaction conspired against Philippines
This article first appeared in The Conversation
Filipinos are no strangers to big storms. Their country sits next to the world’s most intense typhoon generator, a huge expanse of deep, warm ocean in the North West Pacific.
More than 20 tropical storms and typhoons buffet the islands each year. But even by Philippine standards, super-typhoon Haiyan (or “Yolanda” as it is locally named) is a catastrophe of epic proportions. And the effect it has had on the country’s people may have been significantly worsened by the Philippine government’s siphoning of funds meant for infrastructure.
“Yolanda’s” winds were greater than either the 2005 Hurricane Katrina or Tropical Cyclone Yasi that hit North Queensland in 2011. They may have been the strongest winds ever recorded to make landfall.
Her fury is chillingly summed up by former US National Hurricane Center director, who described watching radar images in the moments before it reached land, saying “it has got to weaken, it has got to weaken”. Tragically it didn’t.
In the worst hit areas, the super-typhoon destroyed 70 to 80% of the houses and structures in its path. One can only imagine how it treated the people sheltering inside.
One stranded resident told a journalist the hurricane aftermath resembled an apocalyptic horror film. It’s estimated the human toll in one city alone will reach 10,000. “Yolanda” is now considered the most destructive natural disaster ever in the country’s history.
Few people realise the Philippine islands are home to almost 100 million people, making it the 12th most populated country in the world. The vast majority live in the regional provinces outside the highly urbanised capital of Metro Manila.
Still little news is coming from the countryside of the central Philippines, the region which bore the brunt of the typhoon. Entire provinces have been cut off from the country’s main power grid. It’s an eerie silence.
In the hours before the typhoon hit land, the Philippines President appeared on television assuring the public his administration was making “war-like” preparations … cargo planes, helicopters, even 20 navy ships on standby. He had ordered officials, he said, to aim for zero casualties.
It’s unlikely any preparation could have been sufficient to meet that goal. Nonetheless what is estimated as an enormous loss of life, the full extent of which is still unknown, will demand answers in due course.
And when the time for such questions arrives, two political questions will no doubt loom large over this humanitarian crisis. Is this a natural disaster with an unnecessary human toll? And what is the role of climate change?
On the first: in a country where geography makes it one of the most dangerous places in the world to live, what is the role of government inaction in the tragedy? The World Bank has previously pointed to the Philippines' government failure to address the link between poverty and vulnerability to natural disasters. The country desperately needs investment in long term preventive infrastructure, but the government seems committed only to a reactive approach.
It’s not really about lack of money. Just as people suffer the effects of this killer typhoon further south, a political storm continues to unfold in Manila: a corruption scandal implicating members of the political elite, including President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino himself, who came to power in 2010 pledging to clean up patronage politics.
Conspicuously, allegations centre on the ransacking of two government funds designed to boost spending on infrastructure and poverty reduction. Money that should have gone to house vulnerable squatters and build flood protection in coastal communities has brazenly been funneled away.
Far from being quiescent, ordinary Filipinos have had enough. In August 100,000 people marched in Manila calling for the abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (aptly renamed the “pork barrel” fund) which allows the President billions of pesos in discretionary (read, unaccountable) spending. No doubt in the wake of Yolanda these nation-wide protests will continue.
Second, the unprecedented intensity and destruction of Typhoon Haiyan has already prompted political discussion at the international level. While it may have been branded by some as “bad taste” to politicise the recent NSW bushfires with links to climate change, in the case of this Philippines environmental disaster things couldn’t be more different.
On Monday, as news of the suffering to the south shocked the country, the Philippines Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) mobilised a thousand people to march on the US Embassy in Manila, carrying banners that read “US Dirty Energy means Our Disaster and Our Misery”.
Philippine protests about the link between killer storms and climate change have not been limited to the streets. A year ago the head of the Philippines delegation to UN Climate Summit in Doha broke into tears while addressing the plenary. Just days before, Typhoon Bopha had made its destructive way through the Southern Philippines, leaving over a thousand people dead, tens of thousands dislocated, and livelihoods destroyed. “Madam chair,” he said, “we have never had a typhoon like Bopha, which has wreaked havoc in a part of the country that has never seen a storm like this in half a century”.
Almost a year later to the day, with his country even more shaken by Typhoon Haiyan’s human carnage, the same lead negotiator for the Philippines on Monday brought the opening session of the 2013 UN Climate Summit in Poland to its feet in a standing ovation, as he made his emotional plea on behalf of Typhoon Haiyan’s victims:
What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness, the climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness right here in Warsaw.
The unprecedented scale of Typhoon Haiyan was influenced by climate change, scientists have confirmed. Given this is the case, the Filipino people not only urgently need a more responsive government, they may just need more from the international community than a short-lived burst of sympathy and donations. //ADELE WEBB
Comments
Although I agree that the Phillipines typhoon is tragic, to blame it on climate change (inaction) is a furphy. Look at what the delegate himself said “we have never had a typhoon like Bopha, which has wreaked havoc in a part of the country that has never seen a storm like this in half a century”. He has not only contradicted himself but also made it clear that similar typhoons occurred 50 years ago! Ditto the NSW bushfires (as well as Vic, SA, WA, Qld, Tas and US, European bushfires) which were due to lightning strikes or arson. By all means reduce our carbon reliance but don't insult our intelligence with tenuous links such as these.
+ 1
Of course you could be wrong! There is no complete consensus on this but there is some evidence around changes in typhoon frequency.
"http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034013"
Some heavy before and after images here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230391430457919397130...
Blindboy - all that paper says is that recently, the frequency - not intensity - of typhoons in May has increased. As you say there is no consensus - so why do people like the articles author - with no scientific background make these assertions?
Check here for something possibly a bit more relevant - but still very loose in terms of definitive cause and effect links.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_Final...
See page 126 for possible changes to tropical cyclones based on ONE climate change model run. Note the comment "based on expert judgment after
subjective normalisation of the model projections".
As for the article - trying to piggyback climate change politics to a disaster such as this does not help the relief method at best, and at worst reeks of ambulance chasing for political point scoring.
As the OP has said - yes - reduce our reliance on carbon - and act on climate chane - but don't do the climate change cause a disservice by hitching the cause to disasters that cannot (probably ever) be proven to be connected to climate change.
The data suggest that the pattern of typhoons is changing. Various other studies also show this in relation to their tracks. My reading is that we don't have sufficient data to know if these changes are consistent with historical patterns.
What we do know is that all the environmental indicators in the NW pacific have become more favourabl for typhoon formation . We also know that climate change has happened. The climate we are experiencing is outside its previous range. In those circumstances I am not sure how anyone can meaningfully distinguish events linked to climate change. Our entire climate and everything that happens within it is the result of climate change.
I am sure our great leader big ears will have his head (and ears) in the sand when it comes to any links (even tenuous) with climate change. Were open for business again didn't you know and who cares if we trash the planet. All care and no responsibility. I don't mind scoring a few political points.
Linking any one natural disaster or even a whole season to climate change will always be a crock. Climate isn't weather - its as simple as that.
At the same time the Phillipines get smashed, the north Atlantic is looking like having their quietest hurricane season in recorded history if nothing brews up in the next two weeks. There hasn't been a major hurricane (Cat 3+) hit the US since Katrina in 2005.
No land falling hurricance in the US, no major hurricanes formed at all over the Atlantic this year. Driest mid and upper atmospheric readings ever recorded etc.
So you agree with me then loll........once you change the climate you can't pick and choose what was or was not caused by climate change........it's a new climate, everything is climate change.
The debate gets distorted when people rely on words such as 'hottest', 'strongest', 'driest'...whatever it may be, to describe the effects of climate change. The truth is that the effects will be uneven and unpredictable; the 'wettest' on this side of the continent may be the 'driest' on the other, or the most active typhoon season coincides with the least active.
The most correct way to assess change is to ditch the descriptions and start looking at how often climate records - whatever they may be - are getting broken.
Wait heals what?
Ditch descriptions but look at records getting broken?
Would they be records for things like hottest and driest by any chance or is there some other sort of new measurement scheme that we dont know about yet??
Of course they would be, but they wouldn't be framed within the debate that way; they'd simply be 'records broken'. Misinformation is one of the great faults of the climate change issue and our response to it. Listen to the people who scoff at 'global warming' when we have a cold snap, or who laugh when there's a deluge when the debate is framed around 'dryness', as it was in NSW during the drought last decade.
So of course there'd still be hottest and driest, or what have you, but on their own each event is prey to media hawkers and the less-informed. The real story is not a hot spell here, because it won't be hot everywhere, just as it wont be wet everywhere, or dry everywhere. It's the cumulative effect of the those changes - climate changes - and that is best represented in records broken.
I think you are right heals. One of the most important things we need to know now is the rate at which the climate is changing and looking at record breaking events would seem to be a good measure of that. Haiyan, from all reports, broke a record for the highest wind speeds on landfall of any typhoon.
The biggest philosophical/humanitarian question is when does it become OK to start attributing the increased natural disasters which the science tells us are symptoms of climate change to that climate change.
Now?
in ten years time?
twenty?
When a hundred thousand people have been killed by super typhoons?
when bushfires wipe out property and life in September instead of October?
When the science keeps warning of the negative consequences of climate change at what point do we accept the reality of those consequences?
seems to me it'll be the next generations picking up the pieces while we fiddle and Rome burns.
Don't know when that point will be, though I imagine that whenever we pass it there'll be an awful lot of historical rewriting going on.
Suddenly everyone will have been prophet and protector, and done their share to warn yet it was the Chinese, Indians and other developing nations who stymied action.
Records have been kept for how long?? And how old is the planet??
The climate has always been changing (ice ages, volcanic interferences etc) and we have only been keeping acurate records for what, a few hundred years.....
I don't doubt we have contributed to some sort of man made change, but to blame recent events on our recent contributions is fanciful IMO.
well said and totally agree
Fitzy and Indo, the thing is the planet hasn't seen the increase in carbon that we are pumping into the atmosphere at rates like this before.
Burning fossil fuesl that took millions of years to create in a couple of centuries can never be good.
Absolutely Craig, there is no denying that. There is also no denying that Yasi, Katrina and this one are the largest "on record".
I just think we should be mindful that we don't know how big, severe and catastrophic storms were "before records" were kept.
Agree also, although records have to start at some stage.
Maybe, I think deniers will go to the grave coming up with reasons why this couldn't be climate change.
And Fitzy, will all due respect, thats all that is. your opinion.
having an opinion on this is like having an opinion on gravity, or cancer or some other phenomena. it's basically as useless as tits on a bull.
we're pawns now in a much larger game and if we are ignoring the scientific consensus as it appears we are, then we let the chips fall where they may.
if we did accept the scientific consensus then humanity is running out of excuses.
Any correlation between global warming and the last 2-3 years of shitty east coast Aus TC tracks that look like they will provide epic swells when they form, then instead they hug the coast then cross over mainland at Fraser instead of sitting off the coast stationary and growing, throwing big ENE swells into the QLD and NSW points like they used to?? If so, I will start riding my bike to work from now-on I promise.
Agreed Steve.
I'm not a denier, I'm just of the opinion that things are a little overcooked and people imediatately jump to the alarmist view as soon as something is the 'worst on record'. To me it's bandied around a little too loosely.
I'll just continue to do the best I can not to leave too big a footprint.
Meanwhile tommorrow morning at 9am Tony Abbott will introduce to parliament legislation to repeal the carbon emmision reduction schemes brought in by Labor. The Coalition will be the first government in the world to reverse such policies.
I wonder how we will be viewed as a country by future generations. Made a genuine attempt to start a process towards reducing emmisions, then backed out.
I blame Labor as much as the Coalition. If they weren't so busy fighting amongst themselves when in government, they may have stayed in power and real lasting progress could of been made?
this is heading political .
The facts are that the best cyclone / storm / tornado severe weather experts are of the opinion that the two are NOT linked . Now if a Climatologist ( a new field ) can convince people that are the real experts when it comes to severe weather as such then that is day i will become alarmed . As per fitzy I'm doing everything i can to provide a better future for my young ones . This is after being an alarmist of sorts in the mid to late nineties , being in the past quite depressed about the situation . Especially since I'm involved in the industry . The only way i see forward is for people to take the initiative and show the way to others by living by their examples , demanding and using the right power rather than pushing it on to others .
No alarmist here , just sick of people ducking at Shadows .
It doesn't help today when Taxi door Tony , goes and scraps the ARENA funding today . So much for Direct action . But perhaps they want other people running it , and stricter conditions . So hopefully starting from scratch .
As for us backing out first , well thats just stupid Australia being 2-3 years behind the rest of the world , as an example we are still trying to rattify Kyoto and many others have already abandoned ship . The other being , hasn't New Zealand already done this backflip ? If we are slower than them then we know there is something wrong . ( Apologies Inzed and wellymon , no direct generalisation involved )
Just had a chat to mum who is President of aid organisation http://www.worldfamilies.org.au/ and she has spoken to Sue the project coordinater of a community centre at Malabarn which is south if Manilla.
Despite that area not receiving the full brunt of the typhoon, the centre was heavily flooded for the fourth time in three years. $4500 has been sent to help immediately as many people are coming to the centre seeking help. There are dead bodies everywhere in the region.
The centre has a second floor and a bridge from that level to high ground was built after the last flooding event so it can still be accessed. World Families also have two boats that were stored there after the previous floods and these are being used to help locals stranded by the floods. The Red Cross is the best organisation to donate to for relief funding on a larger scale.
You have to wonder stories like these will become the new normal as more and more climate change induced weather activity impacts lower lying regions throughout the world?
It's a deadly mix yorkes rising sea levels and the probability of larger more frequent storms. As for Abbott, he's just another highly educated idiot trained to argue for a position rather than analyse it objectively. His position that Australia should not act until other countries do is logically indefensible. Australia has a highly developed economy with the capacity to reduce its emissions significantly. It is currently about the 5th highest per capita emitter below a few Gulf States who have air conditioned their entire countries and obtain their water by desalination.
I'm still on the fence, but we can't keep pumping crap into the air and expect everything to be ok. My issue is that Australia moving on this by itself or at least with the few serious nations with us it will achieve f-all, and we the Australian people will end up paying more and more, while developing countries continue to pollute with no regard for the environment. I know someone has to get the ball rolling, and maybe a rich country like ours needs to stick its neck out and hope that the rest of the world follows. The problem is that a good many Australian people don't want life to cost more, we are human and selfish and at the end of the day most of us put ourselves first. Our race has a finite end, just like the dinosaurs who ruled the planet for 160 million years, we have managed to screw it in 80k, most of coming in 150 years. time for a beer......ahh that's better.
The carbon tax has been a net benefit to my bottom line.
All politics aside, we should all spare a thought for the thousands upon thousands that are in dire straits over there. Couldn't even imagine it.
yep. unimaginable misery.
thanks for posting that link Yorkersurfer. Will donate tomorrow.
Had a lot of epic surfs in the Phillos and met a lot of beautiful, humble people with fuck all material possessions who were always ready to welcome you into their homes.
Some of those people are probably now dead or homeless at the least.
this seems to link to actual science,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/typhoon-haiyan-climate-chan...
Interesting article.
So salt the average Australian is responsible for about 26 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year. For Indonesia the figure is 15. For most European countries between 7 and 12. China 4 - 5. But we should wait for them to do something because........?
1. the IPCC as which has been linked above is the authority figure on climate change and they claim its real and that humans are contributing in a significant manner.
2. It’s the 1st world countries that are responsible for this contribution as the 2nd -3rd world countries have only just started to come on board in terms of burning fossil fuels. So to say that Australia or any other 1st world country should not act until China or India do is a cop out. We created the problem, if that is, you believe it – we have a duty to act.
3. The scrapping of the ARENA is tragic. No matter what you believe re climate change, we should be looking at other alternative energy methods. Big Mining run this country. We saw that in detail over the last 3-5 years. Its ok for Mining to get subsidised to the hilt by taxpayers money’s (and they bloody well do) but not alternative energy businesses. Therein lies the hopelessness. You and I can do all we can to consume responsibly in our own quiet, non preaching, anti alarmist way. Yet without incentives or penalties on big business and big mining to do so as well, it makes it all so much harder.
bonza the global shift of power from governments to corporations is THE issue of our age. Governments are supposed to act in the interests of their citizens. The only motive of corporations is profit. Over the last fifty years as globalisation has occurred governments have moved from being in firm control of corporate behaviour to being terrified of their power. Consider the corrosive influence of Murdoch in Australia or the power of the armaments lobby in the US or the way big energy has funded efforts to cast uncertainty on climate change using the same strategies as big tobacco used about cancer in previous decades. As William S Burrough's said " A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what is going on."
@blinboy..are you saying each Aussie is responsible for 26 tonnes a year and each Indonesian is 15tonnes..How many people live in Australia? how many in Indonesia?
Shouldn't you be talking about population issues?
@yorkes and Blindboy..didn't the majority of people vote for him? and his decision to 'axe the tax'?
Why don't they get the top climate change believers and the top nonbelievers and pu them on the spot together? Q&A style
'Had a lot of epic surfs in the Phillos and met a lot of beautiful, humble people with fuck all material possessions who were always ready to welcome you into their homes.
Some of those people are probably now dead or homeless at the least.'
Yeh freeride, and the typhoon went straight over the top of plenty of small islands, a direct hit, where people live, before it hit the mainland. They won't even register as far as relief, and statistics go. Those coastal areas lost fishing/boats, and drinking water, the wells will be polluted for a while, plus pigs, rice and coconuts were hammered. Athough they would have caught plenty of rain water from yesterday's system. Rebuilding huts will be tough too, as the palms and materials used were smashed too.
The island people are deluxe, however, government wise, no one can match them for corruption or kicking their fellow man's arse. Whitening creamed.
BB what I mean to say is that a shitload of Australians don't care enough to accept the economic burden that proper/meaningful emission control entails. Lots agree, but don't want it to affect their way of life. The last election proved that. The problem lies in what we as Aussies expect from our lives, good health care, the best education for our kids, reliable public transport, well maintained roads and parks, reliable internet, old age care , good wages and conditions etc etc etc. it needs to be funded somehow, they can't do it on speeding fines alone, enter mining boom. I feel I have gained absolutely fuckall from the mining boom just inflated house prices. I'm just saying what I hear " why should we be taxed when places like china etc keep pumping pumping pumping out the crap" . Get rid of coal power stations in Australia and see those figures of yours decrease massively, but they are not going to, cause those coal guys want everything the rest of us want. It's a big round about that goes round and round and round till we as a species fail to exist, and something else takes over, maybe the reptiles again, who the fuck knows. Not in our life time, not even our kids, so why the fuck should we care?
David Suzuki said something the other day on the ABC..."The earth will still exist after we're gone'..He said donot underestimate nature..it has a way of adapting to what is thrown at it...In other words the human race will finish before our planet does..Sounds to me like our greatest problem is ourselves.
Yes and our greatest future problem behind it all is population growth and lack of control of population growth and governments who aim for population growth to stimulate economies.
Coupled with the fact people are living longer and the developing countries are becoming developed and wanting the luxuries and consume like we do.
IMO we are pretty screwed apart from climate problems to feed a much bigger population we need more water and more food and more land for housing and production.
In turn all equals more problems for our planet, IMO even the government policies are are contradiction on one hand we have things like a carbon tax while on the other hand we hand out money to encourage people to breed and give out unlimited social security benefits, instead of capping any government help at say two children.
In turn it also effects surfing, you think its crowded now IMO these are still the golden years one day we will be old and tell stories of how we once surfed with a few guys or just our mates and our grand children will not believe a word we say.
I'm amazed how slowly aid is reaching the most desperate!
Inevitably it brings out the worst in humans.
This always happens after disasters z-man. Unfortunately it is impossible to plan for these events and the reality is that it is incredibly difficult to re establish basic services and effective distribution networks for aid when communications and transport infra structure have been destroyed. My observation, from a distance, would be that it brings out the best far more often than the worst. Can you imagine taking on the responsibility of helping to clear the bodies? Or putting your hand up for the dirty, dangerous work of clearing the debris? Thousands are doing those jobs now, not to mention the aid workers travelling in to help, who are prepared to work long hours in difficult conditions when they could be back at home relaxing. There will be corruption and criminal neglect but not by the vast majority who will be doing their best to help.
@blindboy; - "Unfortunately it is impossible to plan for these events ..."
Seriously? Are you kidding?
Building communities at sea level has it's risks as you and everyone should know. If you are willing to take those risks you should have a plan to reach high ground.
Do me a favor and give me the benefit of the doubt you obviously have and realize I too understand that good people exist.
I realize the difficulties involved. Please get off your high horse!
We don’t need more food or more water. Our problem is we waste it. It’s the sickening waste of real food, resources and stuff that we throw out every day, each and every one of us. Or its the horrifying amount of water and land we use up to make plastic bottles, or to just generally make pieces of crap that last for fuck all time, that just end up in our oceans, or in land fill - to give just a petty example.
Population issues aside ( and they are concerning), if we actually used what we have in ways in which they should be instead of making shit just to sell shit then we would we be in much better place.
But they just want you to shut up and eat more hamburgers.
Thats also true.
We are a small nation representing 0.2% of the world's population. We are actually doing heaps to change our energy usage (solar, wind, LNG) and we are still 'the bad guys'. If you want proof of the futility of acting independently on economic/environmental issues look at what has happened to our car industry as we removed tariff barriers and tried to develop lower emission cars. Unless the other nations play ball we are just suckers for the punishment that inevitably follows.
I wouldn't call revoking the solar panal rebate supporting the renewable market.
We could be world leaders with all the sun/wind/waves and land, but no we're taking big steps backward.
theween, you have to be joking! If we are doing so much how come our emissions are sky high? Population size has nothing to do with our ethical responsibilities.......but looking at the cowboys we have just elected, you are probably in the majority.
Seems like everyone is talking and no-one is listening, again.
There has been numerous studies showing on the issue of climate change your point of view has more to do with your view of the world than being persuaded or otherwise by the science. That is, climate change deniers for want of a better term are likely to be never persuaded by the science, no matter how clear.
I'm tired of all this jib-a-jabba and no longer feel inclined to directly engage in the argument.
Like so many things in our daily life that we think we have a say in the real game is being played out behind closed board room doors. If you are looking for the source of the counter argument against action on climate change look towards those that have the most to lose like petroleum and mining companies. Nothing like self interest to sharpen the mind.
So why are petroleum and mining companies advertising on my TV? Not as if I can go down to the supermarket and buy a 6 pack of brown coal. And why is the Murdoch press so anti action on climate change?
Always nice to have hysteria about Murdoch discussed on Swellnet. Blindboy is a little naive me thinks, jumping on the anti-majority bandwagon that sees the evils of modern capitalist economies as being the cause of all of the world's problems.
...as opposed to theween who asserts a nonsensical position and changes the subject. But it works for our nations leaders so why not?
Thween yes we are a tiny little island with a tiny amount of people but we certainly push above our weight which has been pointed out above. We are, on a per person basis, within the top 3 highest emitters with GH gases. We are also one of the highest per person users of energy per day. More than the UK just below the USA & almost twice that of France & crap load above China and India.
Lets not forget either that the rising energy use and emissions related to China, India etc. is due to the fact they are pumping out plastic crap for us rich bastards in the West.
I’m not sure where you get we are doing ‘heaps’ in terms of alternative energy? I’m not arguing with you, but how do you quantify “heaps” with the:
The removal of carbon emissions scheme
The removal of MRRT
The removal and/or closure of funding of the ARENA and its subsidiaries.
How is that helping non-mining energy industry?
Meanwhile we are digging more bloody big holes in pits and ports in QLD along the GBH (subsidized with our taxpayers money no doubt). You seem to want protection and taxes for the Australia car industry? Well goddamn it I want taxes and incentives to help drive alternative energy and protect what is valuable to all of us. Our land. .
so surfers are commenting on putting carbon into the air.
Pot kettle black anyone!
that's racist.
a360 why is it absurd for surfers to expect that Australia should obtain more of our energy from carbon neutral sources? If you have any data, as opposed to anecdotal observations, to show that surfers have larger than average carbon footprints then I would love to see it.
This Sunday is an Australia wide National Day of Climate Action.
Gatherings will be held in every major city by individuals and groups who wish to send a message to the new government that there are many people in this country who believe climate change will have a real and lasting impact on the world, and wish our country to take genuine steps to address and reduce our impact.
Details of where to meet are below for those who want to make their voice heard on this issue.
SYDNEY
Prince Alfred Park 11am
MELBOURNE
Treasury Place 11am
BRISBANE
Queens Park 10am
BYRON BAY 4pm
Gilmore Crescent
NEWCASTLE
Nobbys Beach Reserve 11am
CANBERRA
Garema Place 11am
ADELAIDE
Elder Park 11am
PERTH
Russell Square 11am
HOBART
Parliament Gardens 11am
Hoping for a big turnout to send a message that Australians want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem!
Every person in our culture, relentlessly, wholeheartedly demands the whole plethora of industries that endlessly ravage the environment, no matter what. Even when having a shit. To claim otherwise is like buying a bag of mull, and getting off your face and then bumbling around screeching about low life dealers. Its almost as bad as that knucklehead around here that speeds around in his Toyota erecting cyclone fences whilst blaming feral cats for destroying flora and fauna. Imagine if the Pearly Gates scenario is true, and as God peers through the belching clouds of smoke at the oceans of plastic, illuminated by the flickering array of light bulbs, and asks humans what the fuck happened to the planet, they all pointed their fingers at some trembling, half starved, mangy cats.
'Oi, them fuckers done it God, hey they did! Me an' oyo seen em 'ey! Fuck'n extinct the fuckers oi! Oyo gotta new tatt about it oi ee has, seen it in the mags I did eh!
'Fuck'n BHP!' Oi, nice 7'8", latest shit eh, how'd ya get it all the way out here? Lets hop in the fourby and take it for a spin. No worries, just log on and check the new swell cams first... fuck'n BHP .'
There's a big rally about the cunts eh! Ya goin? Ya walkin? Where ya staying?
Probably get the bus and walk the last bit!
I'm gunna astrofuck my way there through the power of my burning my turds.... Jesus Fuck uplift - why is that when some one questions something, we are all painted as a bunch of hypocritical, commie, wankers.. cause that's where you are leading.. Yes. Ok. Yes. I am no better than any other maccas eating, oil burning, car driving, Bangladesh tshirt wearing citizen. If my posts come off as moralizing I apologise. I sincerely don't mean that. I just don't know what the fuck is wrong with questioning what it is that is really going on.. for fucks sake I'm not anti coal.. I'm just anti bullshit.. and we are getting it fed to us in droves..
''to show that surfers have larger than average carbon footprints then I would love to see it''
Shall compare say to average punter playing footy/cricket
So we pull on our quickdry boardies or wettie - Hydrocarbon
Put on a rashie -Hydrocarbon
Wax the board / deck grip - hydrocarbon
leggie - Hydrocarbon
Surfboard/Mal/SUP Epoxy/PU - Hydrocarbon
Drive to the beach as much as possible- Hydrocarbon
Fly to Indo etc - Hydrocarbon
Drive up and down coast searching for surf -Hydrocarbon
Etc etc
It is only the actual act of riding waves that could be considered neutral
Sorry to be bit of killjoy but surfers are not the angels of the environment some make themselves out to be
No angels a360 but all you have is a dubious inference, that surfers have large carbon footprints, based on limited observation. Also many of the hydrocarbons you have pointed out are not biodegradable and so are unlikely to contribute to carbon emissions. Landfill perhaps but that is a different issue. As for the driving believe me I am all for anyone living outside walking distance finding something else to do!
Huh, climate change, been changing for millions of years ya know. The arrogance of man who thinks he wields so much power over the world that he actually he believes he is the reason for the climates normal unstoppable phases. This climate crap is turning into a religion and as with most religions there are countless people cashing in on peoples insecurities.
Like rip curl did decades ago, companies like patagonia have spied a niche market and said climate change is your fault , buy these cloths at inflated prices and we'll fix it for you with a minor percentage of the profits, you'll feel so much better for it.
Please elaborate.
"climate change, been changing for millions of years ya know"
Well billions actually shaun, but what do three orders of magnitude matter in a scientific discussion? More importantly over that whole time Earth's temperature has varied with the concentration of greenhouse gases so really it would be arrogant of us to think that we can increase their concentration WITHOUT changing the climate. Watch out you don't sail over the edge on your next boat trip.
Sorry stu, can't elaborate, to lazy and illiterate.
Blindboy, I don't do boat trips, it doesn't matter what the cause is, it's unstoppable. But you's yupp[es keep up the good fight, Don't worry if they drop the carbon tax, they'll still tax you for something else. Shaun doesn't pay tax he's to busy surfing, no footprints or credit trail.
blindboy : [ More importantly over that whole time Earth's temperature has varied with the concentration of greenhouse gases so really it would be arrogant of us to think that we can increase their concentration WITHOUT changing the climate.]
Thats a bit naive BB . up until now you've tried to be the more scientifically correct .
But it is with common sense , and even the the most staunch CAGW believer / scientist will concede that there is no possible link or clarification that Co2 concentrations of past drove the temperature or visa - versa .
Chicken or the Egg syndrome .
quite clearly the best models are completely off the mark with their positive feedbacks and even negating the larger negative feedbacks.
The exponential growth of their forecasts are fanciful .
AGW is real , its just that the Projected time frames are all cocked up .
Ideology takes over and you'll find the same people that push the PC barrow are the ones that are taking to hills to hide from the " Rapidly rising sea levels " .......
go figure .
I don't know where you are getting your information from southey but in my reading the link between greenhouse gases and past climates is pretty clear. I know that in some cases a rise in temperature from other effects preceded the increase in concentrations but there are reasonable explanations for that and the increases then added to the heating effect. Even if you ditch causation, which would seem a bit extreme, you are left with a very uncomfortable correlation between greenhouse gas concentration and temperature. Consider the Permian extinction event or the climate at the end of the Cretaceous if you want clear examples. The graph half way down this page only covers a brief period but I think it makes the point.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
...and for those who think Australia is doing its share.........
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/18/australia-climate-cha...