Global Warming

[bullus_hit]

The Journal of Liverpool Posts.

Just saying what I think his point of view would be. How he argues his case is up to him.

On another note, I thought David Suzuki was disappointing the way he presented himself the other night. Came across as a bigshot bully I thought.

Tend to agree that Suzuki was ordinary, he's much better delivering lectures where he can gain some momentum to flesh out his ideas. He did it a couple of times and duly received applause, but for the most part came across as a tad bit petulant. I also thought the ICCC representative was droll and uninteresting, scientists certainly need to up the ante with their communication methods, this lies at the heart of the problem when dealing with climate change and other environmental issues.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The Journal of Liverpool Posts.

Just saying what I think his point of view would be. How he argues his case is up to him.

On another note, I thought David Suzuki was disappointing the way he presented himself the other night. Came across as a bigshot bully I thought.

I also tend to agree on both points. I thought it was a little unkind of the Q&A however to cast Suzuki as mediator between the dry representative of the IPCC and the scientist of undeclared discipline (other than he is not a climate scientist). When this issue is presented as an equal contest between two authority figures the science takes a back seat. What Suzuki did suggest is that speaking plainly and simply to the general public has often been a failing in this debate. I would suggest that some complex systems just can't be boiled down to a series of short comprehensible ideas. Very few engineers who design electronic systems have a deep understanding of quantum electro-dynamics but it is the very thing that makes their designs work. They don't need to know. They need only to know that those scientists who do understand have tested it and demonstrated its robust ability to reliably predict outcomes. This is where climate science is at now. Its predictions continue to be accurate.

This is where I become frustrated. I can't understand why people who can't understand the science and just don't have the expertise want to discuss it. Discuss those things we can comprehend and affect. Public policy. This where Livers and the others fall down, they claim to be disinterested in the science but consistently post bad science as part of their argument. Argue against the policy by all means but do it from a position of honesty. State that it is inconvenience on a human and personal scale that bothers you. That it hits your hip pocket. That you are happy to continue on an unsustainable path because to change direction requires sacrifice.

I am not a dyed in the wool greenie, but I may be a bleeding heart. I do think sacrifice is needed but I don't think it has to hurt as much as the nay-sayers claim. Renewables take leaps and bounds in both cost and output every week. The people hit hardest, and bleating loudest, are the big miners and big energy. Both could use their might and their money to get on the right side of this. They can be part of the solution instead of the problem.

 

[bullus_hit]

Excellent post Knighter, we clearly have become beholden to the vested interests of 20th century industry - this has to change if we are to become a viable entity in the emerging new economies. Twenty years ago we were world leaders in renewable technologies, unfortunately policy has forced many offshore, the trend looks set to continue.

 

[Liverpool]

I have been consistent with my argument on this thread since its inception, so for those who think I am going to change my tune now, then you would be gravely mistaken.
If you want to know my thoughts on the matter and the IPCC, then you have plenty of material to consider.

The IPCC have dug themselves a hole and they will continue along their trusted line, they can't go back now...no different to Flannery who gave us all these doomsday predictions that never eventuated yet people on here were critical of the current government for getting rid of him.

The science is in, my arse!

And for the posters who keep going on about Bolt/Monkton/News Limited.....have a look at this tripe in The Age today:

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/bondi-under-siege-as-swelling-ocean-seeps-into-suburbs-20130928-2ul6l.html

A photo with the tide out and another one with a waves crashing....totally different weather conditions :spin anything to try and justify the "science"...no different to showing photos of Perth as an uninhabited ghost city as that scientist Flannery suggest would happen...also Adelaide would be out of water by 2009...all major cities had to build desal plants because we were all doomed within a few years, or Al Gore and his doomsday prophecies with New York being flooded, etc....what happened with all that?

The goalposts change to suit yet the gullible on here continue to lap it up...."oh, we need a carbon tax or we'll be under water by 2020, its what the IPCC said and they're scientists you know".....then when 2020 comes around and we're still here, and their report changes the goalpost to 2050, then we go through it all again.
I see the IPCC in their latest report say that water levels will rise by up to 80cm by the end of the century.
Who's going to be on here in 2100 to argue with me? ;D

And the carbon tax here....well...thats equivalent to pissing on a bushfire.
Can't believe people on here think that by having a carbon tax here, in a country that emits such a small amount of pollution, that it will provide a better future for their children :cutelaugh how stupid are some people?
Australia is not surrounded by a bubble that protects us from other country's emissions....if other countries, who emit far more pollution than us, do not abide by the same restrictions as us, then it will not matter one iota what we do here.
In the meantime, businesses will continue to look at what Abbott does about repealing it before making decisions on their futures in this country.

 

[bullus_hit]

Livers, once again you add nothing to the argument, no science to back up your claims, nothing apart from petty sniping and a grab bag of quotes dug straight out of Bolt's pathetic column.

Have you even read Flannery's work or are you simply searching through the archived pages of the HUN. Seriously man, you really need to broaden your horizons and open your eyes.

The science is in my arse!

A profound piece of self examination.

 

[Liverpool]

Livers, once again you add nothing to the argument, no science to back up your claims, nothing apart from petty sniping and a grab bag of quotes dug straight out of Bolt's pathetic column.

Have you even read Flannery's work or are you simply searching through the archived pages of the HUN. Seriously man, you really need to broaden your horizons and open your eyes.

A profound piece of self examination.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Herald-Sun/Bolt into this for....? ???

Anyways...Flannery did make those quotes, did he not?
Did they come to fruition, yes or no?
And he would have used his 'science'...the one you and others on here are backing...to come up with those predictions, yes or no?

You asked for my science to back up my claims....put simply, Perth is still inhabited, Adelaide still has water, and each major city in Australia still don't rely on desal plants to survive.
There's my science....over to you Bullus

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I have been consistent with my argument on this thread since its inception, so for those who think I am going to change my tune now, then you would be gravely mistaken.
If you want to know my thoughts on the matter and the IPCC, then you have plenty of material to consider.

The IPCC have dug themselves a hole and they will continue along their trusted line, they can't go back now...no different to Flannery who gave us all these doomsday predictions that never eventuated yet people on here were critical of the current government for getting rid of him.

The science is in, my arse!

And for the posters who keep going on about Bolt/Monkton/News Limited.....have a look at this tripe in The Age today:

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/bondi-under-siege-as-swelling-ocean-seeps-into-suburbs-20130928-2ul6l.html

A photo with the tide out and another one with a waves crashing....totally different weather conditions :spin anything to try and justify the "science"...no different to showing photos of Perth as an uninhabited ghost city as that scientist Flannery suggest would happen...also Adelaide would be out of water by 2009...all major cities had to build desal plants because we were all doomed within a few years, or Al Gore and his doomsday prophecies with New York being flooded, etc....what happened with all that?

The goalposts change to suit yet the gullible on here continue to lap it up...."oh, we need a carbon tax or we'll be under water by 2020, its what the IPCC said and they're scientists you know".....then when 2020 comes around and we're still here, and their report changes the goalpost to 2050, then we go through it all again.
I see the IPCC in their latest report say that water levels will rise by up to 80cm by the end of the century.
Who's going to be on here in 2100 to argue with me? ;D

And the carbon tax here....well...thats equivalent to p!ssing on a bushfire.
Can't believe people on here think that by having a carbon tax here, in a country that emits such a small amount of pollution, that it will provide a better future for their children :cutelaugh how stupid are some people?
Australia is not surrounded by a bubble that protects us from other country's emissions....if other countries, who emit far more pollution than us, do not abide by the same restrictions as us, then it will not matter one iota what we do here.
In the meantime, businesses will continue to look at what Abbott does about repealing it before making decisions on their futures in this country.

These rants of yours are interesting. Yes you have stated often that you can't see the logic in a small (relatively) emitter making wholesale punitive changes to its energy and industrial policy. As I say it is quite reasonable to hold this position. It is however more than disingenuous to repeatedly refer to bad and flawed science to support your position. Your reasoning has a massive hole in it which has been pointed out many times. We know that staying below the speed limit saves lives. But I only drive 100km a week. I know this other guy who drives 1000km every week and he speeds all the time. Sure if I slow down I might reduce the road toll a bit but if HE slows down it'll have a much bigger impact. So I'm gonna keep speeding as long as he does.

But that isn't even the best reason as I have pointed out many times. There is money and jobs in renewables and smart technologies. The reduced environmental impact is just a happy side-effect. The best reason to push the green energy envelope is the chance to position Australian companies and universities as the centres for energy innovation in Asia. On top of that if we could convert a fraction of the solar energy absorbed by parts of Australia that are almost uninhabited into electricity we could realistically produce a net surplus and actually SELL it to our neighbours. What part of your economic rationalist reasoning can't see the big picture pay day that this represents?

 

[Liverpool]

It is however more than disingenuous to repeatedly refer to bad and flawed science to support your position.

Wait a second....I thought it was the Climate Chief Commisioner, a so-called expert in his field, that used his science to come up with a bunch of predictions over the last 10 years that have failed to materialise......so whose science is bad and flawed again?
But I guess if we go off and follow the likes of Flannery then we'll be ready for an unforeseen event that may or may not occur, right? :hihi

There is money and jobs in renewables and smart technologies. The reduced environmental impact is just a happy side-effect. The best reason to push the green energy envelope is the chance to position Australian companies and universities as the centres for energy innovation in Asia. On top of that if we could convert a fraction of the solar energy absorbed by parts of Australia that are almost uninhabited into electricity we could realistically produce a net surplus and actually SELL it to our neighbours. What part of your economic rationalist reasoning can't see the big picture pay day that this represents?

So these jobs and money in renewables and smart technologies will go against the trend in all other manufacturing sectors and stay here in Australia, even though many businesses are offshoring and moving to Asia?
Considering our universities have large amounts of Asian students (345,000 in 2005 according to the ABS, and more than triple than what it was in 1995) and Asian countries can provide cheap labour and overheads (hence the exodus overseas of not only manufacturing sectors but now finance and IT), then I question your logic about Australia becoming and remaining at the forefront of these so-called 'green technologies'.
Again, until you have a market for it, then its a dud business model...sort of like trying to sell icebergs to eskimos.

 

[bullus_hit]

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Herald-Sun/Bolt into this for....? ???

I keep bringing it up because you keep plucking these agenda driven quotes and using them to forward your argument. Bolt has simply ripped some lines out of Flannery's book and said 'Hey Presto, he must be a lunatic mad scientist'. Well, memo to Bolt, how about using the full text and applying some of the conditionals Flannery outlines in order to present some worst case scenarios. For example 'If the drought continues, Adelaide will be without water by 2009'. Now I realise Bolt has adopted something of a Jesus complex on all matters related to climate, but a Rain King he aint, and I would have thought ensuring we have adequate water supplies heading into the future isn't such a heinous idea. After all, isn't Australia the driest continent on earth?

As for making outlandish predictions based on flimsy reasoning, let's just take a snap shot of Tony 'climate change is crap' Abbott.

'Whyalla will be wiped off the map as a result of Julia Gillard's carbon tax'.

Last time I checked, Whyalla was still on the map, yet I don't see you breast beating over such outlandish claims.

"I'm a politician. I'm not going to get into a whole range of scientific argument with scientists."

Once again, more evidence that Tony has little room for science within his fundamentalist framework. Sacking the Climate Commission on his first day speaks volumes for his contempt for anything that may impede his pro-mining stance. He then followed up by trying to shut down the green loans scheme which has been a highly successful driver of renewables investment, and continues his rampage against science by sacking the ministry of science and replacing it with an all encompassing ministry for industry. And perhaps in his most audacious move to totalitarianism, he bans any form of protest on the issue of f-r-a-c-king.

As for your claims that we only emit a small amount of pollution, we are the highest polluters per capita in the developed world, something which hasn't gone unnoticed by the global community. Our reluctance to join a global treaty also flies in the face of logic when Australia has so much to lose from bushfires, drought and ocean acidity. One can pontificate that death will predate tragedy, but the effects are already being felt. Year after year, weather records are being smashed as the term 'hottest on record' becomes part of the Australian vernacular.

I'll round off my riposte by questioning your initial statement that you haven't wavered on your ideological stance throughout this thread. From my prespective, you have flip flopped from one issue to the next, attempting to discredit rather than formulate a coherent narrative backed up by some hard science. One minute you claim humans play no part in climate change, the next it's only a minimal role (with no statistical anchor), then you chime in with some Bolt inspired claptrap that it's actually cooling, only to follow-up with some kooky conspiracy about the IPCC being some socialist trojan horse.

One thing we'll agree upon is that you will never change your tune, that is why it's pointless discussing science or even global politics. You're happy as a paid up member of Tony and Gina's scorched earth society, so kick back and enjoy the next heatwave.

 

[Azza]

But that isn't even the best reason as I have pointed out many times. There is money and jobs in renewables and smart technologies. The reduced environmental impact is just a happy side-effect. The best reason to push the green energy envelope is the chance to position Australian companies and universities as the centres for energy innovation in Asia. On top of that if we could convert a fraction of the solar energy absorbed by parts of Australia that are almost uninhabited into electricity we could realistically produce a net surplus and actually SELL it to our neighbours. What part of your economic rationalist reasoning can't see the big picture pay day that this represents?

Pfft.

Innovation is the antithesis of conservatives. At best they'll tinker around the edges of pre-existing technologies. Nothing to threaten the big business status quo of course.

 

[Liverpool]

I keep bringing it up because you keep plucking these agenda driven quotes and using them to forward your argument. Bolt has simply ripped some lines out of Flannery's book and said 'Hey Presto, he must be a lunatic mad scientist'. Well, memo to Bolt, how about using the full text and applying some of the conditionals Flannery outlines in order to present some worst case scenarios.

It's nothing to do with Bolt or the Herald Sun.

This from Flannery's own article in The Age:

Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof. That's what a 25-metre rise in sea level looks like
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climates-last-chance/2006/10/27/1161749313108.html

Now considering from the Bureau of Meteorology that Australia's water levels have risen 10mm per year for the last 20 years, how long will it take at the current rate to reach 25 metres high? :cutelaugh
Do some maths and get back to us...I'm tipping it won't be in our lifetime or that of our kids, grandkids, or great-grandkids...or even great great grandkids.


Again...nothing to do with Bolt or the Herald Sun, but from the SMH, a Fairfax affiliate....a quote from Flannery:

"I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century's first ghost metropolis," Dr Flannery said. "It's whole primary production is in dire straits and the eastern states are only 30 years behind."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/18/1084783517732.html

Annual population growth in WA has been growing at above the long-term average of 2.0% since mid 2006. Population growth of 3.0% in the year to June 2009 was the strongest recorded growth since 1982.

An interview from the Jetstar magazine (unless Bolt/News Ltd own it too?):

How will these issues affect Australians’ everyday lives?
Water scarcity is already pushing up food prices. The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009. The hot weather is encouraging bushfires, and heavy water and electricity use (for air-conditioning). Coal is polluting our skies, and preventing a shift to cleaner technologies.
http://www.jetstarmag.com/story/10-minutes-with-tim-flannery/290/1/

As of today, Adelaide's water storage levels are at 86%
http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/WhatsNew/WaterDataUpdate/ReservoirData/State+Details.htm


Now, lets gets one thing straight....if roles were reversed and it was a denier or sceptic coming out with outlandish statements and predictions, you'd be the first one on here to talk about the "science" and to dismiss them.

I don't breast-beat about what Abbott said about Whyalla because he isn't a scientist......what makes Flannery's predictions worse, is that apparently he is a scientist, gets paid thousands of dollars to do it, and most scarily, had influence on what path the Government should set policy and legislation for the future of this country!

This clown could cost us billions of dollars with his whacky doomsday prophecies and the likes of you lap it up as gospel...."oh, the science is in, there is no need to debate it any further" :spin

Once again, more evidence that Tony has little room for science within his fundamentalist framework. Sacking the Climate Commission on his first day speaks volumes for his contempt for anything that may impede his pro-mining stance.

After reading some of Flannery's work and his scientific predictions on our future...its the best decision Abbott has made to date.

As for your claims that we only emit a small amount of pollution, we are the highest polluters per capita in the developed world, something which hasn't gone unnoticed by the global community.

And who gives a stuff if we're the highest per capita.....its not the highest per capita that is ruining the world, if man-made pollutants are believed to be the main contributor....its the countries that are simply churning out the most.

You could put a bloke on a desert island and have him light a bonfire.....per capita, he is the world's biggest polluter but overall, doesn't affect the global climate one iota.

Australia emits 1.34% of the world's carbon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Its a very small cog in the pollution wheel.

 

[AngryAnt]

You could put a bloke on a desert island and have him light a bonfire.....per capita, he is the world's biggest polluter but overall, doesn't affect the global climate one iota.

Burning wood is carbon neutral.

 

[Willo]

Burning wood is carbon neutral.

It was a bunch of rubber tyres from his life-raft he was burning

 

[bullus_hit]

Livers, I just read the article about rising sea level and it was James Hanson who made the prediction about rising sea levels, not Flannery. And your simple maths exercise is the very reason we employ scientists to do the calculations, and not political numpties and keyboard warriors. Go and do some research on runaway climate change as a result of methane being released from permafrost. We're talking exponential increases, not neat little incremental rises like you have just slapped together.

As for the impacts on future generations, I think you are very naive to think we won't be affected in the near future, that to me is classical head in the sand stuff. You continually bring up the Adelaide example yet underplay how close the dams were to being completely dry. What happens if it's a longer drought next time? But I give you some credit, at least you had the gumption to include the word 'may' this time around. No doubt sourcing Fairfax forced you to state facts rather than resorting to Bolt's serial hyper ventilating.

As for Tony Abbott's ghost town scaremongering, you seem to think he should be given free reign to distort and exaggerate - simply because he's not a scientist? For the love of god dude, he's the elected head of state, his job is to deliver facts not hyperbole . Are you honestly suggesting he has the right to poo-poo science because he's not a scientist? Talk about a recipe for disaster, we may as well ban scientists from all public debate.

And what's with the tub thumping about wasted billions, aside from the fact that we will inevitably have another drought, the government looks set to contaminate our groundwater supplies through f-r-a-c-k-ing. Desalination plants should be the least of our worries when it comes to wasted billions. The way you are bleating on, one could be forgiven for thinking that drought is now a non-issue.

It's clear to me that you feel that Australia should take no part in dealing with climate change or have little to do with renewable technologies. Let's just burn more fossil fuels and when they run out, we'll just...........um.......dig out some more. A great visionary plan for the country. Meanwhile many will be sifting through the charred remains of their homes, mopping up flood waters and scrounging around for whatever fish stocks remain in our acid ridden oceans.

At least other countries are taking climate change seriously, conservatives and liberals alike. This is where your socialist conspiracy theories are exposed as complete nonsense.

 

[AngryAnt]

It was a bunch of rubber tyres from his life-raft he was burning

Stop the floats

 

[Willo]

Stop the floats

:hihi

 

[Brodders17]

Stop the floats

Stop talking about the floats

 

[Liverpool]

Livers, I just read the article about rising sea level and it was James Hanson who made the prediction about rising sea levels, not Flannery. And your simple maths exercise is the very reason we employ scientists to do the calculations, and not political numpties and keyboard warriors. Go and do some research on runaway climate change as a result of methane being released from permafrost. We're talking exponential increases, not neat little incremental rises like you have just slapped together.

Well, it wasn't maths "I slapped together"...they were figures from the Bureau of Meteorology.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good climate change story. :spin

You continually bring up the Adelaide example yet underplay how close the dams were to being completely dry. What happens if it's a longer drought next time?

Totally agree, we should prepare for an unforeseen event that may or may not occur :cutelaugh

As for Tony Abbott's ghost town scaremongering, you seem to think he should be given free reign to distort and exaggerate - simply because he's not a scientist? For the love of god dude, he's the elected head of state, his job is to deliver facts not hyperbole .

And Flannery's numerous absurd predictions that have not come to fruition aren't "scaremongering"?
You seem to turn a blind eye to these.
Abbott may be a head of state but Flannery is supposedly the expert here and it was his job to deliver facts and science to influence Government in a realistic manner, however again, that is ignored by your good self.

It's clear to me that you feel that Australia should take no part in dealing with climate change or have little to do with renewable technologies. Let's just burn more fossil fuels and when they run out, we'll just...........um.......dig out some more. A great visionary plan for the country. Meanwhile many will be sifting through the charred remains of their homes, mopping up flood waters and scrounging around for whatever fish stocks remain in our acid ridden oceans.

Well, if we run out of fossil fuels, then business will have no alternative but to change, will they?
Like all businesses, the bad ones will fold and go out of business, the good ones will diversify naturally into these new technologies you are talking about.
We don't need a carbon tax to quicken the process, especially when we have much larger polluters continuing on their merry way.
Change will happen.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Wait a second....I thought it was the Climate Chief Commisioner, a so-called expert in his field, that used his science to come up with a bunch of predictions over the last 10 years that have failed to materialise......so whose science is bad and flawed again?
But I guess if we go off and follow the likes of Flannery then we'll be ready for an unforeseen event that may or may not occur, right? :hihi

Ahh the Livers bait and switch. Nice one. Did I mention Flannery? I thought I said pitting one authority figure against another was a distortion of the science? You quoted the Aus which was quoting the Daily Mail which was buggering up its maths and then having a conniption over its own flawed conclusion.

So these jobs and money in renewables and smart technologies will go against the trend in all other manufacturing sectors and stay here in Australia, even though many businesses are offshoring and moving to Asia?
Considering our universities have large amounts of Asian students (345,000 in 2005 according to the ABS, and more than triple than what it was in 1995) and Asian countries can provide cheap labour and overheads (hence the exodus overseas of not only manufacturing sectors but now finance and IT), then I question your logic about Australia becoming and remaining at the forefront of these so-called 'green technologies'.
Again, until you have a market for it, then its a dud business model...sort of like trying to sell icebergs to eskimos.

You may well question my logic but that doesn't change the fact it is simple greed and aversion to change that drive yours.

 

[bullus_hit]

Well, it wasn't maths "I slapped together"...they were figures from the Bureau of Meteorology.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good climate change story. :spin

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-09-06-permafrost-warming_x.htm

Have a good read Livers, once again your simpleton maths exercise based on a sample from the Bureau of Meteorology isn't a reliable measure for future sea level rises. Here's why -

"Methane trapped in a special type of permafrost is bubbling up at a rate five times faster than originally measured, the journal said."

"Scientists are fretting about a global warming vicious cycle that had not been part of their already gloomy climate forecasts: Warming already underway thaws permafrost, soil that had been continuously frozen for thousands of years."

So now I hope you realise this isn't just a case of using historical data to forecast future trends, there's a whole lot of natural variables which will contribute to sea level rises.

As for your obsession with Flannery, time to move on and consider the science from the vast majority of other climatologists. The whole notion that 30 years of climate science breaks down because one scientist presented some worst case scenarios is patently absurd. Once again, it proves that you can only target the man and not the science. Not to mention the fact that securing our fresh water supplies should be at the forefront of government policy, drought has already had a devasting effect and will continue to do so.

Abbott may be a head of state but Flannery is supposedly the expert here and it was his job to deliver facts and science to influence Government in a realistic manner, however again, that is ignored by your good self.

What a ridiculous case in double standards, Abbott has committed the cardinal sin of plugging his ears to all scientific advice which may conflict with his fundamentalist views. He has surrounded himself with yes-men who dare not question his 1950's approach to governance and has illustrated his contempt for renewable industries by shutting down all the governmental infrastructure designed to stimulate growth in the sector. You insinuate that Flannery is scaremongering yet excuse Abbott for deliberately gagging any scientific debate. Such willful blindness is dangerous in the extreme, after all, the buck stops with the prime minister and not one particular scientist whose views you find unacceptable.

Well, if we run out of fossil fuels, then business will have no alternative but to change, will they?
Like all businesses, the bad ones will fold and go out of business, the good ones will diversify naturally into these new technologies you are talking about.
We don't need a carbon tax to quicken the process, especially when we have much larger polluters continuing on their merry way.
Change will happen.

Change just doesn't automatically happen, governments need to create a level playing field and not just prop up their buddies at the top end of town. Make no mistake, Abbott and his cronies are tied to the hip with the big miners, the same couldn't be said for renewable companies who have been continually hamstrung by unsympathetic policy. If Australia was serious about tapping into the next economic goldrush, they would adjust the MRET, they wouldn't be shutting down the green loans schemes, they wouldn't be cancelling licenses to build wind farms, they wouldn't be building massive coal ports on the Great Barrier Reef and they wouldn't be stripping scientific R&D agencies of their independence.