Qed

Banks Paid $32.6 Billion in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (Update4) – Bloomberg.com

Well damn I’m shocked! Who would have thought that those greedy little capitalists would take the taxpayers money and give it to themselves? George Bush and Co (who started the ball rolling) must be gnashing their teeth at the thought, Mr Obama will of course promptly reverse the situation and demand immediate repatriation of all taxpayer funds handed over to the private bankers. Thank goodness it would only happen in the US.

Banks Paid $32.6 Billion in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (Update4) – Bloomberg.com.

Ballmer’s a funny guy

When Little Stevie isn’t bouncing around like some overgrown ape in front of thousands of devoted Microsoft fans he sprouting this sort of friendly reassuring advice. Of course Microsoft can hardly be blamed for any of this since they completely missed the boat in the early days of the internet and their me-too effort with Bing has got light years to go before it matches the power of Google but astute readers might spot the response from Steve about Yahoo down the bottom of the Guardian page and wonder if Microsoft’s CEO is just a little coy about what’s in store for Yahoo now.

Why Pay Journalists? Think of It as a Hobby! 

Must have been written by a journalist…it’s topical, relevant and interesting. In the future the only job going might be working in MacDonalds or an accountant…

Why Pay Journalists? Think of It as a Hobby! .

Glamour and celibacy at mad monk Tony Abbott’s book launch | The Australian

Oh Tony what could have been…but then again Sarah might not have thought him so funny either.

Glamour and celibacy at mad monk Tony Abbott’s book launch | The Australian.

Deja Vu in Queensland

There is a distinct air of deja vu drifting down from the north east of Oz these days. Take blatant political corruption, some unknown journalist at the ABC is quoting Tony Fitzgerald who says: “Access can now be purchased, patronage is dispensed, mates, supporters are appointed, and retired politicians can exploit their political connections to obtain ‘success fees’ for deals between business and government”.

Another aspect of life in Queensland that seems to be reviving is its contempt for the natural world as Marian Wilkinson in the SMH reports. Apparently the government has declared an end to widespread land clearing starting anytime soon. Of course as history has shown, imposing future limits on such destruction merely increasing the current rate of destruction, a fact that can be observed across the country where National Parks are declared and adjoining farmers then exterminate any native vegetation. But the scale of land clearing in Queensland is staggering, an area equal to the ACT in a single year.

Queensland, beautiful one day, cleared and corrupt the next. Joh would be proud!

Climate Change 2009

The ANU Climate Change Institute had an open day today and its director, Professor Will Steffen gave a talk. I missed most of it but I did pick up a copy of his report entitled Climate Change 2009. Unlike the ANU Reporter which seemed to have nothing but upbeat analysis and positive news in its complimentary Climate Change Edition I found Professor Steffen’s report very alarming if not horrifying. Here are the key points from the executive summary, you judge for yourself. (italics added)

• The climate system appears to be changing faster than earlier thought. Key manifestations of this include the rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, trends in global ocean temperature and sea level, and the loss of Arctic sea ice.
• The risk of continuing rapid climate change is focusing attention on the need to adapt, and the possible limits of adaption. Critical issues in the Australian context include the implications of a possible sea-level rise at the upper end of the IPCC projections of about 0.8m by 2100; the threat of recurring severe drought the drying trends in major parts of the country; the likely increase in extreme climatic events like heatwaves, floods and bushfires; and the impacts of an increasingly acidic ocean and higher ocean temperatures on marine resources and iconic ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef.
• Climate change is not proceeding only as smooth curves in mean values of parameters such as temperature and precipitation. Climatic features such as extreme events, abrupt changes, and the non-linear behaviour of climate system processes will increasingly drive impacts on people and ecosystems. Despite these complexities, effective societal adaption strategies can be developed by enhancing resilience or, where appropriate, building the capacity to cope with new climate conditions. The need for effective reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is also urgent, to avoid the risk of crossing dangerous thresholds in the climate system.
• Long-term feedbacks in the climate system may be starting to develop now; the most important of these include dynamic processes in the large polar ice sheets, and the behaviour of natural carbon sinks and potential new natural sources of carbon, such as carbon stored in the permafrost of the northern high latitudes. Once thresholds in ice sheet and carbon cycle dynamics are crossed, such processes cannot be reversed by human intervention, and will lead to more severe and ultimately irreversible climate change from the perspective of human timeframes.

In the next chapter Steffen reports that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is “very likely” the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, that is, man-made. Furthermore the observations are now pointing to results around the upper limit of IPCC projections, which is what we used to think were worst case scenarios. The potential impact of such climate change is likely to be dramatic in Australia as the south east and south west continues to dry up with serious implications for our food bowls. Then there is the threat of coastal inundation and tidal flooding as well as more extreme bushfire threats and general reductions in drinking water. However the threats to Australia are minor compared to what might happen if the monsoonal system fails in the Indian subcontinent or the Amazon rainforests die or the Greenland ice shelf melts, all of which are implicated if warming continues unabated.

The report says rather plainly that “heat extremes will have increasingly serious implications for food security as they affect the production of food.” Hence the update on the 2001 graph “reasons for concern” shown below. In case the graph is hard to read, the column on the end says that anything over a 1 degree rise means, given all the other indicators, there are now serious grounds for concern, and it should be noted that one degree is very much at the bottom of the range of expectations. Frankly I think concern is putting it mildly…

The report is available here.

UPDATE 3-Mayors, rabbis arrested in NJ corruption probe | Markets | Bonds News | Reuters

Something is very wrong in the home of capitalism. Leaving people unfettered to pursue their just financial rewards appears to have some unsavoury outcomes…maybe they thought god was on their side as well.

UPDATE 3-Mayors, rabbis arrested in NJ corruption probe | Markets | Bonds News | Reuters.

Humanity can’t power progress with green faith | The Australian

Do you think the Oz is pro-nuclear? They seem to be giving a lot of space to one side of the debate, today’s little rant from Martin Ferguson being just one example.

I commented on the Oz but I will be surprised if the comment makes it thru the editorial filters. The problem with Martin’s “argument” is that he claims to be interested in a rational approach to the problem but is clearly blinkered by an obsession with base-load power. The fallacy of base-load power is clearly spelled out by Mark Diesendorf paper (amongst other). Using the base-load power argument to support a claim that we “must” embrace nuclear because “green power” isn’t viable isn’t rational. It also isn’t true.

Humanity can’t power progress with green faith | The Australian.

Big electricity generators plead for $20bn ETS aid | The Australian

Give us more! The electricity generating industry are crying poor, the $3.5 billion in free permits isn’t enough, they want more. Should they be compensated because their assets are losing value? I mean if you own something, say a computer, and the technology changes and your computer becomes a pile of junk sitting in the garage taking up space, should the government, ie the taxpayer, subsidise you for the financial loss involved when you buy a new computer? Perhaps our taxes should be used to protect the asset value of everyone’s cars when we have to replace them with electric cars because there’s no oil left. If you have a computer, or a car or an electric generator then you might be inclined to think this is something the government should look at, after all it is better that someone else spend their money to keep you living the life you deserve. The government will only waste the money on social security anyway…

Big electricity generators plead for $20bn ETS aid | The Australian.

But wait! There’s more….

Observant readers would have noticed the the links to two other stories in the Oz, one reporting on the ongoing fallout in political debate over the ALP’s new uranium friendly position and and the other took you to a online poll. The poll results are interesting in the context of the broader debate but deserve some critical assessment. First there is the nature of the question, most people are concerned about the potential for catastrophic climate change resulting from greenhouse emissions. But number 1 target for reducing greenhouse gasses is the poor electricity generating industry, their plight is rather severe. They create the electricity we use by converting carbon in the ground into carbon in the air to supply us with the electricity we have come to love and need.

So we have a situation where we need reliable electricity to sustain our standard of living but the generators are a big problem. We also have another problem, the electricity infrastructure has grown up around the coal fired power stations. If we start switching them off we not only need to replace them with plants that produce similar amounts of electricity, but we also have to connect the new sources to the grid. In simplistic terms it is easy to see the appeal of nuclear, it’s like for like replacement without the carbon problem.

The supporters of nuclear have been hard at work lobbying for its widespread adoption but until the global greenhouse gas problem arrived they had little support given the fearful potential inherit in the nuclear fuel cycle. The people with investments in the nuclear industry must be ecstatic about current developments.

So the question, framed as it is by the Oz is almost guaranteed to produce the spectacular result it has.

Yet the simple choices exclude the potential for a serious evaluation of all the technologies that might address the problem. The logic of the poll is: we have a greenhouse gas problem (agreed) and superficially nuclear power looks like a good option because it supplies electricity just like coal power so do you (the public) think we should use it ? The question doesn’t present any options for solving the initial problem, implicit in the question is the thinking that nuclear is the only solution to greenhouse gases emissions by coal fired power plants.

This country is not only blessed (or cursed) with abundant uranium. We have a zillion square kilometres of the sunniest land on the planet and lots of wind and geothermal options. These sources of power don’t commit us or the planet to the nuclear fuel cycle, they have no dangerous polluting radioactive by-products and they also reduce our carbon footprint. The problem with these alternatives isn’t that they are not viable or unproven, the problem is there are no vested financial interests buying up media space and lobbying governments on their behalf.

Perhaps we should be guided here by an old adage, let the buyer beware. The nuclear industry is selling something, their green credentials are superficial and coincidental, at the heart of the “industry” is the incentive for financial gain whatever the ultimate cost to the world. I am sure no one thought building coal fired power stations would be a problem fifty years ago.

And as a footnote, and as an observation about how the easily online media can manipulate your impression of a story, the poll results page had the caring sharing sensitive image of an ad for the WSPA running along side the results page. Just to make sure you get the message…

Try standing next to a Nuclear Reactor…

Just walk up to it or lie down in the grass next to one…do you feel safe?