Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Thursday 9 May 2019
Friday 19 April 2019
In the face of grave concerns Morrison Government pushes through Adani mining consent ahead of the 18 May general election, CSIRO rolls over & Geoscience lets the cat out of the bag
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) attempts to avoid embarrassing the Morrison Coalition
Government on the day it announced a federal election date:
CSIRO Statement, 11 April 2019:
In late 2018 and early 2019 CSIRO and Geoscience
Australia wrote two reports for the Federal Government on specific questions on
groundwater monitoring, management and modelling planned by Adani Pty Ltd for
its Carmichael mine proposal in central Queensland.
This advice was limited to answering discrete inquiries
on whether elements of Adani's proposed plans would be adequate to protect nationally
significant environmental assets.
CSIRO identified inadequacies in the plans and was
subsequently asked to review Adani's response to the recommendations CSIRO made
to address the issues raised, as summarised by the Department of the
Environment and Energy. Adani had committed to address the modelling
limitations identified by the CSIRO and GA review in a groundwater model re-run
to be undertaken within two years.
CSIRO considered that this commitment satisfied its
recommendations, while also acknowledging there were still some issues that
need to be addressed in future approvals, particularly confirming the source of
the ecologically-important Doongmabulla Springs.
CSIRO has provided robust, peer-reviewed science on
specific groundwater modelling-related questions about the plans. CSIRO's role
is to provide scientific advice to inform approval processes, but it does not
have any role in making approval decisions.
The
public broadcaster reports in greater detail and with less reticence when
detailing facts of the matter…….
ABC
News, 18
April 2019:
Handwritten documents obtained
by the ABC appear to directly contradict the Environment Minister Melissa Price
that Adani "accepted in full" changes sought by scientists to limit
the impact of its controversial Queensland coal mine.
Announcing her decision
to approve Adani's water management plans for its Carmichael mine earlier this
month, Ms Price said Adani "accepted in full" advice from the
CSIRO and Geoscience Australia.
Prime Minister Scott
Morrison also maintained the Government would "make all decisions based on
the expert advice from ... Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO".
"We have always
been following the advice of the scientists and we'll continue to do
that," he said.
The advice was provided
in a damning review in February of the company's plans.
But documents provided
to the ABC showed Adani refused to accept key scientific findings and recommendations about its water management plans.
The ABC has obtained
notes taken by three attendees of a phone hook up on April 5 involving senior
officials from the Department of Environment and Energy and staff from
Geoscience Australia.
The documents show the
government science agency was concerned the water plans could allow Adani's
mine to breach the conditions of its environment approval.
However, Adani would not
accept the need for corrective action if that occurred.
The notes said that
Adani refused to:
- acknowledge the scientists' key finding that the model Adani used to estimate the mine's impacts was not fit for purpose;
- accept that a new model could show that the mine's impacts would breach environmental approvals; and
- commit to corrective action if the new model showed greater impacts on the environment than Adani had claimed would occur.
The ABC requested the
meeting notes under freedom of information (FOI) laws, but Geoscience Australia
took the unusual step of releasing the documents immediately instead.
The briefing happened
after the Department of Environment and Energy had already advised the Minister
to approve the plans, which had been finalised the previous month.
One set of notes was
taken by Geoscience Australia chief Dr James Johnson, another by head of
environmental geoscience Dr Stuart Minchin, and the third by senior executive
Dr Richard Blewett.
A handwritten note by Dr
Blewett mentions concerns held by Jane Coram, the head of CSIRO's land and
water division.
She complained the
science agencies had "not seen the revised plan" set to be approved,
and that they were expected to take the summary of it at "face
value".
After the meeting, Ms
Price published a statement announcing, "Geoscience Australia and the
CSIRO have provided written assurances that these steps address their
recommendations."
A spokesman for Ms Price
said she was not present at the meeting.
"Decisions were
made between the department officers, Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO on the
proper scientific assessment of the issues and no other factor," the
spokesman said.
But the notes show the
scientific agencies were asked by the Minister's department to give formal
assurances that Adani's commitments met their concerns in language acceptable
to the Government.
"Gov[ernment] is
keen for assurance," the notes taken by CEO of Geoscience Australia, James
Johnson said.
"Ideal for
gov[ernment]: letter from me to [Mr Finn Pratt] saying based on extensive
briefing from [Department of Environment and Energy] on Adani addresses the
concerns raised."
Fin Pratt is the head of
the Department of Environment and Energy.
In his handwritten notes
of the meeting, Mr Johnson said the Government was keen for an assurance
"based on discussion briefing" from the department, but he scribbled
that out and changed it to "based on extensive briefing".
The Minister
subsequently published a letter from Mr Johnson to Mr Pratt saying: "Thank
you for the extensive briefing ... Based on this briefing Geoscience Australia
is of the view that Adani have addressed the issues and concerns raised in our
recommendations."
Ms Price's spokesman
told the ABC no pressure was placed on the science agencies.
"Any suggestion of
pressure in that process is rejected in the strongest possible terms and is
insulting to the integrity of the experts concerned," he said.
Adani said in a
statement it could not comment on the content of the documents.
"Adani was not
privy to internal briefing documents or discussions that the Federal Department
of Environment and Energy may have provided to Geoscience Australia and CSIRO,
consequently we are unable to comment as to their contents."
'Advice to Adani that
they refused'
The briefing notes
listed in point form the "advice to Adani that they refused".
These included a
recommendation Adani acknowledge their modelling "is not fit for
purpose" and that a "new model could revise impacts [to be] greater
than [what] has been approved".
"So told Adani — if
new model shows greater impact than current model, they have to sort it out
[with] corrective [actions]", the notes said.
"They
refused."
Before the verbal
briefing to Geoscience Australia, the Department Environment and Energy
prepared a summary of Adani's response to concerns raised by Geoscience
Australia and the CSIRO, which was provided to the two agencies.
The summary was
published by the Department of Environment and Energy.
That document shows
Adani declined to commit to a reduced mine plan, or to cutting back coal
extraction, as suggested by the Department Environment and Energy in response
to the damning report on its groundwater management model and plans by
Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO.
It also shows Adani
negotiated compromise outcomes in response to some of the scientists' concerns
and rejected other measures that the two agencies sought.
There were gaps between
what was included in that document and what was apparently outlined in the
verbal briefing to Geoscience Australia staff.
The notes of the verbal
briefing the department gave to the scientists said that Adani committed to a
"maximum timetable of three months" for conducting an investigation
if water use limits were triggered — a demand of both CSIRO and Geoscience
Australia.
In fact, the response
Adani formally agreed to is less watertight: "If the groundwater level
thresholds exceedance is because of authorised mining activities, the
investigation will be prioritised and, depending on the nature of the impact,
completed within three months."
Adani told the ABC it
was not provided directly with the advice by CSIRO and Geoscience Australia
until after the Government approved the plans. Instead it responded to summaries
made by the Department of Environment and Energy.
Minister faced intense
pressure to approve mine
Ms Price faced intense
pressure from her own side of politics to approve Adani's water management
plans before the federal election was called.
Queensland LNP Senator
James McGrath warned he would publicly call for Ms Price's resignation unless
she did the "right thing" by Adani, and Queensland's LNP executive condemned what it called her
"delay" in approval.
In the wake of the
Federal Government's sign-off on the water management plans, Adani is pressing
the Queensland Government to complete a series of other, state-based approvals
that are needed before mining can commence.
When Ms Price announced
that she had approved the water management plans — just one working day after
CSIRO and Geoscience Australia were briefed on Adani's responses to their
concerns — the Environment Minister said:
"I have accepted
the scientific advice and therefore approved the groundwater management plans
for the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Infrastructure project under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
"Both CSIRO and
Geoscience Australia have confirmed the revised plans meet strict scientific
requirements."
The Queensland
Government is yet to approve construction as it seeks to protect a colony of
black-throated finches around the mine site.
Even if construction is
fully signed off, the project still requires more approvals to be granted from
the Queensland and Commonwealth governments before coal can be dug out of
the ground.
In an official statement
to the ABC, a spokesperson for Geoscience Australia said it stood by their
earlier statement that Adani's actions addressed the concerns raised in their
technical advice.
"Adani did not
acknowledge our advice that their groundwater model was not fit for purpose,
and indicated they would not revise the model in the short term," the
spokesperson said.
They said despite that,
additional monitoring and mitigation Adani did agree to do satisfied their
concerns.
Geoscience Australia
said it was not pressured to provide the Government assurance.
A request the Morrison Government saw fit to ignore.
Labels:
#MorrisonGovernmentFAIL,
coal,
environmental vandalism,
mining,
science
Thursday 21 February 2019
There isn't enough water in the Darling River system to avoid catastrophic outcomes
Australian
Academy of Science, media
release, 18 February 2019:
Scientists lay out new plan to save the Darling River
Scientists lay out new plan to save the Darling River
Scientists asked to
investigate the fish kills in the Murray-Darling River system in NSW say a
failure to act resolutely and quickly on the fundamental cause—insufficient
flows—threatens the viability of the Darling, the fish and the communities that
depend on it for their livelihoods and wellbeing.
The multidisciplinary
panel of experts, convened by the Australian Academy of Science, also found
engagement with local residents, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, has been
cursory at best, resulting in insufficient use of their knowledge about how the
system is best managed.
The scientists say their
findings point to serious deficiencies in governance and management, which
collectively have eroded the intent of the Water Act 2007 and the
framework of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan (2012).
Chair of the expert
panel, ANU Professor Craig Moritz FAA, said the sight of millions of dead fish
from the three fish kills was a wake-up call.
“To me, it was like the
coral bleaching event for the mainland,” Professor Moritz said.
“Our review of the fish
kills found there isn’t enough water in the Darling system to avoid
catastrophic outcomes. This is partly due to the ongoing drought. However,
analysis of rainfall and river flow data over decades points to excess water
extraction upstream.”
The expert panel
recommends that urgent steps can and should be taken within six months to
improve the quality of water throughout the Darling River.
“That should include the
formation of a Menindee Lakes restoration project to determine sustainable
management of the lakes system and lower Darling and Darling Anabranch,”
Professor Moritz said.
The panel also
recommends a return to the framework of the 2012 Murray Darling Basin Plan to
improve environmental outcomes.
“The best possible
scenario is water in the Darling all the way to the bottom and in most years.
We are hopeful that this could be achieved if the panel’s recommendations are
implemented,” Professor Moritz said.
Australian Academy of
Science President, Professor John Shine, said the scientific advice of the
expert panel is a synthesis of the best available knowledge.
“In undertaking this
body of work the multidisciplinary expert panel has collaborated with other
relevant experts as required and received extensive data from a number of
Federal and State agencies,” Professor Shine said.
These agencies include
the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the Land and Water Division of the NSW
Department of Industry, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, the NSW
Department of Primary Industries, the Queensland Department of Natural
Resources, Mines and Energy, and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office,
in addition to data and information provided by researchers in many related
fields. The expert panel wishes to acknowledge the cooperation of these bodies
and individuals in promptly providing data.
The expert panel also
operated closely with the Independent Panel to Assess Fish Deaths in the Lower
Darling, initiated by the Government and chaired by Professor Robert Vertessy,
including sharing data and a reciprocal review of findings.
The expert panel report
Read the report: Investigation
of the causes of mass fish kills in the Menindee Region NSW over the summer of
2018–2019
The main findings and
recommendations are in the executive summary. The report was independently
assessed by seven independent peer reviewers, including one international
reviewer.
Related media releases
Tuesday 8 January 2019
Aboriginal Australia discovered the variability of a bright red supergiant star in the shoulder of Orion millennia before Western science did
Journal of Astronomical History and
Heritage, 21(1), 7‒12 (2018),
Bradley E. Schaefer Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State
University, “YES,
ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS CAN AND DID DISCOVER THE VARIABILITY OF BETELGEUSE”:
Abstract:
Recently, a widely publicized claim has been made that the Aboriginal
Australians discovered the variability of the red star Betelgeuse in the modern
Orion, plus the variability of two other prominent red stars: Aldebaran and
Antares. This result has excited the usual healthy skepticism, with questions
about whether any untrained peoples can discover the variability and whether
such a discovery is likely to be placed into lore and transmitted for long
periods of time. Here, I am offering an independent evaluation, based on broad
experience with naked-eye sky viewing and astro-history. I find that it is easy
for inexperienced observers to detect the variability of Betelgeuse over its
range in brightness from V = 0.0 to V = 1.3, for example in noticing from
season-to-season that the star varies from significantly brighter than Procyon
to being greatly fainter than Procyon. Further, indigenous peoples in the
Southern Hemisphere inevitably kept watch on the prominent red star, so it is
inevitable that the variability of Betelgeuse was discovered many times over
during the last 65 millennia. The processes of placing this discovery into a
cultural context (in this case, put into morality stories) and the faithful
transmission for many millennia is confidently known for the Aboriginal
Australians in particular. So this shows that the whole claim for a changing Betelgeuse
in the Aboriginal Australian lore is both plausible and likely. Given that the
discovery and transmission is easily possible, the real proof is that the
Aboriginal lore gives an unambiguous statement that these stars do indeed vary
in brightness, as collected by many ethnographers over a century ago from many
Aboriginal groups. So I strongly conclude that the Aboriginal Australians could
and did discover the variability of Betelgeuse, Aldebaran, and Antares.
Keywords:
Aboriginal astronomy, variable stars: Betelgeuse, Antares, Aldebaran
Read
the full paper at https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1808/1808.01862.pdf.
Original
paper by Duane W. Hamacher, Monash
Indigenous Studies Centre, Monash University,
“Observations of red–giant variable stars by Aboriginal Australians”
at http://www.aboriginalastronomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Variable_Stars.pdf?fbclid=IwAR11OnhyKIcvaxcFEJ1n5c0me9_FZtTi6mlNUfSKpa1r2wjgZ-WhMAqHU1s
Both
papers are well worth a read by everyone who has ever looked up at the night
skies in wonder.
Labels:
astronomy,
indigenous culture,
science
Friday 14 December 2018
Australia’s Chief Scientist gives the Clarence Valley’s Daily Examiner a polite serve
This is what
happens when a once proud 159 year-old newspaper
is brought by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp
and begins to publish the political rot that Andrew Bolt spews forth…….
The Daily Examiner, letter to the Editor, 11 December
2018, p.13:
Doing nothing on climate
change not an option
On Tuesday, December 4 you published an opinion piece by
Andrew Bolt titled, ‘Less marching, more learning’, which included a reference to me
‘admitting’ that we “could stop all Australia’s emissions – junk every car,
shut every power station, put a cork in every cow – and the effect on the
climate would still be ‘virtually nothing’.”
Those are Andrew Bolt’s words, not mine, and they are a
complete misrepresentation of my position.
They suggest that we
should do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions, a stance I reject, and I wish
to correct the record.
On June 1, 2017 I
attended a Senate Estimates hearing where Senator Ian Macdonald asked if the
world was to reduce its carbon emissions by 1.3 per cent, which is
approximately Australia’s rate of emissions, what impact would that make on the
changing climate of the world.
My response was that the
impact would be virtually nothing, but I immediately continued by explaining
that doing nothing is not a position that we can responsibly take because
emissions reductions is a little bit like voting, in that if everyone took the
attitude that their vote does not count and no-one voted, we would not have a
democracy.
Similarly, if all
countries that have comparable carbon emissions took the position that they
shouldn’t take action because their contribution to this global problem is
insignificant, then nobody would act and the problem would continue to grow in
scale.
Let me be clear, we need
to continue on the path of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions. The fact
remains that Australia’s emissions per person are some of the highest in the
world.
In response to the
recent IPCC report, I urged all decision makers – in government, industry, and
the community – to listen to the science and focus on the goal of reducing
emissions, while maximising economic growth.
I was upfront about the
magnitude of the task: it is huge and will require a global effort.
We’ve never been a
nation to shy away from a challenge, or from shouldering our fair share of the
responsibility for solving global issues.
Sitting on our hands
while expecting the rest of the world to do their part is simply not
acceptable.
Dr Alan Finkel AO,
Australia’s Chief
Scientist. [my yellow highlighting]
Friday 9 November 2018
When will the Federal Government realise there is a Climate Emergency?
The need for urgent and
effective action on climate change is becoming a major issue in Australia . More people are starting to realise that we
are facing a climate emergency and that we are being caught short largely
because of the incompetence of our Federal Government which continues to be
captive to climate denialists and the coal lobby.
The message from the
October 20 Wentworth byelection does not appear to have resonated with Prime Minister
Morrison and others in his Government.
Morrison is equating the devastating swing against the Government with
the electorate’s concern about the dumping of their popular member, Prime
Minister Turnbull. While that was
certainly a factor, there were other concerns about the Government’s poor
performance with a major one being its lack of effective climate action.
Despite all that
Wentworth voters said about climate change (as well as the way they voted),
there are Government members who claim Wentworth cannot be seen as comparable
with other electorates. Wentworth is different! According to them, climate
change is not a major issue elsewhere.
It will be interesting to see if this wishful thinking lasts until next
year’s federal election campaign.
While Wentworth
indicated the growing public concern about climate change, other recent
developments in relation to climate have further shown how out of touch the Government
is.
Morrison started his
Prime Ministership with the determination to assist drought-affected
farmers. But he brushed aside any
linking of this latest severe drought with climate change. However, the National Farmers Federation and
an increasing number of farmers acknowledge the link and understand that simply
throwing drought relief money at the problem is only a short-term solution. Calls for discussion about land use in parts
of the country are growing. These
include consideration of the viability of some forms of farming and whether
farming will be sustainable in some areas as climate change impacts worsen.
The latest data on
Australia’s climate emissions for the twelve months to March 31 was released
late on the Friday afternoon of the Grand Final weekend (September 28). The
Government had been sitting on this data for months and quite obviously did not
want it noticed – for good reason. The
report showed that emissions have continued rising as they have every quarter
since the end of the carbon price in 2014. Emissions continue to increase
simply because the Government does not have an effective policy to curb them.
Despite this bad result,
the Prime Minister and Melissa Price, the Minister for the Environment, managed
to put a positive spin on the figures. Price
claimed Australia would beat its 2020 target – an impossible achievement. And Morrison, ignoring reality completely,
claimed Australia was on track to achieve its 2030 Paris targets and would do
so “in a canter”. This is despite the analysis
of experts who say we will fall drastically short unless there is an urgent
change in government policy.
The recent dire
announcement by the IPCC has shown just how urgent the climate issue is. According to an analysis of the IPCC report
published by the Climate Council “limiting global warming to 1.5°C would
require rapid and far-reaching transitions during the coming one to two decades
– in energy, land, urban and industrial systems”. (The aim at Paris was to keep global
temperature rise well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and to attempt to
limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. A rise of 2°C would produce
catastrophic effects.)
At war within itself, our
Government just does not have either the interest in the issue or the will do
what is essential - to act effectively across the board to reduce our emissions
drastically. This is in spite of the Wentworth result and all the polls
indicating that a growing number of people are concerned and want effective
action.
As well as concerned individuals, scientists, environmentalists and
farmers, it is significant that many in the business community, who know they
need to take measures to protect their businesses in a carbon-constrained
world, also want effective action from the government.
Just what are the
chances of the current Government coming to its senses and acting in the
national interest? At the moment that
seems unlikely. We may have to wait for
a change in government - unless a grass roots campaign across the nation
persuades Morrison that he has no chance of political survival unless he
changes tack.
Hildegard
Northern Rivers
29th October 2018
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to
make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300
words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will
be considered on topical subjects.
Wednesday 7 November 2018
Science never was the exclusive property of Western civilisations
News Corps goes to battle in the seemingly neverending culture wars, 2 November 2018 |
The
Guardian, 2
November 2018:
I have recently been
involved in working on a project that aims to provide teachers with some
insights and elaborations on how
to teach the mandated science outcomes in the Australian National
Curriculum by using historic and contemporary examples from Indigenous people
and communities.
The work combined
various Indigenous and non-Indigenous scientists, science educators, curriculum
experts, teachers, academics and editors. It looked at examples of traditional
land management practices, understandings of chemical reactions and processes, astronomy,
medicines and any number of fascinating topics of how Indigenous peoples have
worked scientifically for millennia in Australia, and still do. It was a great
project to be a part of.
I was quietly hoping
this important project would fly under the radar of the ongoing culture wars
that exist within Australia, but it seems that was wishful thinking.
It began with a piece on
the Daily Telegraph website titled “Fire
starting and spear throwing make national science curriculum”. Not quite
unfortunately, it would be great if they were though.
I can see how it makes
for a better headline though. “Fire starting and spear thrower are two examples
of 95 different optional elaborations that teachers can use to help them meet
the mandatory outcomes of the National Science Curriculum if they want to”
doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
"I can’t fathom the
hubris required to think that after 60,000 years or so of being in Australia,
Indigenous people wouldn’t have picked up a thing or two that the rest of the
world could learn from."
If you want to
understand the science of how a lever works, about stored energy and kinetic
energy, or about mass, acceleration, inertia, and lots of other cool stuff that
is mandatory in the curriculum, then a spear thrower is a great way to teach
it.
And did you know that
before the match was invented in 1826, most people around the world had to
light fires the old fashion way? And by “old fashioned way”, I either mean by a
fire saw, fire drill, fire plough, or by using flint. All of these examples can
be found traditionally in Australia and you can use these methods to teach
about combustion, friction, heat energy, kinetic energy, density, and any other
number of cool sciencey things.
The article goes on with
the standard emotive phrases we see in the culture wars: “racial politics”,
“dumbing down”, “slammed by critics” – literally all just in the first
sentence.
The front page of the
Daily Telegraph carried the story on its front page on Friday with the headline
“School Kooriculum: outrage over Indigenous school scheme”. Sure, “Kooriculum”
is awesome and I am definitely stealing that in future, but there is no
“scheme” and very little outrage.
There is Kevin
Donnelly decrying this work as “political correctness” and claiming it
is “dumbing down the school curriculum” even though, again, these resources are
entirely optional, and have been created in response to requests from teachers.
Donnelly argues that
“western scientific thought, based as it is on rationality, reason and
empiricism, is not culturally determined”. He quotes Professor Igor Bray as
saying that “science knows nothing about the nationality or ethnicity of its
participants, and this is its great unifying strength”.
He talks about how
Western science is “preeminent” in its value to the world, and can be traced
back “through the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment to the early Roman
and Greek scientists, mathematicians and philosophers”. So it seems that while
science knows nothing of nationality or ethnicity, Kevin Donnelly does know
that it traces back to the Greeks and Romans, and clearly thinks that what he
calls “western science” is superior to all others.
Thousands of years
before western science was even dreamed of, Indigenous
Australians were developing a detailed and intricate understanding of,
and relationship with, the world around them.
It allowed people to
intimately understand the relationships of the moon and the tides, measure the
equinoxes and solstices, develop a deep wealth of knowledge of plants, animals,
seasons, the stars and countless other amazing feats of intellect and ingenuity
that have long been denied in the ongoing narrative western civilisation has
created about Indigenous peoples.
The ways in which this
knowledge was interwoven with a holistic view of the world and the place of
humans within it, the ways in which it was encoded and handed down through the
ages is fascinating as well. Instead, Indigenous people have long been framed
as primitive, backwards, deviant, having nothing of value to offer apart from
free land and free labour, in constant need of saving, and deserving of
countless punitive measures.
Western science can
indeed trace much of its origins back to Greek and Roman societies and in
exploring its rich history over the centuries, it’s not a bad idea to look at
all the unscientific beliefs that were once science fact.
Read the full
article by Luke Pearson here.
Labels:
culture war,
education,
indigenous culture,
science
Saturday 13 October 2018
Quotes of the Week
“I fear that the danger of plastic bags is much exaggerated” [Former sacked prime minister & Liberal MP for Warringah Tony Abbott quoted in The Guardian on the subject of plastics polluting the environment, 6 October 2018]
“A key architect of the landmark Paris climate
deal has lambasted the Coalition government’s inaction on greenhouse gas
emissions, saying it “goes against the science”, squanders economic opportunity
and risks Australia’s international standing. Laurence Tubiana, a respected
French diplomat and economist, also says Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s claim
that Australia will meet its Paris targets “at a canter” is contradicted by
international scientific opinion.” [Journalist Nicole Hasham in The
Sydney Morning Herald, 3 October 2018]
“To me this particular event seems to show the Liberal party has
been taken over frankly by extremists on the hard right who aren’t particularly
motivated to win elections and aren’t particularly motivated to serve the
public. They’re just motivated by a crazy agenda.” [Alexander Turnbull, son of deposed Liberal prime minister Malcolm
Turnbull in The
Guardian, 11 October 2018]
Labels:
climate change,
Liberal Party of Australia,
pollution,
science
Friday 31 August 2018
A reminder that the world has known about the negative effects on the atmosphere of burning coal for over 100 years
Live Science, 14 August 2018:
A newspaper clip
published Aug. 14, 1912, predicts that coal consumption would produce enough
carbon dioxide to warm the climate.
Credit: Fairfax Media/CC
BY-NC-SA 3.0 NZ
A note published in a
New Zealand paper 106 years ago today (Aug. 14) predicted the Earth's
temperature would rise because of 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide produced by
coal consumption.
"The effect may be
considerable in a few centuries," the article stated.
The clip was one of
several one-paragraph stories in the "Science Notes and News" section
of The
Rodney and Otamatea Times, published Wednesday, Aug. 14, 1912.
The paragraph seems to
have been originally printed in the March
1912 issue of Popular Mechanics as the caption for an image of a large
coal factory. The image goes with a story titled "Remarkable Weather of
1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate — What Scientists
Predict for the Future," by Francis Molena. [Photographic
Proof of Climate Change: Time-Lapse Images of Retreating Glaciers]
Labels:
climate change,
history,
science
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)