Flim (Tim) Flannery has made an appearance on Australias lateline programme to talk about becoming the head of a (well paid) “Climate commission”.
Professor Flannery will lead a panel of science, business and economics experts to provide advice to the community on climate change and to build consensus on how to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions.
(What it really is is a propaganda unit, Flannery even goes close to admitting as much during the interview.)
TONY JONES: Can you advise government on policy? Is that part of your role?
TIM FLANNERY: That is not part of our role. The UK Climate Commission has that role – we don’t. We’re really more focused on the community.
(Also out of the bag is the realisation his job is to soften people up for higher electricity prices.)
TONY JONES: He says it’s written into your terms of reference that you’re there to explain the purpose, his words again, of the Government’s policy to push up power prices.
TIM FLANNERY: Could I just say, Tony, there is no doubt that any option we take to deal with this issue will come with a cost, whether it is the current Opposition policy or a carbon price. And that’s unavoidable. No-one in the commission is trying to dodge that particular reality.
But the – our job really is to try to get a greater understanding in the community of what the most cost-effective path of action is, what the most socially beneficial action is, and quite frankly, the most effective path of action.
TONY JONES: But will it be – just to follow Greg Hunt’s argument to its logical conclusion, will it be part of your brief to argue the case for higher electricity prices as the inevitable consequence of reining in carbon emissions?
TIM FLANNERY: Well no-one wants higher electricity prices. Certainly us commissioners don’t. But it is an inevitable corollary that if you address this issue using any mechanism, there will be a cost. And that is a – it’s an investment in our future. The Opposition policy as it stands at the moment comes with a cost to the Australian people and any price on carbon will come with a cost.
TONY JONES: The cost being increased electricity prices for ordinary folk.
TIM FLANNERY: That’s right.
(So there it is, after all the waffle about how wonderful the “opportunities” are its still all about price rises.
But wait, heres Tim on a terrible analogy.)
but for me, it’s a bit like having an old car that you keep on investing in to keep the thing on the road. Well our current electricity grid’s like that. Prices have been rising because a lot of monies have to be invested in upgrading old infrastructure.
(Bullshit Tim, theres ”normal” upgrading, and theres upgrading because you choose to use a less efficient form of fuel.
the current model
To take your analogy, we have a perfectly serviceable 6 cylinder car, you want to add “drag” to the car so it doesnt go to fast (consumption), you want it to use less fuel so you whack a 4 cylinder motor in instead (solar, renewables), which doesnt provide enough power to move the vehicle except under optimal conditions. So you convert the vehicle to gas and keep the 6 cylinder as “backup”, but run most of the time on it anyway…. Lets call it a hybrid…)
The Fannerymobile model.
The day comes eventually when you might want to actually buy a new car. Now that’s a major investment, as an investment in any sort of initiative to deal with the carbon problem is, but at the end of the day you’re probably better off. In the longer term, having made that investment, we’ll be better off.
(Yup cant wait to buy a vehicle with all that inbuilt instead of cobbled on as it is now, mostly by government fiat and regulations rather than any great necessity.)
TONY JONES: Was Ross Garnaut right when he said that Queenslanders should back policies to rein in carbon emissions because global warming will intensify extreme climate events like the floods and the cyclones which they’ve been experiencing?
TIM FLANNERY: Look, we’ve got a science advisory group advising the commission. I don’t really want to pre-empt their work on this. But what I can say is that over the last three years we’ve seen the longest drought in Australian history, the worst bushfire, one of the largest cyclones and some of the worst flooding.
(Weasel Tim Weasel, Federation drought, and “the worst bushfires/cyclones” refers to cost/damage done in an area where population has increased by multiples… )
And what the climate scientists were predicting even 20 years ago was that there would be increased frequency of weather events. Now, whether what we’ve seen over the last three years adds up to a sort of proof – if you want – that we’re now outside the envelope or not, I’ve got to defer to our climate advisory board.
(Actually I believe the term was “global warming”, and we are all going to run out of water/fry…)
Not much of a doom-monger are we?
But I think it’s a warning for people that this sort of thing is what the scientists predict would happen and we don’t want to see more of in future.
(I predict it will be both hotter and cooler, wetter and drier, windier and calmer if you dont sacrifice virgins to Chuthulu.. Now prove me wrong!!)
You know it makes sense..
TONY JONES: Ross Garnaut has been accused by prominent sceptics of politicizing the Queensland disasters, and in the past these sceptics, some of them, have actually been travelling in kind of bandwagons around the Australian countryside convincing people that climate science is fraudulent.
Will you be doing the opposite? Will you be travelling in a bandwagon to the same locations trying to convince people that those sceptics got it wrong?
TIM FLANNERY: We’re definitely going to be doing – visiting regions and we are going to be engaging with people. I don’t think we’re going to be out there trying to convince people point blank that we’re right.
(Cue mission impossible music)
I think we’ve got a lot of listening to do as well, try to work out where people are at and just try to explain the basics of climate science. The waters have become so muddied, in part, as you’ve said, because of these bandwagons of people really trying to mislead people as to what mainstream science is saying. And we’ve got a big job there.
(Theres that appeal to the “mainstream science” again, tell me how “mainstream” the east Anglia emails were Tim?)
(He then goes on to basically admit the greens posturing on coal exports is crap. The onus lies on those burning the coal, not those supplying it… Nice own goal there tim…)
TONY JONES: Does Australia, do you believe, have any responsibility for how the billions of tonnes of Australian coal that are exported to countries like China and India are burnt and what happens to the emissions?
TIM FLANNERY: Well under the Kyoto arrangements, which we’re still operating under at the moment, the responsibility for those emissions lie with the country that burns the coal, not with the one that exports it.
TONY JONES: But is that – do you see that as being correct morally?
TIM FLANNERY: Personally, is it correct morally? Well that is a really profound question, and I can see from a marketplace perspective the argument is that if we don’t supply the coal, someone else will, and I think there are difficulties in terms of us addressing the issue through export. I think really at the moment the focus is on what we combust, and we – 80 per cent of our electricity comes from the burning of coal. In future, that – if we hope to honour our international commitments, that’s one of the things that’s likely to change.
A wonderful ABC interview, full of bumf and sliding around. But Flim Flannery still can’t evade the basic issues. We are insignificant in terms of global emissions, we can cripple our economy with power price rises, and our electricity generation sector will be deliberately crippled.
Tims house, or is he too important?
Lastly heres a link to the Bios of the “climate commitee” , pretty well every one has made climate change their bread and butter for decades.