With props to Tim Hollo over at LP for the inspiration, "coal-eating surrender monkeys" are what we here at BmL will be calling the new breed of climate denialist: that is, those who accept the science, but now say "its too late to do anything" and/or "we wont do anything until everyone else does". For example, the Australian Liberal/ National coalition.
When the call for action came, they immediately surrendered. When the global threat arrived, they vacated the field. When others made a stand, they ran a mile. We found them huddled and crying behind the coal sheds. They are the enviro-cowards.
They are the coal-eating surrender monkeys.
What if Churchill had done the same, hmmm? "oh, we wont be fighting them on the beaches unless everyone else does first.... and its probably too late anyway...(etc, whine whine cry)"
Pathetic. Fortunately, people with some semblance of backbone are in charge now. The main game is making sure they don't cop-out under pressure from the carping surrender monkeys, currently flinging their poo from the safety of the treetops.
6 comments:
Yairs, very soft, albeit politically unsurprising.
However, speaking as a sceptical simian I'm compelled [well, not really, but I'll have a go anyway] to note that the evangelical tone of so many of your anti-warming brethren is equally batty. I refer to the determination to lumber our economy with artificial costs in some Kiplingesque attempt at encourager les autres.
The fact is that Australia is a trivial contributor to GHG emissions now, and will become trivialer and trivialerer as other offenders (I'm looking at you, Zhang and Raj) overcontribute to economic growth in the coming century. Nothing Australia does on its own would avert the hypothesised global warming - we're just not that important.
And yet, judging by the cries to DO SOMETHING NOW NOW NOW, there are large chunks of our society that think Australia is actually significant to the posited problem and that by using some fiscal legerdemain the Rudder can save us from cataclysm.
I find it a perverse parallel of the keyboard kommandos' insistence of yore that Australia was actually doing something productive in Iraq with its barely nominal contribution to that particular clusterfuck and that, even more comically, we HAD to be there or else the Sydney Harbour Bridge would be blown up by muzzie terrorists. Or something.
Word verification door-bitch says "falin". Make of that what you will.
Mine says "predle"! Yesterday I got "exesses", which was probably du jour.
I hear your call, Fyodor. I know Australia emits a mere 2% of global emissions, etc. I hesitate to call that 'trivial' though - as who knows where tipping points are.
More on point, the Iraq thing is quite a parallel: Howard was providing political cover for Bush on both Iraq and CO2 - that is probably the true and only significance our both AU contributions - but that's quite major. Obviously US emmissions are a serious business.
My own view has always been we can and should punch above our weight regionally: develop the solar tech here, etc, export it as trade to first world (I include China there) and aid to the 3rd world /the "region".
Make a packet, develop tertiary industries, have some value-added exports for a change of pace, just to see what thats like :) - effectively export cuts.
I see win-win all over this. Maybe Im an optimist.
"I hear your call, Fyodor. I know Australia emits a mere 2% of global emissions, etc. I hesitate to call that 'trivial' though - as who knows where tipping points are."
My guess is Henan province, China. 100m poor people in an inland province furiously industrialising to try to catch up with those (relatively) rich bastards on the coast, and all of it powered by coal.
"More on point, the Iraq thing is quite a parallel: Howard was providing political cover for Bush on both Iraq and CO2 - that is probably the true and only significance our both AU contributions - but that's quite major. Obviously US emmissions are a serious business."
Yairs. Same MO, different priorities/hysteria. Bush thought it was worth spending US$1 trillion invading and occupying a bankrupt secular tyranny in the name of Teh GWOT, yet gave a rats about the environment. Now I'm told by some people that the world'll be rooned if we don't get massive statist intervention in the economy to stop us from burning fossil fuels and getting rich 'n' stuff. The new paranoiacs aren't any more impressive than the crusader nutjobs.
"My own view has always been we can and should punch above our weight regionally: develop the solar tech here, etc, export it as trade to first world (I include China there) and aid to the 3rd world /the "region"."
Well, that is an interesting proposition. I rather like the idea of Australia leading the world in new technology like solar tech, and transferring technology to poor countries will probably be the best way to mitigate the mooted warming.
That said, if you're into the government fostering this sort of technology there are any number of more direct, effective and efficient ways to do it than by forcing a productivity shock on the entire economy by forcing us to use a more expensive means of generating power.
"Maybe Im an optimist."
Yah. I can see your pessimism over the environment having a rose-coloured hue.
It will be interesting to see whether the environmental zeal manifested by the Australian population over the past few years survives the coming economic downturn. Paying more for electricity to prevent global warming in 50 years' time may not seem like such a great idea when unemployment starts ratcheting up again. It's been a while since people got a big employment shock in this country, and I'm reasonably certain that Rudd is politically astute and opportunistic enough to get ahead of the curve on this one.
I'd like to research more about your last point Fyodor, which is a critical one - there are always transitional costs as major technological shifts occur in capitalism (new plant being the obvious startup expense) - but I'd really to see someone break down the unit costs of producing electricity by different modes.
Last time I looked at solar, it wasnt competitive with coal - but not by quite as much as you'd think, listening to some folk out there. I think they needed as little as 15% improvement in photovoltaic efficiency and they were there.
Ask, and ye shall receive:
http://www.treasury.gov.au/lowpollutionfuture/consultants_report/downloads/Projected_energy_prices_in_selected_world_regions.pdf
Solar is a long way off being competitive with coal. Moreover, without effective storage of electricity/power, solar will always need an alternative backup to meet night-time demand.
thanks for the link - would take a whiole to absorb, but a few things: Solar photovoltaic has the best "learnign curve" , being the drop in capital price for pant over time. Newer techs would tend to, I suppose. Based on expereicen to date the modellers seesm to expect 5%pa efficiency improvemnt there, especially with CIGS tech.
Its also true that fuel costs are zero for solar - I know thats not the issue right now, but will be later.
I also wonder whether the modellign includes the submerged costs of cleaning up the mess of coal - how would look in the unit price?
Its an itnersting point about electricity storage too, re solar. Why dont we invest R&D moolah some in that, over carbon storage?
Anyway, just read just optimism-killing news about methane emissions accelerating in the arctic - all too much for me today.
Word bitch sez "we'rescrewed"
Post a Comment