Christmas thoughts on Climate Change
Even you're a climate change sceptic (ie. anti-science numpty), you'd think you'd want more out of a Prime Minister - when most of the Eastern States is on fire - to do something other than take a little time off.
The degree of intellectual blindness required to deny the link between our changing climate and fire-ravaging consequences is genuinely alarming. I mean, even children can soon see a complex picture through joining multiple dots together.
But no, the denialists want an 'A causes B' line to be drawn for them between climate and fire, and because something that simplistic doesn't exist, they don't see a link. Presumably, they'd fail to see a link between Australia's naturalised acceptance of alcohol and drink-driving-related road accidents. No doubt they'd argue against the link between smoking and cancer, because a straight line can't be drawn between cancer and single packet of durries. Remarkable just how obtuse some people can be.
But even if you can't see the link, surely agreeing on the cause could take a back seat to meeting the needs outlined by firefighters when it comes to dealing with the worst of what's happening. The lack of national leadership here is appalling. The lack of vision, of preparation, or resourcing. It beggars belief. We've created - through negligence - the ingredients for a perfect firestorm. We cannot fight these fires with water-bombers, because we don't own enough of them. And we cannot borrow them from California - as we've done in the past - because they need them. For the first time in our shared histories, our fire seasons overlap.
This ought not come as a shock, because climate scientists have been forecasting this for three decades. There have been 17 major attempts to predict-model global climate shifts since 1973. 14 of the 17 are so accurate as to be statistically indistinguishable between what was predicted and what has occurred. And the other three were a bit out. In the bad way. They underestimated speed at which adverse change has happened. Arctic ice, for example, is melting far faster than the most dire of predictions.
Now, you don't need to be a climate scientist to see a link between melting ice and bushfires, but you do need to join more than two dots to get there. Melting ice raises ocean temperatures. You'd think it would lower it - and it does, in the immediate vicinity of the ice - but because it disrupts the flow of the trans-Atlantic current, cooler water doesn't get to where it's gotten to in the past. When you heat the ocean - even slightly - air moves across it differently. All air that moves across Australia forms its weather. When the air doesn't cool as much, it moves more slowly due to the increased humidity in the air. It reaches the land hotter than it might otherwise have been. See the link? Hotter. Country dries out. Fire risk goes up.
Plus, the polar ice-caps are basically the planet's heat reflectors. The smaller they get, the hotter the planet gets. A hotter planet put simply, is not good. The difference in the human body between a fever and normal temperature is just over one degree. Worth remembering that. Because around and around it goes. That increased heat further accelerates the melting of polar ice.
Surely the basic duty of any Federal Government is to protect people and property. I sincerely doubt that any Australian Prime Minister has failed to do this more comprehensively that Scott Morrison. Curtin defied England during WWII. Whitlam pulled us out of Vietnam. Howard took away the guns. The gulf between the actions of these men and Morrison is shameful.
It's early December. Not the end of Feb. We've not had three months of dry heat yet. The worst is still to come. But blame the greenies! They've stopped the required burning off. Quite the remarkable achievement for those who don't hold a majority or leadership position in any organisation charged with burning off. No, it's the narrowness of the burning window that is the problem. Why is it narrowing? Because it's getting hotter. Every year. 9 of our 10 warmest years have occurred in the last 14.
Of course, carbon is good for us, and essential for human life, say the nay-sayers. Indeed it is. But carbon isn't carbon dioxide any more than coal is diamond. (And coal and diamond are actually the same element, just with differently arranged atoms.) We need oxygen, too. But try breathing pure oxygen, and see how long you live. (Answer - if you last 24 hours, you'll have lasted longer than most.) We are continuing to put too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It traps heat. It's the catalyst. Break the stranglehold carbon dioxide is currently exerting on our climate, and we might just break the cycle.
But denialists seem unable to see these things. They argue that 'it's been hot before', basing their understanding of climate on their personal experience of weather. That's like assuming a knowledge of medicine can be derived from one's experience of being sick. This is ignorance, weaponised by arrogance. And the weapon is pointing at everyone, because every single idiot out there is a drag on those who've recognised the need for change, and are desperate to see it enacted.
You really do have to wonder how simple this science needs to become before those who deny it can actually grasp it. Or how bad the effects need to be. Do we really need to wait for rivers to boil and sky-scrapers to melt?
I feel and fear for those batting against flame, ignorance and political obstinacy. I feel desperately sad for them. And angry. Some disasters - like White Island's volcanic eruption - cannot be fought or predicted. But collectively we have done this. And governmentally, we are doing nothing about it. If I could, I'd line up everyone who voted for Morrison simply because they didn't like Shorten - and give them a slap. What a truly moronic, self-sabotaging mindset. Shorten might not be everyone's cup of tea, but he understood the reality of climate change. Compared to Morrison, we'd be better off with Harold Holt, even after he went swimming.
The final fool's argument is that we cannot economically afford to fight climate change. That it will cost jobs. What utter bollocks. That's like saying we can't afford to fight Germany in WWII. And make no mistake - this is now a war, against a far more malevolent, indiscriminate enemy. But no, it's better to protect the jobs of blacksmiths, gas-lamp-lighters and loom-operators, apparently. The economic costs of climate change are going to be unprecedented. Industry after industry after industry will fail. Agriculture. Aquaculture. Viticulture. Tourism. You name it; it's at risk. The only sector that's likely to thrive is Emergency Services.
No matter what you believe, the conclusion is the same. Climate science is an act of measure, not manufacture. Time keeps passing, with or without the clock.
And Christmas is coming. A time to celebrate birth, rebirth, new life, family and and the gift of our shared humanity. Let's use this Christmas to really remind ourselves, not only of the preciousness of these gifts, but the fragility of them.
I’ll finish with this. Some people prefer religion to science. If that’s you, then remember this. To deny the climate's nature and its needs is to deny our own. Christ is a symbol of all of us. The Christ Child is all of our children. We are God’s gift.
We cannot let the manger burn.
Comments