The great climate silence: We are on the edge of the abyss but we ignore it

After 200,000 years of modern humans on a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth, we have arrived at new point in history: the Anthropocene. The change has come upon us with disorienting speed. It is the kind of shift that typically takes two or three or four generations to sink in. 

The greatest tragedy is the absence of a sense of the tragedy. 

Our best scientists tell us insistently that a calamity is unfolding, that the life-support systems of the Earth are being damaged in ways that threaten our survival. Yet in the face of these facts we carry on as usual.

Read the piece in today’s Melbourne Age by Clive Hamilton - “The great climate silence: We are on the edge of the abyss but we ignore it.”

Have we entered a new epoch? - Clive Hamilton on Radio National

For most ordinary people, the ecological crisis can seem like something that takes place outside of our everyday lives.

Political leaders, intellectuals and commentators often break this issue down into bite sized components, without looking at the picture as a whole.

Professor of Public Ethics, Clive Hamilton argues that all the evidence points to the fact that humans have become so powerful that we have entered a new and dangerous geological epoch…one in which the human imprint has now become so large and active that it rivals the great forces of Nature in its impact on the Earth’s functioning.

Listen to a discussion on Radio National’s Late Night Live between Phillip Adams and Clive Hamilton - “Have we entered a new epoch?”

‘Capitulation’: Clive Hamilton exits Climate Change Authority, blasts Turnbull

PM's perverse behaviour prompts ethics
professor, Clive Hamilton, to resign.

The Turnbull government's recent embrace of coal-fired power shows it has "abandoned all pretense of taking global warming seriously", Climate Change Authority member Clive Hamilton said, explaining why he resigned from the agency.

Professor Hamilton, who teaches public ethics at Charles Sturt University, sent his resignation letter to Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg on Friday, saying it was "perverse" that the government would be boosting coal when 2016 marked the hottest year on record.

Read Peter Hannam’s  story in The Canberra Times - “‘Capitulation’: Clive Hamilton exits Climate Change Authority, blasts Turnbull.”

Professor Karoly to talk about reports, minority and otherwise

Professor David Karoly.
 

David Karoly and Clive Hamilton are both members of the Climate Change Authority who don’t always agree with everything the body says.

So much so, that soon after the authority’s latest report, Professors Karoly and Hamilton, who both had serious reservations about many intentions within the official report, combined to write and publicise a “minority report”.

Discontent within the authority obviously received considerable publicity in our mainstream press, but people will soon have the opportunity to hear directly from Professor Karoly why he and Professor Hamilton penned their contrary view.

The Professor of Atmospheric Science from the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, and who is Climate Change Authority member, will be the speaker at the “Climate Conversations” on Tuesday, October 25.

Promotional material for the one hour lecture starting at 12:30pm says: “David Karoly will present the recommendations from the Authority’s Report and then will change hats and present the recommendations from the minority report.”

Read the “Minority report”.

The lecture, headed “Towards a climate policy toolkit: Special Review of Australia’s climate goals and policies”, will be at the university's School of Design and those eager to attend should notify Claire Denby at the university’s Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (MSSI).

 

'Climate change policy needs market mechanism' - Age Editorial

The public brawl being played out in the Climate ChangeAuthority is a fresh story, and yet a highly familiar one. It is not surprising people plucked from differing walks of life to advise the government on global warming would have sharply conflicting views.

A majority of board members, most appointed by the Coalition, have recommended the government build on current policy settings to meet existing greenhouse gas reduction targets. They have been challenged by two members, scientist David Karoly and academic and author Clive Hamilton, who believe the majority has failed by not stressing Australia needs to cut emissions much more rapidly if it is to play its part in limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees – a benchmark agreed under the Paris climate deal.

Read the Editorial in today’s Melbourne Age - “Climate change policy needs market mechanism.”

(Friend David Karoly is one of those, the implication suggests, who is “brawling” in the Climate Change Authority – brawling conjures images which do David an absolute disservice and so was a rather sad and poor choice of words. David’s intent, I’m sure, is about the authority honestly and objectively reflecting what the science explains and consequently what our community should be doing in response. Although David may well be uncomfortable about the whole “brawling thing”, I know he will remain faithful to the science and continue to publically advocate for a thoughtful and reasoned response to climate change and not be influenced, as others have, by vested interests – Robert McLean).

CCA pair say latest report is 'untrue and dangerous'

Professor David Karoly as pictured in today's Age.

High-profile members of the federal government's Climate Change Authority have launched a stinging critique of their colleagues, accusing them of giving "untrue and dangerous" advice that ignores what science demands.

Board members David Karoly, an internationally recognised scientist, and Clive Hamilton, an academic and author, have published a dissenting report criticising the authority's advice to the government released last week.

The split is over whether the authority's role is to give unflinching science-based advice or, after years of policy failure in Canberra, recommend what is politically achievable.

It follows then environment minister Greg Hunt's appointment of five new board members last year, including former Coalition politicians.

Read Adam Morton’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “'Untrue and dangerous': Climate Change Authority board at war over own advice.”

We can't agree on simple matters, but some are ready to bet the planet on untried and untested technology

Clive Hamilton, who questions
geoengineering, talks
talks with an audience member
after Thursday night's
Melbourne 'conversation'.

The world community cannot agree on relatively simple matters and yet many are arguing for planet-wide cooperation to introduce some form of geoengineering that will not succeed unless there is hitherto unseen international teamwork.

Further complicating the equation are the unknown and unintended consequences of ideas that can only be trialled on such massive scales that Earth could be tipped into a catastrophic change in climate paradigms beyond our control.

Geoengineering pundits argue climate change has reached such dire levels that to sit on our hands and do nought is worse than foolhardy, it’s simply irresponsible and denies our humanity.

Many are not arguing for a “sit on our hands” approach, rather they are saying we should switch immediately (and that is today!) to renewable energy and equally quickly change our consumptive behaviours to reduce fossil fuel energy needs to zero and slow, seriously our extraction from the earth of various resources.

It was just on Thursday night that Australian author and a Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, a joint centre of Charles Sturt University and the University of Melbourne, Clive Hamilton, noted that those corporations which had long denied climate change could see profits for them in geoengineering and where putting forward proposals for such an idea.

Geoengineering pundits stand with the “builders”, those who like to do something that they see as practical while those with differing opinions are more interesting in fine-tuning, finessing what exists, making it work more efficiently, more sustainably, and as was the case in those times of depression, making do with less.

Paul Beckwith, in saying “Why WE MUST a) cool the Arctic, b) lower CO2 levels” argues we have run out of time on climate change.

“All heck is breaking badly. We must zero fossil fuel emissions, but this is not enough to restore climate stability.”

In this YouTube clip, he says: “I discuss why and how we will cool the Arctic, and why and how we will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and/or oceans. There is no other option. If you are against this then do not understand how severe abrupt climate change is, and what it will cost us.”

If a fiendish problem needs a beautiful solution, then it will come from people like these

Clive Hamilton answers a
question during Thursday
night's Melbourne forum.

More than a decade spent listening to conversations about climate change has illustrated many things, among them that those who care most are beautiful people.

The evidence of that was on show again in Melbourne just last Thursday night (March 17) when Robert Manne and Clive Hamilton sat down for a conversation – “Hope, at last? Prospects for the planet after Paris”.

Australian author and a Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, a joint centre of Charles Sturt University and the University of Melbourne, Clive Hamilton, fielded questions from an Emeritus Professor of politics and Vice-Chancellor's Fellow at La Trobe University, Robert Manne.

Both Manne and Hamilton have powerful reputations as public intellectuals, but came to Thursday night’s conversation for that purpose, to simply exchange thoughts and ideas, and not be confrontational or combative.

Both men, along with the crowd of about 140 people and the MC for the evening a Future Fellow from La Trobe University, Dr. Liz Connor, were, it seemed, on the “same page”.

The essence of the evening was illustrative of what is needed if humanity is to ever rise to the challenge of understanding and addressing climate change; everyone needs to be on that “same page”.

Robert Manne at Thursday
night's conversation.

Thursday night’s conversation liberated from the madness and confrontation that prevails in our market-driven world, was informative and illustrated again, again, that any resolution to climate change cannot be arrived at through the application of existing ideas, reminding us that ideas that created a problem are absolutely ineffectual for resolving it – we need something new.

Hamilton was in Paris and sat through many of the discussions, but not being “official” he was not actually in the room when the final gavel came down signifying the end of the conference and initiating the celebration, the euphoria that followed the signing of an agreement that would see more than 190 or the world’s nations give the thumbs-up to the idea that global warming should be kept at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.

That goal is already under threat and in the view of some has been surpassed in 2016, just months after the Paris talks and decisions taken there have been criticized by some, among them leading international climate scientists.

Hamilton acknowledges the brilliance of at least two who were critical of the Paris conclusions pointing out that although the science may demand certain actions there are political considerations that impact on the process, relegating those urgencies.

The complexities of the climate change conversation have long been evident and is was reassuring to hear Hamilton, one of Australia’s most respected, penetrating and courageous commentators on climate change, that he frequently has confusing thoughts.



MC Dr Liz Connor
asks a question

Thursday night’s conversation was wrapped up with a rush of questions  from the floor that reflected the mood if the evening in that they were not combative or necessarily controversial but simply seeking further information or confirmation.

Such conversations end with a sense that yes, climate change will be resolved, but through collaboration and cooperation and, importantly, the embrace of beauty.

Finally, is there hope, at last, and what are the prospects for the planet after Paris?

Hamilton appeared convinced there is hope and having hitherto unseen “men in suits” at the Paris conference, he was convinced that there is something afoot and that the moneyed class is beginning to understand the risks associated with ignoring climate change.

Population a 'huge area of concern for Sir David

David Attenborough - population
 is a "huge area of concern".

Sir David, who is soon to present a programme on human beings, said population control was a “huge area of concern”, adding the world was “heading for disaster unless we do something”.

He warned if humans do not act soon, the “natural world will do something”, as he argues famine in Ethiopia is about “too many people for too little piece of land”.

He suggested humans are "blinding ourselves" to the problem, claiming:, "We say, get the United Nations to send them bags of flour. That's barmy.”

In an interview with the Telegraph, ahead of new programme David Attenborough’s Rise of Animals, he admitted the issues had “huge sensitivities” but insisted it was important to “just keep on about it”.

Read the story on The Telegraph - “Sir David Attenborough: If we do not control population, the natural world will.”

Clive Hamilton at last
week's Melbourne forum.

(Just last week, the Australian author and public intellectual, Clive Hamilton, told a Melbourne forum that sheer population numbers was not the essential problem in relation to climate change.

Rather, the Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, a joint centre of Charles Sturt University and the University of Melbourne, who is based at the Charles Sturt University in Canberra, said it was about how those people behaved and consumed.

His comments indicated that if people learned to live with, and accept, a more restrained way of life; a life in which they consumed less and used less energy, then the outright number of people on the planet was not necessarily a direct concern – Robert McLean.)

Clive Hamilton ponders the fate of child refugees and 'sensible' climate policy

C

live Hamilton asks on the Guardian, “Must child refugees remain incarcerated and brutalised if Australia is to return to a sensible climate policy?”

Clive Hamilton.

The Australian public intellectual and Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics and the Vice-Chancellor's Chair in Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University, has also written extensively about climate change.

He says, “This is the horrible question now confronting all progressive Australians. By progressive, I mean those who understand the dangers of climate change and the imperative for Australia to play a fair role in reducing global emissions and who, at the same time, feel appalled that this nation can lock up asylum seekers in offshore detention centres to live, without hope, in sub-human conditions.”

Read his story - “Labor's dilemma: progress on climate change is the hostage of xenophobia”.

Unbridled consumption leads not to the promised land, rather difficult times

U

Clive Hamilton.

nbridled consumption encouraged by the “business as usual” brigade has taken the world deep into energy debt and seen the world community rush past several planetary boundaries.

And of course, while we consumed and gouged the earth of its resources, it was assumed that happiness was, because of our affluence, forthcoming and a certainty.

However, that was not been the case and the cost of our casualness is descending upon us in many ways, among them resource depletion and a seriously questionably future because of a disrupted climate system.

Clive Hamilton, an Australian author and public intellectual who since 2008 has been Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, a joint centre of Charles Sturt University and the University of Melbourne, has written about happiness on The Conversation.

Read Hamilton’s views - “The lies of happiness: living with affluenza but without fulfilment”.

Combatting climate change through public disobedience

Clive Hamilton.

Recently it was suggested at a gathering Beneath the Wisteria that to create some interest, or at least raise public awareness about our concerns, among Goulburn Valley people that we run naked through the city.

That suggestion of public disobedience was not greeted with great enthusiasm and it was interesting to hear Clive Hamilton discussing that very issue, not running naked about the place, but civil disobedience when interviewed in Radio National on Sunday, April 28.

The interview – “Climate change and civil disobedience” – with Jonathon Green is worth the less than 18 minutes it takes to hear.

Thanks to Beneath the Wisteria supporter, Robyn Lipshut, for alerting us to this.