The Madhouse Effect: climate denial in Australia v the US.

This latest article by David Schlosberg, University of Sydney, is part of an ongoing series from the Post-Truth Initiative, a Strategic Research Excellence Initiative at the University of Sydney. The series examines today’s post-truth problem in public discourse: the thriving economy of lies, bullshit and propaganda that threatens rational discourse and policy.

When Tony Abbott went too far in his advocacy for the coal
 industry, his government faced a public backlash.

Michael Mann is well known for his classic “hockey stick” work on global warming, for the attacks he has long endured from climate denialists, and for the good fight of communicating the environmental and political realities of climate change.

Mann’s work, including his recent book The Madhouse Effect, has helped me, as a dual US-Australian citizen, think about the similarities and differences between the US and Australia as we respond to what has been called the climate change denial machine.

Read the story - “The Madhouse Effect: climate denial in Australia v the US.”

We need positive, aggressive and innovative social policies

Eva Cox -'Major parties are behind the times.'

Any useful response to climate change is going to need positive, aggressive and innovative social policies.

Interestingly, few if any, have been presented and discussed by the major contenders in in Australia’s July 2 federal election.

This disconnect has not gone unseen, particularly by Professorial Fellow from the University of Sydney, Eva Cox.

Read her thoughts on The Conversation - “Major parties are behind the times – and strangely silent – on social policy.”

Writing about Naomi Klein and the need to 'change everything'

H

Amanda Tattersall - she
tells us about Naomi
Klein's visit.

onorary Associate, Department of Geography at University of Sydney, Amanda Tattersall, writes on The Conversation about Naomi Klein’s visit to Australia.

“The author and activist Naomi Klein is currently on an Australian book tour, bringing us the terrifying message that climate change “changes everything”. I say terrifying because, if you follow Klein’s logic to its conclusion, the only way to stop climate change is literally to change everything: our cities, economies, energy systems and patterns of consumption.

“Klein’s argument is that climate change threatens every dimension of our life on “Earth – the result of an abusive relationship between people and planet, made possible by a voracious hyper-capitalist economy. Fixing climate change means changing how that economy works at its core.”

Read Amanda’s story - “How do we ‘change everything’ as Naomi Klein suggests? Let’s start by getting ‘adversaries’ to listen to one another”.

Public health expert blasts 'wing nut' anti-wind farm activists

O

ne of Australia's leading public health experts has delivered a scathing assessment of anti-windfarm activists, comparing them to people who believe in aliens, reincarnation and other "irrational...nonsense or faith-based beliefs".



Simon Chapman blasts 'wing
 nut' anti-wind farm activists.

Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney, whose research led to the development of cigarette plain packaging, had been asked to respond to a Senate inquiry into the health effects of wind farms.

That inquiry, led by crossbench Senators John Madigan David Leyonhjelm and Bob Day, delivered its report on Monday, three days after its draft findings were published in News Corp. The committee recommended the government establish an independent scientific panel with powers to block new wind farm projects on public health grounds.

Read today story in the Melbourne Age - “Windfarm 'wing nuts': Public health expert takes aim at activists”.

Considering the 'Road to Paris'

P

rofessor Nick Rowley of the Sydney Democracy Network at the University of Sydney has written the first part of a three-part essay on the prospects for a global climate deal at the Paris 2015 talks.

This first instalment - “The Road to Paris: three myths about international climate talks” – on The Conversation looks at the most important international meeting on climate change since Copenhagen in 2009 and asks what are the chances of success at this year’s Paris talks?

It asks, “What might “success” mean? And can the mistakes and challenges that have befallen previous meetings be avoided and tackled?”

Public health and social stability under threat - Prof Armstrong

Prof Bruce Armstrong.

“People tend to look at climate change as just temperatures getting a little hotter and that being something they can manage.

“They don’t seriously see the impacts that will flow from a small increase in the average temperature where the net effect will be enormous”: so says Emeritus professor Bruce Armstrong, of the University of Sydney’s school of public health.

Prof Armstrong is quoted in a Guardian story headed: “Researchers tackle link between climate change and public health”.

The story reports that climate change may threaten Australians’ livelihoods, affect the viability of communities and put pressure on social stability.

Worthy conversations in an ironic place

Nick Rowley.

Climate change conversations presently happening in Doha are, according to Nick Rowley, worthwhile, although the real decisions are elsewhere.

Rowley, a research fellow with the Institute of Human Rights and Democracy at the University of Sydney, said the irony of climate change negotiators meeting in Doha could not be lost on anyone with an interest in climate change.

Writing in a story on The Conversation headed: “Doha is worthwhile, but real decisions are elsewhere”, Rowley said, “Qatar is hardly a model of the low carbon economy”.

“With annual per capita carbon emissions of more than 50 tonnes, it has the highest footprint of any nation.

“The country’s exponential economic growth has been driven by the export of oil, natural gas and other petrochemical. It’s winning bid to host the 2022 World Cup includes plans to fully air condition every new stadium, insulating the players and crowds from the 40 degree plus heat,” Rowley wrote.

However, Rowley then went onto say that even if the present discussion were to be held in the lowest emitting countries, it was unlikely anything significant would be achieved.