Exaggeration, Climate Change and the economic cost of climate change

Here is a blog about an article by Clive Hamilton.



I was alerted to the article by Professor Sinclair Davidson (Economics Commentator and Collumnist), who was on Difference Of Opinion (http://abc.net.au/tv/differenceofopinion/) Thurs 20th Sept 2007. Professor Sinclair read the quote from Clive Hamilton in the newspaper article so out of context that it totally changed the meaning. Clive's statement went from meaning that there is a lot of exaggeration about Environmental and social matters and often times exaggeration is done for the sake of a strong emotional response. Clive went on to say that with Climate Change, the exaggeration has been by the Australian Federal government about the cost of tackling Climate Change. Sinclair Davidson used the quote "Environmentalists have often overstated the effects of environmental decline." without presenting the rest of Clive's argument.

This of course is typical of a climate change denier. The issue Clive presents about the Howard government is that not only have they failed to address climate change, but that they have purposely encouraged climate change through denial, policy setting and direct action such as "New Kyoto Protocol" (an excuse to try and distract the rest of the world from the true Kyoto Protocol). Guy Pearce discusses this in his book "High and Dry, John Howard, Climate Change and the Selling of Australia's Future" (see http://www.abc.net.au/ rn/latenightlive/ stories/2007/1967488.htm). And by Clive Hamilton in his book "Scorcher" (http://www.theage.com.au/ news/book-reviews/ scorcher-the-dirty-politics-of-climate-change /2007/05/25/1179601645988.html).

This information highlights that if you care about the environment and climate change, then do not believe any of the lies and green washing that the Howard Government is putting forward in their election campaign. They have some positive actions, but they are too little too late.

BTW, the Difference of Opinion program discussed what the Federal Government (post the election) should do with our large 20 billion surplus. Not is all as it seems! (http://www.abc.net.au/ reslib/200709/ r185236_688864.asx).

---

September 09, 2007
From Courier Mail

Article by Clive Hamilton.



In the climate change debate, while the dangers of global warming have been deliberately understated, those opposed to taking action have engaged in absurd exaggeration of the economic costs of cutting emissions.

The Prime Minister, various ministers and the fossil fuel lobby have for years claimed that cutting emissions would be economically ruinous, cause massive job losses and destroy our international competitiveness. None of these claims is backed by credible evidence and can easily be shown to be false.

...

Read the article.