Caleb Bond: Climate change warriors should at least have a handle on the facts

If people are going to advocate up turning our lifestyles and economy to tackle global warming, the least they could do is make sure they had a handle on the facts, writes Caleb Bond.

The heat is on to save us from the pernicious threat of carbon dioxide.

Blocking coal mines, not eating meat, boosting electric cars – all in the name of halting climate change.

But if we are going to upturn our lifestyles and economy to stop the globe’s temperature increasing, you’d hope those championing change actually knew what they were talking about.

Take Deputy Opposition leader Tanya Plibersek.

According to Plibersek, climate change “presents undeniable risks to our own country, our neighbours, and to the world”.

She said Tony Abbott was “loopy” and espousing “just weird stuff” when he gave a speech in London suggesting climate change wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

She ought to know her stuff, then.

About a week ago on 2GB radio she was asked whether carbon dioxide was causing climate change.

“Yes,” she replied. “Carbon dioxide pollution is a major contributor.”

In that case, how much of the earth’s atmosphere is made up of carbon dioxide?

“Oh I don’t know, I don’t know off the top of my head.”

The answer is actually .04 per cent.

She didn’t know how much of that was contributed by humans, either.

And these are the people entrusted to make serious decisions about our future and economy – based on something they don’t even understand.

In the green utopia, we’d stop mining coal from the ground and we’d stop exporting it to foreign nations.

Carbon dioxide knows no borders, after all.

Never mind the fact that it would kill our economy.

Never mind the fact that it would plunge nations that rely on cheap, reliable coal power to pull themselves up, into poverty.

Ask proponents of dramatic change where the figure that 97 per cent of scientists believe in man-made climate change comes from.

The number is actually a gross misrepresentation of a 2013 paper which found many studies suggest – or even just imply – man may have some influence on climate change, but did not quantify it in any way.

Hardly consensus stuff. But we are supposed to accept it as gospel?

It is easier for us, in a wealthy nation, to make the changes that will supposedly save the planet.

But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that many people struggle to pay their bills as it is. Electric cars and renewable energy might sound wonderful, but they are not cheap.

By all means, let’s move towards them.

But let’s not do it in a way that harms our economy or our people. Australia contributes about one per cent of the world’s carbon pollution and while we look to reduce our emissions, other countries keep pumping more out.

Forget the hysterics. It’s time for a rational debate about climate change and its economic impact –and its proponents would do well to research their argument first.