This morning Julia Gillard made her major pre-election address on the subject of climate change.

For reasons best known to her advisers, she chose to give the speech in Queensland on a university campus.

Perhaps Friends of the Earth moles work inside the PM’s office?

University of Queensland climate change protest

That link again? Six degrees.org.au

After two months of helplessly watching a so-far unstoppable torrent of oil gush from a deep-sea oil well in the Caribbean, the American blogosphere is buzzing, to say the least.

Plenty of wild ideas are floating around.

Some folk suggest sealing the leak with a nuclear explosion. Others are concerned it may not work. The consequences of that would be truly biblical.

Religious Zionists have their own ideas. Some blame God Himself.

For Zions Sake Ministries is promoting a video that suggests Yahweh is wrathful as hell with the USA – and He ain’t gonna take it any more!

For Zion’s Sake explains that under Obama’s less-than-100%-servile leadership, America has slipped somewhat below 100% support for God’s chosen State. (People who pay close attention to such things notice subtelties that might  otherwise be lost on the rest of us).

The video informs viewers that the irate God of Judaic extremists picked the disaster site with care. The Gulf stream is likely to carry an ocean-wide plume of oily slime, all the way to the coast of North West Europe. Britain, which has also shown very occasional signs of independence from Tel Aviv, may also cop His anger.

Unbeliever’s have other theories. Some suggest Halliburton may have played a significant role in the disaster (see Halliburton To Blame For Gulf Oil Spill? by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann).

There was muted outrage from the environment movement when Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did a back flip a few weeks ago on his Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – a term often used synonymously with ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme‘ (CPRS).

Is this because environmentally-concerned people in our community have suddenly lost interest in climate change?

Have we joined the ranks of so-called ‘climate sceptics’: people so silly or arrogant they’d punt on their own hunch (or the hunch of their favourite shock-jock) about what’s necessary for biospheric security against the overwhelming consensus of the world’s professional scientists who’ve been researching – and freely discussing – the subject for years?

Dr Clive Spash - ex-CSIRO critic of the ETS, gagged by the Rudd Government

I don’t think so.

I’ll speak personally. By the time Rudd shelved the ETS as a legislative priority, I’d become so aghast at that revolting policy, the detail of which was developed by doyen of sneaky greenwash, ‘Climate Change’ Minister Penny Wong, that I saw it as worse than neutral.

Had the ETS gone ahead, in my opinion, it would have been a step backwards on grappling with climate change. That’s because it would have helped lock Australia into grossly unsustainable practices for a considerable period – and most likely would have ended in sheer fiasco, generating in the process widespread disillusionment about any kind of action on the crucial issue of climate change.

The basic idea behind “Carbon Capture and Storage” is enticing: remove carbon-dioxide emissions when coal is burnt and store them safely – so we can enjoy cheap, abundant fossil-fuel energy with no negative greenhouse impact. Fantastic!

The Greenpeace perspective on CCS

And there’s the problem… while a nice idea in principle, the proposal remains, in effect, a fantasy. It’s possible future technological breakthroughs will eventually make the fantasy reality. Such things have happened before. Even so, our boffins haven’t had 100% success in making science fiction come true.

Yes, we now have supersonic aircraft – even spacecraft – things Jules Verne and H.G. Wells could only dream about. But we still don’t have time machines. Some things are imaginable – but very hard, if not impossible, to achieve.

“Carbon Capture and Storage” is of that type. It’s clearly not easy. After all, the incentive to make it work is enormous. CCS would assure the coal industry a secure future in a world compelled reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, the coal industry worldwide – with all its vast resources – has failed to develop large scale, affordable CCS. The most optimistic estimates for when CCS may become a working reality stretch out decades in the future. By any standards, it’s a long shot.

The case for spending public monies on CCS research and development is therefore very slim. Why should the public fund research that’s so strongly in the coal industry’s own interests? Coal is big business, after all.

Yesterday Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd launched a new ‘Clean Coal’ Institute – backed with the injection of an initial $100 million in taxpayer funds.

James Wolfensohn: loves a challenge

The full title of Mr Rudd’s new initiative is the ‘Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute’. The Institute will have an advisory panel chaired by James Wolfensohn, formerly Head of the World Bank. It’s a nice touch; suitable employment for out-of-work investment bankers is hard to find these days. Wolfensohn’s last two much-feted public roles were ending world poverty and brokering a just deal for the Palestinians. ‘Clean coal’ gives him a go at the hat-trick.

Environmentalists and other nay-sayers have suggested the Government’s infatuation with ‘Clean Coal’ is merely a fig leaf for its pro-coal agenda. They claim ‘Clean Coal’ research is essentially a PR exercise that helps rationalize the continuing expansion of Australia’s coal production and exports at a time of escalating concern over climate change.

That’s an uncharitable view. Better to see the policy as a bold experiment in science fiction. Mr Rudd seems to be trying out the Improbability Drive described by Douglas Adams in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Real Games, Real Easy

$100 million is $5 per person for every man, woman and child in the country. Launching the new Institute is like forcing everyone in Australia to buy a Lottery ticket. It has about as much chance of paying out. Of course, the priesthood who will work on this obscure branch of improbable technology at public expense are all odds-on winners.

As our mainstream politicians and major polluting industries are apt to remind us often, Australia is only a bit player when it comes to global greenhouse emissions. We contribute a relatively small proportion of the global total, overshadowed by the USA, Europe, China and other more populous regions of the planet.

Hazelwood power plant: Australia's dirtiest power plant? Not due to close until 2030

On the other hand, Australia’s per capita CO2 emissions are among the highest in the world. Australia’s ‘historical responsibility’ for the increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since industrialization began is also disproportionately high.

Climate Action Network Australia issued a Position Paper called Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction for Australia in August 2008. It mounted a case for a 40% emissions reduction target for Australia by 2020.

Here’s the nub of CANA’s argument:

The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report concluded that, for 2° to 2.4°C warming scenarios, global emission reductions in the range of 50 percent to 85 percent by 2050 (compared to 2000 levels) are required36. To keep global warming well below 2°C, the global community must aim for the upper end of this range. This was confirmed more recently by Martin Parry, Co-Chair of the Working Group II of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, who also highlighted the need for global cuts of 80% by 205037.

The most memorable one-liner of the week surely goes to Runar Birgisson, an Icelandic Marketing manager. Runar feels disillusioned with politicians he helped elect.

Many around the world share similar sentiments, but Icelanders currently believe they have more reason than most.

Following the widely-reported financial meltdown in Iceland, a winter chill has set in. Moods are turning ugly. The hunt is on for perpetrators. Where did all the money go? Some blame politicians. Politicians blame bankers. Artists have begun invoking ancient Norse techniques for cursing enemies.

The whiff of revolution is in the air. Perhaps Marx and Mao were both wrong. Maybe the real revolution will start in Reykavik?

According to an Associated Press report by Jill Lawless and Valur Gunnarsson (emphases added):

Thousands of Icelanders marked the 90th anniversary of their nation’s sovereignty with angry protest Monday, and several hundred stormed the central bank to demand the ouster of bankers they blame for the country’s spectacular economic meltdown.