CHOICE membership

Climate change and CHOICE


Please stick to your penchant and ability to advise consumers.There are enough idiot pollies around to confuse everything and disrupt Government doing it’s job!


Trying to educate pollies about reality is a noble cause, despite the difficult to impossible task.


2 posts were split to a new topic: Nuclear power


“For every one in support, you will find another with equally compelling arguments.”
That is specious & fallacious. It wouldn’t matter if 7 billion people had a different opinion, and only one person spoke out for controls aimed at preventing climate change. That one person might still be the only one on this planet who is “right”, while the other 7 billion could quite conceivably be “wrong”. Saying someone else has “compelling arguments” takes the discussion nowhere. It becomes nothing more than a diversionary tactic, to say it.
A better approach - if anyone seriously thinks there ought to be a debate and - ultimately - a decision based on mass votes, on this issue, is this. There ARE only two possibilities. Either we ARE facing climate change, or we’re not. There are no other possibilities.
If we aren’t, but we still decide to “do something about it”, it might cost a little - it might make the environment cleaner, the air more breathable, the water more drinkable - it might create new industries and new job opportunities, and Lord knows we seriously need THAT. It might instead be no more than a waste of time, but in the great scheme of things, comparatively harmless.
If we ARE, but we FAIL to do something about it, then the cost is simply beyond tolerable. The proponents of the argument for control claim that life on this planet will be rendered extinct. That cost is a cost too high. We CANNOT go that route.
That is why one of the biggest corporations on the planet (Apple) has stated loud and long - we are not going to debate climate change - we are going to DO something about it.
And this is a-political. Because it affects EVERYONE.


There is only one way to educate a politician…threaten his life as a politician at the ballot box.


I wish it were that simple. Between parties, voters, donors and the ‘disinterested but voting’ it is complex. I think many if not most pollies who get voted out get done for reasons other than their personal stances.

Those voted out usually feel wronged and often dig in harder rather than learn.


Clearly you either believe in climate change or your don’t. From the tone of the authors posting, he/she doesn’t believe in climate change. I have no problem with Choice taking a stand on this ‘divisive’ subject. In the end it’s not a matter of ‘believing’ in climate change or not for the simple fact is, it’s real and it’s happening and it’s happening now.


Choice is about consumer advocacy. From the beginnings of the consumer movement it has been political in the terms that it seeks to communicate and motivate the community to protect consumers and their rights. As a very long-term member and voting member of CHOICE I fully support its stance on climate change and very much hope that it continues. The most important consumer advocacy possible is to work to protect consumers’ quality of life on earth. Human caused climate change is, in my opinion as a biological scientist (PhD), the greatest threat to consumers that exists today.


Why on Earth should a consumer organisation stay silent about science - and science that is so vital to the future of humanity? Climate change has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with the future of the one place where humans have been able to live!

While certain sections of the media have been less than honest [cough Murdoch cough] about climate change, the reality for you and the generations that follow you is that we have damaged this planet and we need to stop doing so before we as a species wipe ourselves out along with all other life!

Complaining that a subject is ‘controversial and divisive’ is only true when you live in a bubble - 97% of scientists agree on the reality, and even if you don’t happen to think that they’re right do you really feel entitled to take such an enormous risk on the future?

I should probably point out my perspective. I spent a long time agreeing that ‘these models are all rubbish’ and ‘the scientists are simply making jobs for themselves’. Then I looked at the evidence. To be more specific, I read a book titled Heaven and Earth, by a geologist named Ian Plimer. That book showed me all of the arguments Professor Plimer could mount against the prospect of anthropogenic climate science, and they were bunk! Professor Ian Plimer was the person who finally persuaded me to look at the science, and I did - and continue to do so.

I will not ‘agree to disagree’, any more than I will agree with your right to refuse vaccines if the result may be another person’s death.

Finally, if you want to have a serious debate about climate change I am happy to be involved - whether you want to argue that ‘it’s all about money’ (provably false), or ‘it’s a giant conspiracy’ (likewise).

Edit: I find it amusing that even The [cough] Australian’s review of a book climate denialists live by by excoriates it.


I think that the concept of climate change is real and that humans are totally responsible for that notion.

I’ve no evidence that any other organism on earth thinks they are responsible.

It must be us…


Hi all, just a reminder to keep the discussion friendly. Everyone is welcome to share their opinions but please refrain from personal attacks. While we’d prefer people to be able to have their say and to give feedback to CHOICE, as we’ve mentioned above already this isn’t really the place for a climate change debate.


Technically speaking there has to be a stance because you either do or don’t (consume in a way that reduces climate impact).



I’ll just leave this here to provoke some thought.

Rhonda Oliver:
We are a group of retired scientists and engineers in Queensland, and we are alarmed at the direction our country is being taken through your respective policies, which are virtually identical, on renewable energy. Our names are listed here. We have studied this issue for years now, and we have here outlined the serious defects in your energy policy, and asked some questions which have thus far remained unanswered.
Energy Policy. By far the greatest risk to Australia’s electricity supply is the false belief that renewables (wind and solar) can be a like-for-like replacement for dispatchable fossil fuelled generators. They are not, and can never be. A one-MW wind or solar plant does not replace a one-MW coal plant. Not even close. Solar plants will produce electricity on average at 20% of their installed capacity. They produce power for little more than eight hours per day and none at all at night or on rainy days. Wind plants can be expected to produce electricity on average 25% to 30% of installed capacity, but output can be as little as 2% or as much as 70% with little warning.
Media reports in June this year referred to a “wind drought” across Southern Australia resulting in wind production being “40% below the previous corresponding period”. This is a problem but masks an even more intractable false belief; that an energy grid can run on averages. It can’t, because energy consumed has to be generated in real time. Just one example of that wind drought: at 2.20 PM on 5 th May this year, all the wind farms in Australia (4400 MW installed capacity in WA, SA, Vic, Tas and NSW) were producing just 121MW. (That’s 4400 MW capacity generating only 121MW). In fact for May and June this year this was not uncommon. Large high pressure systems over southern Australia meant little or no wind for weeks at a time.
The grid has to meet demand every minute of every day. AEMO can and does order fossil fuelled plants to produce electricity. Clearly it cannot do so for wind or solar. Just imagine Australia with a largely renewable energy system — it is night time so no solar power is being generated, and the whole of Southern Australia is dominated by high pressure systems (this is not unusual) and wind is producing at only 2% of installed capacity! To date dispatchable fossil fuelled generators have been able to shoulder the load but as dispatchable capacity is retired this may no longer be possible, with disastrous consequences.
Questions. Since Australia started spending money on renewable energy, all successive governments have failed to hold any independent inquiry into the facts which should support this policy. This failure means that the majority of our citizens, who do not have the time to research the facts, are unaware of the real science. It also allows activist groups free rein to make unsubstantiated claims unchallenged. This would be a standard due diligence exercise in private industry, and would give you good justification to challenge “green” activists with facts.
Why has no independent inquiry ever been held?
We can find no evidence to support the assumption that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere can influence the climate.
What hard evidence supports your policy?
Australia has spent many billions of dollars on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. At the same time you have enthusiastically endorsed coal exports, and new coal mines. Even our current coal exports wipe out any emissions saved many times over.
How do you explain the logic here? Do you not believe your own policy?
We know that hundreds of coal-fired power stations are now under construction around the world. Australia’s emissions of carbon dioxide already are inconsequential, and this will make them even less important.
Why are you continuing to promote renewable energy, to the detriment of Australian industry and consumers?
“Clean energy” is the latest euphemism in this debate. Carbon dioxide is an essential plant food through photosynthesis, and life on Earth could not exist without it. The latest information from the IPCC shows that the actual temperature increases are only a small fraction of those predicted by the climate models.
What is not “clean” about coal fired power generation?
As experienced engineers in a wide range of industries, we can show that your policies have failed the due diligence test, are not sound economically, and do not exhibit good engineering practice. The huge increase in power pricing, through the imposition of unnecessary technical restrictions on the power grids, and distorting of the market in favour of renewable energy, have the country now facing an economic emergency, which is entirely self-inflicted. What remains of Australia’s heavy industry requires low cost and reliable power, and is now under very serious threat.


After I’d calmed down a little, I tracked the original post to this denialist site. Desmog Blog has established links between that site and the Heartland Institute. Getting into some pretty heavy crazy here! :rofl: