Bathurst Community Climate Action Network

The release of another poll today, shows a dramatic shift in public opinion against the federal government's preferred option of an emissions trading scheme in favour of a tree growing scheme put forward by the federal opposition.
I know within myself and my circle of friends and aquaintances, the mood following the Copenhagen summit on climate change has been very despondant. The world got together to raise a united front against a Global Economic Crisis, but could not find that resolve to tackle which could be a far greater risk to the economy than the GFC.  This left us with a feeling of being defeated and a lowering of resolve to continue the effort of trying to influence public opinion.
All of us in BCCAN have many competing interests for our time and becoming "involved" requires considerable commitment and sacrifice.  It makes it hard to continue with the same sort of enthusiasm many of us would have had when to begin with it looked there was some chance of a very weak and mild Austalian ETS might be passed and that the big words of international leaders left us to be optimistic about a positive outcome from Copenhagen.
All that has now collapsed and we are left to gather up the psychological torpor and take the next step.
On top of the political sidestepping and backwards movements, we have had the contoversial revelations from the scientific community. First the emails from scientists at the East Anglia university, suggesting holding  back some data and not discosing other data which they thought might damage the political case and so weaken the momentum to find solutions. Then came the revelation of the data on the melting of the Himalyan glacers, published by the ICCC apparently with the knowledge at the time that the data was incorrect and the inference drawn from it that the glaciers would be gone by 2050.
Naturally and properly these discretions have been swooped on by the world's media and that in turn has had an effect on people's opinions and confidence. Most of us would rather there was no climate change and if there was that we were not partially to blame. I certainly have many other activities I could involve myself in which could still benefit the community in which I live.
On top of the politics and the science, the forces opposed to climate change itself and most definitely opposed to the notion of human involvement in any change which may occur are now fully mobilised. Viscount Munk from the UK, arrived on our shores recently, fully funded by Australian donors who support his views and his appearances were always fully booked out and our television news stories were full of pictures and the Viscount espousing his doctrine that it was all a massive conspiracy to form an undemocratic world government which was aiming at bringing down the way we live and must be counted at all costs.
For me though, trained as a scientist, I still find the science compelling, despite the well publicised abuse of the scientific method. In fact it was because of the scientific method the erroneous conclusions on the Himalyan glaciers was exposed. I also know that much of the modelling based on a set of assumptions is open to criticism, but measurable facts such as glacial melting ( no body is asserting that the Himalyan glaciers are not melting, it is the time frame which is in doubt) and few are arguing that our rivers are drying up, our farming land is becoming less fertile, desertification is increasing, food scarcity is growing world wide, our forest cover is continuing to decline and our "bank" of biodiversity is in serious decline.
For these reasons I continue to try and make a difference in continuing this discussion within our community and helping people to make informed decisions where the science can be separated from the politics and the hubris from rational.
A carbon free future will benefit us all whether or not the modelling is telling us the future or not.
Let us know your thoughts in this weeks poll where the question is do you favour the ETS - market driven policy or the opposition policy- which is funded by the tax payer.