<< FUNKER! ~ MAIN ~ SHIRTS REMOVED >>

BRING ON THE BRONZE AGE

My “expert” art teacher was saying much the same thing in 1975:

Car travel must be cut by at least 80 per cent, road construction halted and public transport boosted if Australia is to have any hope of meeting carbon emission targets to avoid dangerous climate change, Monash University energy experts warn.

At what point does one surrender “expert” status?

The warnings come from Associate Professor Damon Honnery and Dr Patrick Moriarty ...

“The car is doomed,” Associate Professor Honnery says. “Ultimately, we are going to have to move to a decentralised society where most people need to travel far less. People are going to have to fundamentally change the way they think about travel and make much more use of non-motorised travel such as cycling and walking.”

So ... no new roads, living in a “decentralised society”, walking around like idiots. This’ll be all the talk tomorrow around the village well.

Dr Moriarty said big reductions in air travel were also needed. “An overseas trip might become a once in a life time experience rather than an annual event,” he said.

That’s Flannery screwed. More from Andrew Bolt.

UPDATE. Road and Track’s review of the excellent Bullitt Mustang is a sturdy antidote to this anticar gibberish:

Ford has the right recipe with the Bullitt in a time when our James Bond can’t drive a stick. Long live the Bullitt and those who can drive.

Posted by Tim B. on 03/03/2008 at 10:34 AM
  1. The public smiles and nods at this global warming crap, perhaps even believing it (who doesn’t love the feeling of guilt?). But the moment the government announces “abandon your cars, people,” it will all be over. I can’t wait to see the environmentalists’ faces on that day. “But… but… we had a consensus. We convinced you. It’s not faaaaaaaair.”

    Posted by Machiavellian on 2008 03 03 at 10:42 AM • permalink

  2. Eh, he’s still grumpy about Holmes surviving Reichenbach Falls and is trying to take it out on us.

    Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2008 03 03 at 10:46 AM • permalink

  3. At what point does one surrender “expert” status?

    Mr Blair, you’re always pushing the notion that reducing emissions would necessarily mean reduced economic activity and quality of life. Here’s someone who seems to agree with you - why attack him?

    Posted by Jefferson Skates on 2008 03 03 at 10:53 AM • permalink

  4. The experts say Federal and State Governments should stop spending money building new arterial roads and focus on phasing-out cars, improving the energy efficiency of public transport and making people use it.

    Is that socialism or elitism I see there, Perfesser?

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 03 03 at 10:54 AM • permalink

  5. Well, I’m not pedaling a damned bicycle eleven miles to work in this kind of weather. And I sure ain’t walkin’ it (I’ve seen some of these fellows showing up wearing suits and sneakers, toting their dress shoes in a sack; hell no, not me, buddy!). ‘Course, I take the metro most of the way, anyhow, so I guess that’s E-Ok.

    Posted by paco on 2008 03 03 at 10:57 AM • permalink

  6. #3 The very sketchy email says so, yes. What proof do you have?

    Posted by Ash_ on 2008 03 03 at 10:58 AM • permalink

  7. You can take away my carbon when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

    Posted by joe bagadonuts on 2008 03 03 at 11:02 AM • permalink

  8. #3, you are either deliberately obtuse, or fundamentally stupid.  Do you ever actually read what Tim writes?

    I’m tired of being told we have to go back to the Middle Ages in order to avoid global warming.  It’s a fantasy dreamed up by academics who’ve read too many apocalyptic scifi books, and abetted by celebrities looking for attention, and politicians looking for money.  When they stop flitting around the world to global warming conferences, and start coming up with sane, sensible ideas for adapting to climate change, then I’ll listen.  Until then, I think we can safely continue to ridicule them for the fools they are.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2008 03 03 at 11:11 AM • permalink

  9. So in the coming new carbon-free world would Professor Honnery be the hunter and Dr. Moriarty the gatherer, or would it be the other way around?

    Posted by DanG on 2008 03 03 at 11:13 AM • permalink

  10. In the coming new carbon-free world the professors would be prey.

    Posted by Merlin on 2008 03 03 at 11:16 AM • permalink

  11. #RebeccaH

    Until then, I think we can safely continue to ridicule them for the fools they are.

    But they’re supporting your case! Honnery and Moriarty are saying that to make the emissions cuts proposed by Garnaut would require radical changes to our society and our individual lives. Changes you’d be hard pressed to sell to the greater public. I’m surprised you’d want to ridicule that.

    Posted by Jefferson Skates on 2008 03 03 at 11:26 AM • permalink

  12. Move to a decentralised society? Let’s start by closing the universities, then.

    Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2008 03 03 at 11:27 AM • permalink

  13. I am fully in support of other people sacrificing for a better future.

    Posted by wronwright on 2008 03 03 at 11:34 AM • permalink

  14. I just love it when academics - an Associate Professor no less - tells us what we are all going to “have to” do. Screw you, Prof.

    Posted by Latino on 2008 03 03 at 11:37 AM • permalink

  15. Changes you’d be hard pressed to sell to the greater public.

    Then pray tell me why they are working so determinedly to sell it?

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2008 03 03 at 11:46 AM • permalink

  16. I assume that Monash will be closing their overseas campuses in South Africa and Malaysia post-haste to reduce their carbon footprint.

    Also, they need to revise the Uni home page, which offers “Study around the world.  Study abroad as part of your studies and Monash can help pay for the experience.”

    They should be advertising bicycle tours of the Melbourne suburbs, along with a once in a lifetime trip to Sydney - transport provided by rickshaw.

    Posted by kpom on 2008 03 03 at 11:49 AM • permalink

  17. #13 Wronwright,

    “I am fully in support of other people sacrificing for a better future”

    Here, let me fix that for you.

    “I am fully in support of sacrificing other people for a better future”

    There much better. No?

    Posted by joe bagadonuts on 2008 03 03 at 11:54 AM • permalink

  18. He’s right. We have to get all of these peasants out of their cars and onto public transportation so that we can drive our cars without them cluttering up the road. One longs for the day when they all lived happily in nice tidy tenements within sound of the factory whistle. They would pack their lunches in lunch buckets (none of those plastic bags, mind you) and walk to work. Problem is, how do we get them to go along? I know! Tell them they’ll all drown or something.

    Posted by ErnieG on 2008 03 03 at 11:58 AM • permalink

  19. You’ve got to give Ross Garnaut credit: he’s made a career out of picking every big-dollar consultancy trend in the last three decades. The guy reinvents himself as an expert on something new every ten years (in the 90s it was Asian language education and Australia’s Asian future). Having said that, I’d like to know how many air miles he’s notched up over the last 30 years. It must be more than 10 million.

    Posted by Hanyu on 2008 03 03 at 12:01 PM • permalink

  20. #19: An expertologist? Hmmm . . .

    Posted by paco on 2008 03 03 at 12:08 PM • permalink

  21. Is that anything like a Scientologist? Scary…

    Posted by ErnieG on 2008 03 03 at 12:12 PM • permalink

  22. It’s a fantasy dreamed up by academics who’ve read too many apocalyptic scifi books, and abetted by celebrities looking for attention, and politicians looking for money.

    Heck, you can mix and match those attributes nearly at will. “Academics looking for money, celebrities who’ve read too many apocalyptic scifi books, and politicians looking for attention” would just as well. The common theme, at any rate, is that precious few of the warmenistas actually care about the environment, the delusions of useful idiots like Jefferson Skates notwithstanding.

    Posted by PW on 2008 03 03 at 12:45 PM • permalink

  23. They’ll get my car when they pry might cold, dead hands from the steering wheel.

    Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 03 03 at 01:06 PM • permalink

  24. What’s the carbon footprint of a university?

    This is similar to the

    pro-choice

    screaming about babies dieing in war.

    Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 03 03 at 01:09 PM • permalink

  25. Is that socialism or elitism I see there, Perfesser?

    I think it’s authoritarianism.

    And if some people in “the movement” had their way, it would be full-on totalitarianism.  Check out some of the comments in this thread:

    Are Words Worthless in the Climate Fight?

    Example 1

    “Implement a universal, voluntary program that encourages people to limit the number of offspring to one child per family.”

    (Here’s a response of another commenter further down)

    The flaw in that logic is that it presumes that a world full of only children will present no additional societabl problems, such as an unwillingness to share. Perhaps more selective targetting of the message would encourage some people to have 0 children and other people to have as many as they want. We just need to refine the key characteristics that make a person desirable or undesirable as breeding stock.

    Example 2

    “So far there has been a lot of lecturing on the climate change problem and the prospect of catastrophic outcomes. What people need here is not more lecturing, no matter how clever the choice of words. No, what’s needed here are solutions that address the problem at a global and individual level….You’ve got to make things simple for people. Simple, easy, convenient, no extra cost.

    And not too much left up to personal discretion. As one of the readers commented above, people cannot be trusted with always doing what is best for them. That is where the sate needs to step in. With climate change, we do not really have a choice. The same way, smoking, or driving too fast, or not respecting the law are faced with heavy sanctions, should also apply to climate change violations at all levels.”

    My own take on this line: “With climate change, we do not really have a choice.

    We always have a choice of whether we want to give our freedom away for nothing.

    Posted by kcom on 2008 03 03 at 01:18 PM • permalink

  26. A decentralised society would require more travel, not less. That’s the whole point of centralisation: moving things closer together so that we don’t have to travel as far in order to get to them.

    If Associate Professor Honnery doesn’t even understand what centralisation is, he’s no “expert” in this area.

    Posted by sundog on 2008 03 03 at 01:22 PM • permalink

  27. #25 kcom

    “Is that socialism or elitism I see there, Perfesser?”

    I think it’s authoritarianism.

    And if some people in “the movement” had their way, it would be full-on totalitarianism.

    They truly love Big Brother, don’t they?

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 03 03 at 01:41 PM • permalink

  28. we are going to have to move to a decentralised society where most people need to travel far less.

    Wait wait wait ... the less centralized society is, duznat mean, like, we’re all farther apart, so like, most people would need to travel far MORE? 

    T_R_JS / 4

    Is that socialism or elitism I see there, Perfesser?

    That there, son, looks t’me like y’r basic fascism, yes it do.  Kin ya fetch me mah squirrel gun while y’r up?  The assault squirrel gun, there’saboy.

    Crap!  Comment #26 pre-empts the nit I wanted to pick, and Paco started the Mayberry RFD dialect thing hours ago. 
    I got nuthin’.

    Posted by formerly Huck Foley on 2008 03 03 at 01:45 PM • permalink

  29. Well, they’re using “decentralized” when they really mean “locally self-sustaining”, and there’s probably a reason for it: The latter description would tip people off that they’re essentially arguing for third world-style subsistence farming.

    I’m reminded of my grandpa cultivating a fairly large vegetable garden (in addition to working 9 hours a day, of course) in a city of 130,000 people because so much of what one might consider staple foods just wasn’t available all too often, in that blessed Communist utopia named East Germany…

    Posted by PW on 2008 03 03 at 02:22 PM • permalink

  30. If that’s what they mean, then they’re idiots. What use would agrarian villages have for a public transportation system?

    Posted by sundog on 2008 03 03 at 02:26 PM • permalink

  31. We can start now by closing all the Monash Uni car parks - especially those for faculty members.  Weld up the gates to prevent vehicular access.  Make all surrounding streets 30 minute parking zones so that no student or lecturer can park for a one hour lecture without getting a ticket.

    Or just reduce Austudy to the point where students can’t afford to drive, and do the same with academic pay.

    Posted by mr creosote on 2008 03 03 at 04:08 PM • permalink

  32. I’m car-free by choice, but yes, this “cars must be eliminated” is old and tired and has been trotted out too many times with no effect.

    Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2008 03 03 at 04:08 PM • permalink

  33. If you peel back their skin it is indeed reptilian. There is a reason they developed gummi worms.

    Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 03 03 at 08:33 PM • permalink

  34. I’m with Jefferson Dirigible at #11.
    There should be more encouragement for experten who propose ever more ludicrous steps necessary to fight that evil global climate warming change chimera.
    If some perfessers were to propose not only the confiscation of all private transport, but also the reduction of all families to four (the excess being reduced to organic fertiliser) to reach kevni’s 80% carbon reduction, give them all the publicity they want.
    The warmenistas might find the popularity of their cause isn’t quite as solid as they would wish.

    Posted by lotocoti on 2008 03 03 at 08:44 PM • permalink

  35. They can pry my new carfrom my cold, dead hands. (I only got it last Wednesday.)

    Posted by kae on 2008 03 03 at 10:16 PM • permalink

  36. What those enamored of the “rule by experts” philosophy never seem to take into account is that when you put all the power into the hands of a few, you’re not going to have rule by experts after awhile.  You’re going to have rule by those attracted to power for its own sake.  Those type of people will worm their way in when they see where the game is.  And, of course, since you’ve removed all the checks and balances that would normally restrain such people, suddenly you’ve got a huge problem on your hands.  Have these people who think this is a good idea learned nothing from history?  Are they really ready to squander the great gift bestowed upon them by our ancestors who fought for real freedom for so long?

    Posted by kcom on 2008 03 03 at 10:50 PM • permalink

  37. Car travel must be cut by at least 80 per cent, road construction halted and public transport boosted if Australia is to have any hope of meeting carbon emission targets to avoid dangerous climate change, Monash University energy experts warn.

    Great quote, I mean seriously Here in Brisbane we have a road problem I’m sure it would be fixed by halting road Construction.

    Posted by Old school on 2008 03 03 at 11:42 PM • permalink

  38. #36
    And don’t forget popularity. Popularity will get people into positions of power and wealth.
    Look at the cult of celebrity.

    Posted by kae on 2008 03 03 at 11:43 PM • permalink

  39. On the “Flannery” link above, the Great One pontificates:

    “I hate the term special interests,” he said. “Why don’t we call them people who want to make money through continuing to pollute the planet?”

    Hmmm, that’s a toughie. Here’s another one: “I hate writers. Why don’t we call them people who want to make money from murdering innocent trees?”

    Note: “Paper manufacturing process is one of the most environmentally Un-friendly industries there is.” I read this in Wikipedia, so it must be true.

    Posted by s.r.intulom on 2008 03 04 at 12:07 AM • permalink

  40. [Big sigh] Latino, you beat me to it. I’ve put in quite a bit of time reading, trying to marshall the evidence, develop the arguments etc, trying to understand all of this so I can chip away at the cult of climate change, but in the end it is about the right to say “get fucked” to someone who insists “we have to…” and that’s all. As long as we’ve got that we’re safe, and defending it will have little to do with the climate.
    And mehaul I am NOT Bryla’s alter ego, whatever that is, and whoever he or she is.

    Posted by ooh honey honey on 2008 03 04 at 01:04 AM • permalink

  41. This feature on the Mustang Bullitt sounded promising: “Wheels are the Torque Thrust “D” replicas with a polished lip that Ford calls a Euro-Flange.”

    Never had me no Euro-Flange. But I lost interest when I got to this: “Leather seats… use a renewable soy-based foam.”

    I won’t suffer that in a latte, let alone a muscle car.

    Posted by fidens on 2008 03 04 at 01:59 AM • permalink

  42. first they loved big cities, because (the theory went) high density living creates urbanite lefties (Newtown, Glebe, etc). then they figured out that with big cities come suburbs…

    Posted by daddy dave on 2008 03 06 at 05:48 AM • permalink

  43. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.