Thursday, February 15, 2007
CAN’T STAND THE HEAT
Only last year, global warm-monger Tim Flannery indicated his contempt for industry leaders:
The people who are still resisting calls for action are leaders of industry who have “set out systematically to deceive the public on this matter,” Flannery said.
“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? Why dignify them?”
Why indeed. In fact, why even speak to them? Well, here are a few reasons:
Australian of the Year Tim Flannery has revealed he is charging up to $US50,000 to deliver speeches ...
The climate change crusader has confirmed the $US50,000 ($A64,000) fee to deliver speeches to American corporations - making him Australia’s highest paid public speaker.
Despite his cash-for-comment riches, however, Flannery is an unhappy fellow:
He said the [Australian of the Year] honour had been soured by a campaign to discredit his views on global warming by industrial “polluters”.
“There are a number of people out there trying to blacken my name at the moment, saying that I want to close the coal industry and all this sort of stuff,” he said. “There is a real attempt to marginalise me and what I say.”
Let’s take a look at Flannery’s maginalised opinions on the coal industry (this selection entirely from interviews with the ABC):
• 2005: “The single most important thing that could be done now would be to say, no more coal-fired power plants for Australia, ever. And over the next 20 or 30 years, a phase-out of the worst polluters.”
• 2005: “Coal-burning, not fishermen, are the greatest threat to [Great Barrier Reef].”
• 2006: “Fifty years ago Australia rode on the sheep’s back and wool was worth a pound a pound and no one could think beyond that could they? No one could have imagined this wonderful new economy that we’ve grown based on other resources. And the same is going to be true for coal, we will make that transition into a new economy and we will be better off and the sooner we act the more cost-effective that transition’s going to be and the greater the benefits will be to all of us.”
• 2007: “At the moment we’re heading in a very bad direction, because it’s clear that the pollution that’s been caused by burning coal is simply intolerable. It’s doing enormous damage to our planet.”
• 2007: To avert biological disaster, Flannery argues the coal industry should be shunted aside ... “We need to decarbonise the economy extremely rapidly ... There are a lot of ways to make electricity. Burning coal is just one of the more antique and stupid ways of doing it.”
• 2007: “As Australia proceeds as the world’s largest exporter of coal and the largest per capita user of coal, what we are doing is being the foremost players in precipitating climatic chaos, that our children will have to live through, where we’ll see increased immigration of people around the world, putting pressure on the political systems that keep us at peace rather than war.”
• 2007: “The social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally, and no government can protect an industry from that sort of thing occurring. We’ve seen it with asbestos. We’ll see it with coal. The reason is that, when you look at the proportion of the damage being done by coal now, it is significant, but that grows greatly in future. We have to deal with that issue if we want a stable climate. I think that we do need to ultimately close down those coal-fired power plants ...”
How on earth could people ever have imagined Flannery wanted to shut down the coal industry? Perhaps they’ve been influenced by those devious polluters:
Asked who was behind the muck-raking, Professor Flannery said: “People who want to keep polluting. To keep the business going. People who won’t face the new reality and their backers, both politically and socially.”
This “new reality” sure is paying off for Flannery:
Professor Flannery will depart on another international speaking tour next month.
Beforehand, he’s commenced a local whining tour:
“So, I’m not supposed to earn a living?’’ Flannery told Crikey.
“It’s a campaign. No doubt about it. My true opinions are ignored, and the effect is to smear me and undermine my integrity.
’‘I think that part of the strategy in place here is to get me to expend valuable time in engaging with this stuff, thus diverting me from dealing with climate change,” says Flannery. “There’s also a risk of being dragged into litigation, which would chew up more time.
’‘So I intend to single mindedly get on with the job of dealing with climate change, which means treating articles like this with the lofty
disdain they deserve,” says Flannery.
Says Flannery, exhibiting no lofty disdain at all. This final comment is a masterpiece:
“Strange how some export industries are lauded, but mine, speaking and writing internationally, is not.”
Flannery’s a one-man industry. Laud him.