A weather eye on climate change

The climate debate has misled people about the quality of the science around climate change

A FEW years ago my oldest daughter came home from school in a state of high agitation. I quizzed her on what was concerning her, to which she replied angrily that I was killing the polar bears.

Apparently she had learned at school that our collective continued use of petrol and diesel was causing global warming and this was threatening the bears. In her young mind this was interpreted as the fuel use on our farm was directly and singularly the cause of the problem.

“My agricultural science training compels me to rely on good science in forming my own opinion”

I was more than a little disgusted that climate activists were able to terrorise my daughter in such a way. However, as much as it pains me to say so, it did cause me to check my own assumptions and attitudes to climate change.

In my farming system we employ strategies to manage and mitigate as much as possible the risk associated with climate variability. I am as prepared for the impact of climate change as anybody, particularly in the context of my likely tenure in the farming business. Furthermore, the farming systems deployed on my farm are also probably the most environmentally responsible systems in terms of water, soil and atmospheric considerations.

However, farmers are demonised by biased emission assessments and a hypocritical latte-sipping green set who have no real appreciation for the fact that modern agriculture is essential to sustain the global population.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am deeply concerned about the future my children will inherit. I am not a devotee of the late Reverend Malthus, but I do see real problems in the libertarian approach to climate and environment that at best suggests clever people will solve the future problems, or at worst simply suggests it is not a problem today so we do not need to do anything about it.

The climate debate has misled people about the science and more importantly about the quality of the science around climate change. In considering my daughter’s emotional and slightly illogical thought process, it seems the broader debate mirrored her reaction and shifted too quickly to a black and white, believe or deny faith-driven conflict.

My agricultural science training compels me to rely on good science in forming my own opinion. As a father and husband I have learned that life and its problems are rarely black and white. As a practising farmer I know that nature is similarly complex. Middle age has brought me a more pragmatic outlook.

We know that climate is continually changing. These changes have been relatively slow throughout history and there has been ample opportunity for humanity to cope and adapt over our much shorter history. We also know that the effects of relatively rapid climate change coupled with the stage of earth’s Precession was instrumental in the evolutionary success of our species in the Rift Valley.

At this time there is an extraordinary and unprecedented level of scientific consensus around climate change with 97 per cent of climate scientists agreeing that man is contributing to climate change. This is a higher degree of consensus than exists around the effects of smoking or asbestos. So what can we draw from this consensus?

“From an agricultural perspective we see modelling suggesting a 6pc decline in global wheat production with every degree of global warming”

We know that atmospheric CO2 levels are now at the highest levels since humankind has existed. We also know that CO2 and other gases have a greenhouse effect trapping radiant heat in the atmosphere and incidentally increasing global oceanic and atmospheric temperatures. We know this system is incredibly complex and well buffered so the full impacts of the changes are difficult to predict accurately. We know that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen with a strong correlation to human exploitation of fossil fuels.

I am the first to admit that I am not a climate scientist and happily not an expert on all aspects of the arguments. This gives me a massive out in the underlying conflict. However, there are useful tools to use in making risk assessments in uncertain circumstances.

It is helpful to ask how likely an outcome might be and then ask how serious that outcome would be.

The current climate models show a high degree of variability in rate of warming and similarly a high degree of variability in the impacts of that warming. Our own CSIRO has recently reported that, in line with universally forecast increases in weather volatility, Australia will likely see a doubling of the incidence of devastating floods this century.

From an agricultural perspective we now see modelling suggesting a 6pc decline in global wheat production with every degree of global warming. I think these models are founded on too many assumptions to be useful. However, the more important concerns are around an increasingly volatile production environment overlaid against a just in time supply management culture. This predisposes the market to acute shortages which will lead to inevitable social and political instability.

“If the outcomes of unchecked climate change are only half as bad as the moderate predictions, the human cost warrants immediate action”

Some of the more credible modelling suggests that if global temperatures reach two degrees of warming our existing agricultural systems and infrastructure will only reliably support a global population of four billion. Four degrees of warming will cause even greater disruption to global agriculture and resultant production may only reliably sustain one and a half billion people. It begs a slightly terrifying question about who and how we will decide which portion of our population will survive.

Let us go back and ask the important question. How likely is two degrees of warming? The answer is very likely. How likely is disruption to agriculture? The answer is very likely. How likely is it that we won’t be able to reliably feed the global population? The answer is very likely, but the extent is unclear. How serious would such a disruption be? The answer is that it would be devastating as isolated occurrence, but catastrophic if frequency increases.

I have already referenced Reverend Malthus and his predictions of dire outcomes from overpopulation as far back as 1798. I am not a Malthusian enthusiast, but if the outcomes of unchecked climate change are only half as bad as the moderate predictions, the human cost warrants immediate action or at least commitment to meaningful action.

“We must move quickly to address the carbon problem collectively ... and farmers should not be compelled to again absorb the cost of this structural reform on behalf of the rest of society”

As with all problems it is essential to acknowledge and define the problem before you can hope to meaningfully address it. I think back to my daughter’s angst and consider my obligation to provide a better future for her often. It frustrates me that today’s politicians regard this issue with little more consideration than garnering short term party advantage.

Joe Hockey, our Treasurer, announced in a television interview recently that he could not conceive any circumstance where climate change could affect the economy. His ignorance is culpable and constitutes a real threat to my children’s future safety and prosperity.

The truth is that for quite a few generations now we have consumed fossil fuels and liberated previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere with reckless abandon. We are now completely reliant on industrial agriculture and committed to continue to use liquid fuels at least for some time yet.

We must move quickly to address the carbon problem collectively and with full consideration of the impacts of our and previous generations on the opportunity for future generations. Similarly, the cost of any mitigation must also be borne collectively and farmers should not be compelled to again absorb the cost of this structural reform on behalf of the rest of society.

In truth it is now a matter of highest order for global stability that we empower our farming communities and reprioritise the agricultural enterprise to the top of the political and social agenda.

single page
Pete Mailler

Pete Mailler

is a farmer on the Qld/NSW border and a co-founder of the Country Party of Australia
Date: Newest first | Oldest first


Black Stump
11/02/2015 5:27:38 AM

Honestly, Pete, you have been watching far too much climate porn.
Chick Olsson
11/02/2015 6:09:02 AM

Peter, everyone has voted and moved on. The majority of Aussie's just don't believe what you are saying, especially farmers.
11/02/2015 7:01:14 AM

Well done and penetrating right to the point. Averages mean little, it is the increasing variability that will effect farmers and globally the worst effects will be where the ground water is already depleted or polluted. This is already happening and to pretend otherwise is a delusion to avoid action.
11/02/2015 7:33:16 AM

Black Stump says: "You have been reading to much climate porn." You say: "My agricultural science training compels me to rely on good science in forming my own opinion” but you quote the much discredited "97% of climate scientists." There have been four papers that put forward this proposal. All have been rebutted. Canada-based group, the Friends of Science, has just completed a review of 4 main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming" Google 97% non-consensus with CAGW
11/02/2015 7:51:02 AM

A FEW years ago your oldest daughter came home from school in a state of high agitation. This is because she had been taught anti-science at school. There has been NO global warming for more than 18 years. During this time atmospheric CO2 has risen from a miniscule 370 parts per million to a minutely less miniscule 400ppm. The Alarmists keep putting up excuses for the lack of warming. Alas, in vain. http://www.climate4you.com/Text/C limate4you_December_2014.pdf
James in Brisbane
11/02/2015 9:15:52 AM

Chick, science isn't a matter of belief, it's one of evidence. Belief is faith, which is not based on evidence or logic. A large percentage of Americans don't 'believe' in evolution. Some people don't believe smoking is harmful to health. Some people believe crystals will cure cancer. None of it is based on evidence. Just because you find the evidence uncomfortable or confronting, doesn't mean it's not accurate.
11/02/2015 9:35:57 AM

Impressive and considered analysis. As responsible risk managers it is not up to us to debate science. All we need to do recognise that a significant number of serious scientists have highlighted a particular risk. We can also recognise that other scientists don't necessarily agree while understanding this tension is part of the very nature of science. As Pete says, not all scientists think smoking is a problem. And yet we can still decide to discourage smoking. In the same way we can see the clear responsibility to begin to limit emissions even as the science further develops.
11/02/2015 10:07:17 AM

Well done, Pete. I saw a refreshing summary of 2014's weather at the start of the year in the context of recorded trends on the ABC news and it struck me that finally Global Warming was being reported as fact not speculation. You shouldn't have to write articles like this still and I am surprised that so many people can possible disagree to appropriate farm risk management, and broader risk management for all of our wellbeing.
11/02/2015 10:24:17 AM

I notice James In Brisbane and Rob fail to offer any evidence but tell us "NOT TO DEBATE SCIENCE" just simply take what is being rammed down our throat in good faith. If we did that we would still believe in a flat earth and we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the solar system and not the sun and we would be burnt at the stake for questioning their dogma.
11/02/2015 10:44:17 AM

James in Brisbane, some people believe that a natural part of the atmosphere (CO2 ) which all plants breath and would die without, is a nasty pollutant. Some people believe some very strange things, James, and obviously those beliefs are NOT very accurate are they? You obviously have some very strange beliefs James, don't you?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14  |  next >
Burrs under my saddlePete Mailler is a farmer on the Queensland/NSW border. His perspective and opinions are borne from seeing more than one side of many problems in his various farm leadership roles and in wanting to ensure a future for his children in agriculture.


light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who