Nichola Hungerford is the Campaign Coordinator for the Queensland Conservation Council, and on the available evidence she is a fringe lunatic.

This morning on 612 ABC Steve Austin asked her a question he’s been asking all environmental campaigners:

Austin: Is there any mine that the QCCC suports in the state?

Hungerford: No…how do you actually say that a mine is good when it is starting to have massive impacts on the environment?…Mining isn’t a good thing for the environment and what we have to do is keep looking for alternatives…

So the biggest threat to human existence isn’t the damage that humans do to the environment, but the environmental campaigners seeking to save us from ourselves. Hungerford seems to have not the slightest understanding of how the world works, or what the consequences for 9 billion people on the planet would be if we tried to go back to using pre-stone age technologies (presumably she’d be opposed to the mining that creates flint arrow and axe heads too).

Recently we learned that the state government has been providing funding to conservation groups. There is no better evidence that this should stop than Hungerford’s comments this morning.

This nonsense is on a par with the anti-vaxxer rubbish, 9/11 conspiracy theories, or alien abduction hysterias. We wouldn’t accept our government funding any of those groups, and neither should they fund a conservation group that spouts similar nonsense.

Mainstream broadcasters should also think twice before giving them equal time with other participants in the debate. Their views simply lack credibility.

Australia apparently has met its greenhouse targets, but that’s not good enough for the Greens.

So I’ve done some digging to see what our performance on reducing emissions looks like, and it’s no worse than most, and better than some.

But pay special attention to the worst performing countries. They are South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, China, Brazil, India and Indonesia.

They have in common that they are all emerging economies (with the exception of Japan), and that they are the ones most likely to be manufacturing the stuff that we wear, watch and drive.

Now look at this graph of projected world emissions. You’ll note that the whole is going up at a very fast rate, with only a hint of a pause after 2035.

The format of the graph makes it hard to read individual countries and sectors but while the EU and the US appear to be stable, and China promises to stabilise in 2035, the rest of the world continues to increase.

A good part of what is happening when developed countries reduce their emissions is that they are actually decreasing the emissions that occur in their country, not the emissions that occur as a result of their consumption

As a result, while developed country emissions go down, developing countries’ (the countries where our consumer goods are manufactured) emissions go up and more or less compensate.

In other words, the whole emissions reduction talks are a charade where every country involved pretends that what they agree has a significant effect on world emissions, when they don’t.

We are meeting our targets by redirecting our emissions to developing countries, but short of recessions, nothing of significance changes.

Which makes the case for either adaptation, or nuclear power, or both, compelling. We won’t stop consuming, so we have to get realistic of the possible alternatives, assuming that CO2 emissions pose any serious risk at all.

Update

Here is another graph which makes the point pretty strongly. This is the change in energy mix predicted by the EIA in the US between 2011 and 2040. See how many differences you can spot. 😉 Adaptation is the only way.