A policy comedy
As leader of Australia’s largest carbon offset company, I believe it’s timely to make some pointed and public observations on climate policy options ahead of the federal election.
I say "pointed" because, quite frankly, the bizarre twists and turns of Australian climate policy-making mean it’s impossible for any company to commit to a business model, or for the public to believe anything tangible is planned.
Sir Humphrey Appleby – the infamous sitcom public servant – has clearly won. Decisions are just far too “courageous” and nothing is being done. Our nation is now in a climate policy vacuum. Worse: the electorate is being offered policy options that are content free.
The current situation is best described as ‘back to the future’, looking very much like the pre-1997 climate debate. After more than 14 years we have managed to find reverse gear.
A quick history lesson in federal climate policy: Nationwide, Greenhouse Gas Policy was significantly advanced in 1997 (a full 10 years after the Kyoto Protocol was developed) with the formation of the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO).
Among other things, the AGO produced a series of discussion papers that developed the basic, but strong framework, of an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme.
That was in 1999!
Since then, a variety of trading schemes have been developed across the globe with the largest in operation being the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, commencing in 2005. New Zealand commenced a new phase of its ETS at the start of this month.
Incredible as it seems now, the first legislated carbon trading scheme in the world was developed by the Carr government in NSW and went live January 1, 2003. This scheme has since been operating in great harmony and with none of the economic shocks that the fear-mongers anticipated.
So in 2010, with a federal election looming, what’s on offer? A Carbon Trading Scheme? Economy-wide initiatives? Substantial reform of polluting industries?
No. A meeting. A 'citizens' assembly,' some time next year, of 150 'ordinary' Australians. It's a committee approach that would do Sir Humphrey proud.
Appallingly, this is the key policy initiative in response to deferring action on capping emissions and pricing carbon until at least 2013 – that is, if we have international consensus by then.
The proposal is as ridiculous as it is embarrassing to Australia’s global position on the environment.
But critically – worryingly – greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow. This is the key point. The longer we procrastinate, as a nation, the worse the problem gets and the more time we lose before we can implement meaningful action.
Both the major political parties have committed Australia to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent of 2000 levels, by 2020. Without a price on carbon, this modest target is absolutely unachievable. The mandatory and voluntary emission schemes under operation in Australia provide strong guidance on what works now.
Carbon forestry, energy efficiency, improved power generator standards, combined cycle gas technology, renewable energy, improved agricultural practices – all offer here-and-now solutions. We must implement them at scale and with urgency. And to do this, a carbon price is fundamental.
Prospective technologies such as carbon capture and storage, low emissions coal combustion and geosequestration are important, but in reality they’re options for the future. They need further development before they can be considered viable in meeting Australia’s emission reduction targets.
I appreciate that my commercial stake in the carbon issue will cause some to dismiss my opinion with a “well he would say that wouldn’t he?” But I do not make statements like this lightly. I am just staggered that, in this most crucial issue, our politicians are acting more like Sir Humphrey than... Sir Humphrey.
We need action.
Australian voters have already shown that they want action on climate change: they did not like the recent major shift on the CPRS, nor did they like seeing New Zealand take the lead. This is one issue where Australians really want policy that moves us forward.
Can we see that during the next four weeks... please?
Andrew Grant is CEO of Australian environmental services company CO2 Group Ltd
Comments on this article
Regarding “What-if...?”
We can be very pleased no one did as you advocate Sean since the inevitable result would have been catastrophic recession and a result much worse than current.
Regarding the loony David Suzuki, rational people don’t mindlessly adopt rampant misanthropy, so his cult following remains mercifully small. Sadly, former NSW Premier Bob Carr is a Suzuki acolyte (literally) and did untold damage to that state and to a lesser extent the whole country by adhering to his population-panicking mantra.
With regard to ecological prosperity, take a moment to consider the environmental benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which nourishes and supports photosynthetic life and ultimately all aerobic life on Earth. Restoring carbon dioxide previously lost over millions of years’ accidental sequestration is the most life-friendly thing people have done for this planet, albeit as an unknowing and accidental byproduct of self-interested activity. Just because we are supporting life on Earth by accident doesn’t mean we shouldn’t celebrate it.
Rather than taking the narrow focus that people are agents of change and must therefore be bad how about a more holistic view? Rather than investing vast sums reengineering society and our energy supply give some thought to the upside of that carbon restoration. After all, plants evolved to exploit atmospheric carbon at least an order of magnitude more abundant than it currently is and if tropical and temperate zones extend to higher latitudes as a result life will enjoy that too.
What-if ...?
A-mazing.
To think that had the world wisely spent about $1 trillion a year over six years from 2004 to bring carbon emissions down at least 80% by 2010, in the process curbing the excesses that led to the GFC and probably preventing it (so long as the US didn't decide to lend to the destitute and cover it up in "highly sophisticated" investment "instruments"), we would all be in for a period of extraordinary economic prosperity right now.
Instead the GFC has cost us all about double that ($12 trillion) and we are worlds away from both global economic prosperity and global ecological prosperity.
Biological scientists like David Suzuki were labelled looneys for campaigning that we "waste our hard earned cash" to significantly help the environment in a way that "would almost certainly cost jobs".
How far do things have to go before we action the ideas of these "looneys"?
Climate Sceptic
It is an extraordinary set of affairs. Al Gore said the science was settled in 1992, but recently changed his mind about CO2's relevance.
Ban Ki Moon said the world's last chance was to come to a decision at Copenhagen. In the same breath he says he wants to cut CO2 emissions and increase world food production, when any horticulturalist will tell you that higher atmospheric CO2, increases crop yields.
Kevin Rudd gave us the phrase "the greatest economic and moral challenge of our time" and also pointed out that Melbourne had a very hot day, late last year.
Julia Gillard says she believes in climate change and wants 150 people to have a talkfest and come to a consensus, which may or may not be taken into account.
I'm optimistic that comedians will have an endless repertoire for many years to come. The only thing that remains is for voters to take the appropriate course of action in their Senate vote at the coming election.
Very timely piece from Times Higher Education
Profits of doom
29 July 2010
Climate change is serious business - in more ways than one. Martin Cohen describes how capitalist 'bootleggers' have co-opted the environmental 'Baptists' to fulfil their raison d'etre - making money. Thanks to the 'greenwash', the solutions could be worse than the problems
A comedic article
Since recycling is seen as almost universally good allow me to recycle a comment:
Constant delay might be the only politically viable yet rational action. What no one wants to mention is that even if catastrophic global warming represents a real threat -- and at this stage that is only true in the virtual worlds of far-from-perfect models -- a no-regrets policy of providing the most available, reliable and affordable electricity so the population can use all the defensive heating/cooling required is the best policy.
Unfortunately no politician appears to have the courage to point out that the Western world does not control global industry, energy use or carbon dioxide emissions, we are along for the ride for the foreseeable future.
To protect vulnerable citizens we need to maximise affordable electricity and we have abundant, accessible carbon resources with which to do it.
Time to stop handwringing and realise the world will be using carbon-dense fuels for at least the next 50 years, just get on with it. The probability is high we'll have been through another ice age scare before then anyway.
Andrew Grant wants to redistribute wealth through hot air trading and good for him and his business but most of us who do read the literature realise that will not make any meaningful difference to global climate.
[Edit to complete truncated portion] How many votes do you think you'd get if you stood up and said "Vote for me and I'll make your electricity prohibitively expensive so you can't afford to use so much"? Hair shirts and energy rationing schemes are just not vote getters.
Carbon price
Why is a carbon price essential to reducing greenhouse emissions?
Research in the pipeline shows promise of reducing the capital cost of solar by around a factor of 10. This would make it more than competitive with other means of production, but still leave the base load problem.
Solar alone can become competitive without a carbon price.
A carbon price now will force up power prices, reduce industry and increase unemployment - all for an ideological dream.
This immediately makes lenders less willing to risk their money on unproven or new technology, drying up funds for renewable energy - the opposite of the effect a carbon price is supposed to produce.
The world has warmed more than now in the historical past. The actual effects were an increase in production and business. These took a hit when it cooled again.
The science of anthropogenic global warming is shaky. The world has been warming - exactly on schedule as we come out of the mini ice age of the 1600's. It will also cool again when the time is right. (Anywhere from a couple of decades to a couple of hundred years from now).
The European scheme has apparently been scammed left right and center and is no model to hold up to any except the ignorant.
We don't need a carbon price, we need more research and larger scale use of renewables. This is more efficiently done by subsidy than raising prices and hence effectively taxing the life out of everyone and everything.
Environmentally, disaster is not just around the corner. In fact, if we don't mess it up, prosperity is within our reach. Current carbon price schemes are based more on green ideology than fact and look set to rob us of that prosperity.
DIY?
I am hoping that there is a large enough number of realistic leaders of commerce and industry who can decide to cooperate in setting up green projects without government assistance. It is clear that climate policy is Just Too Hard for democratic governments.
For insurance, I'm voting Green.
A Policy Comedy
The policy vacuum is astounding. We are no further advanced than the first public mutterings on climate change almost 20 years ago. If it wasn't so funny as in the comparison with Yes Minister it would be totally scary. Both major parties have it wrong in that what they fear most is a backlash from voters as a result of higher living costs due to mitigation measures when what they should fear even more is the rath of voters who are looking for leadership. Why they cannot see that inaction is going to be far more costly than facing up to the challenge beats me.
Its Time!
No tinkering around the edges of climate change policy with mickey mouse proposals by the Labor party a few weeks from the election is going to make up for their gigantic failure to deliver on this issue. Many voters who supported Labor because they thought it would result in significant action on climate change have been hugely disappointed. Thank goodness there is an alternative to the Labor party - and I don't mean the Liberal coalition.