It's the economy, stupid
The campaign speech that Julia Gillard should deliver on climate change... but won't:
I want to talk to you today about climate change, an issue of deep and serious concern to people around this great country.
The people of Australia know the climate is changing. Our farmers are struggling with shifts in rainfall patterns and temperatures. The most ferocious bushfires on record have seen hundreds of lives tragically lost. Our cities have their water supplies at risk. Our top scientists tell us the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu face devastating threats. And we in the developed world are the lucky ones, with the wealth and infrastructure to deal with such challenges.
Many see climate change as a great moral issue. My predecessor, a man passionately committed to global action in this area, called action on climate change the great moral challenge of our generation. He is not alone in this view. Religious leaders around the world, such as the Catholic Church in the United States have suggested such action is now a moral obligation.
With strong views on all sides, these questions have become intensely political. It has been a factor in the demise of our past two Prime Minsters, John Howard and Kevin Rudd, and it has seen us move through three leaders of the opposition in just a few years.
But while many see this question in moral terms, this is not the consensus view. Some people, like my opponent in this election Tony Abbott, argue we must first and foremost protect our short-term national economic interest and therefore we shouldn’t act until the world does.
I know Mr Abbott also has doubts about the science of climate change. While I harbour no such doubts, I know he is not alone in those views. So that is not the basis for the consensus we need. Nor is the moral argument, which has caused division in our community by painting those who oppose action as somehow morally bereft, as uncaring about their children’s future. Whatever the morality of the issue, that approach has proven divisive and unhelpful to moving forward.
As I said when I had the honour of being appointed to this office, it is now time to move forward, to build a consensus on how we will respond to this pressing and urgent issue. So how are we to do so? I would like to argue today the basis to build such a consensus is on the grounds of protecting our economy.
While some argue white Australia’s early economy was built on the sheep’s back, our current economy was largely built on the atmosphere’s back. Cheap and plentiful coal has given us competitive advantage with low cost, reliable energy supplies that have made investing here very attractive. Our coal exports have also brought considerable benefit to our balance of payments and created well-paid jobs for working families across the country. As a result of this great advantage, much of our economy is built on high carbon infrastructure, making it understandable we resist change.
However we now face a moment of truth and it’s time political leaders were honest with the Australian people and that’s what I will be with you today.
We are going to have to change. We are going to lose certain jobs and industries and have to replace them with new ones. We need to manage this process carefully. We are going to have to pay more for our electricity and learn to use less of it to compensate. We are going to have change our farming practices, our transport systems and the design of our houses.
Whatever we think about the science, the morality, or the economics, we now have no choice. This is because the global community has decided that the risks posed by climate change are unacceptable and we need to limit warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. This target has been agreed to by governments like China, the US, Japan and India and has been endorsed by hundreds of global companies ranging from mining giant Rio Tinto, to industrial companies like GE, to banks like HSBC.
This target will inevitably result in a global economy with little-to-no net carbon emissions, requiring dramatic reductions over the coming decades. This has widespread implications for Australia. For a start, unless we can make carbon capture and storage economically competitive, it will result in the end of the Australian coal industry. It means our power infrastructure will have to be transformed to renewables. It means our cars will need to be pollution free. All this is now well understood by our key trading partners, the US, China, Europe, Korea and Japan. They are all clearly moving in this direction, seeing clean energy technologies as the new competitive battleground.
This global economic transition has begun and, to be frank, Australia is not ready. If we don’t manage this well, our economy will suffer, along with our natural world. As the lead negotiator on climate change for the United States, Todd Stern, said: “those who hang back and cling to a high-carbon path will be economic losers in the end because, with the scientific facts of global warming getting worse and worse, high-carbon products and production methods will not be viable for long.”
So the unpleasant truth is that Australia is now lagging behind while the world races ahead to a clean and exciting future. While many argue our total emissions are low, this is only relevant to the environmental impact of change. Australia ranks, in per capita terms, among the highest CO2 polluters in the world; and it is per capita emissions that define the threat to our economy in a world with a price on carbon.
So if I am re-elected, I will seek to build a consensus on the need for change. As we have done with defence policy, we need to establish a foundation of bipartisanship and then debate only the details. Such a consensus has been built in countries like the UK, Germany and France, where ministers from these three conservative governments called last week for the European CO2 reduction target to be increased to 30 per cent by 2020, not on moral grounds but from fear they would lose the economic race to a low carbon future to countries like China.
My desire for consensus will not, however, become an excuse for inaction. As part of our formal campaign launch we will be making clear how, if elected, my government will lead the country forward. I will explain why we need a price on carbon in the next two years; how we can make our homes and offices 30 per cent more energy efficient by 2020; how we need to ensure 30 per cent of our energy will come from renewable sources by 2025; and how we can support our farmers in their efforts to lock up carbon in our soils and in our trees.
These are the actions we will advocate to the broader community, actions that would create secure jobs, drive investment and allow our companies to compete in a global economy.
I will provide more details in coming days but my point here is to be honest to hard working Australians, that we all have hard work ahead. Yes, unfortunately because of our past failures, there is a need for more talk first. Talk to build agreement not just across political parties but across business, unions, farmers, investors and the broader community. We need this agreement if we are to move as fast as we now must, to catch up to the world.
This need for more talk, though, will have a defined end. If I am elected as Prime Minister, we will in the next parliament have a comprehensive, legislated plan – one supported by the community – to put Australia at the forefront of global action on climate change and get our country ready for the future. And we will do so because it is clear to me that climate change is the great economic challenge of our generation.
Comments on this article
It's the economy , stupid !
Paul Gilding , thanks for putting your words into Julia Gillard's mouth !
EVEN IF Julia Gillard said them would you be gullible enough to believe them ?
EVEN IF she said them would she implement them ?
Given Labor's track record....not a chance !
At least the Liberal's actually HAVE A POSITION ! So , Paul, stop dreaming and put your vote where it will have some REAL ACTION ! Vote Liberal !
Regards !
Possum well stirred Paul
Possum well stirred Paul
Imagine future generations analysing these responses and hopefully gaining some sympathetic appreciation of our apparent lethargy in some degree and to the ‘Storm of Apathy’ supported by a large proportion of our generation re climate change. Many thanks John Davidson for those interesting stats re the deficiencies of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (RMET) plus for the wisdom re converting current coal fired plants to natural gas (44% less CO2, 80%less CO, 79% less nitrous oxide, 99.9% less SO2). Also thanks to those who promote nuclear to join renewables as one source of zero emissions.
It is clearly evident to me at least from the scientific data that we are going to need all such power sources we can introduce in the very near future. On a risk analysis of potential nuclear power accidents vs. even a 2o C average warming… if we actually make it that is, then its nuclear every time please. We may not need nuclear in Australia due to our abundance of renewable sources including some with base load capability but I suggest less fortunate countries will need all options open.
Fortunately I can actually disregard all the disparaging terms re short falls of the IPCC plus current climate models, the ‘Climategate emails’ beat up, per capita vs. global % arguments, economic disasters, the natural order vs. anthropogenic blame game etc, etc if I look at what the palaeclimatologists are saying about the earth’s climate i.e. long before we humans were around to loot and pillage. They show while atmospheric CO2 levels have swung up and down in synchronised tune with global average temps over eons of time, the closest final steady state condition of a period with CO2 levels close to our current situation (according to one Anil Ananthaswarny in New Scientist 26th June 2010) appears to be the ‘… early Pliocene [period] about 4.5 million years ago, when CO2 levels were around 400ppm – only slightly higher than they are now – yet the Earth was more than 3o C warmer, with smaller permanent ice sheets and sea levels up to 25 meters higher.’ Natural causes or not that sounds to me the human race and some other creatures could be in for a hard time and our continued CO2 contributions cannot be helping much but then I am 71 years old so why should I care?
One word:
Nuclear.
(although it would be foolish to ignore the huge potential of solar in Australia to provide daytime peaking power)
Interesting statistics
Why do people insist on quoting CO2 emissions on a per head basis>
The environment is completely unaffected by per capita emissions, it is total emissions which count.
On this basis, Australia is a very small player.
Quoting per capita figures here is simply a misuse of statistics.
Simply Copy (Model) Germany, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Poland...
Forget "Climate Change", try "My Hip Pocket Change". These countries are some of the cleanest in the world thanks to initiatives at the smallest and very CHEAP levels:
- Generously rewarding companies that have 100% reusable and recyclable packaging
- Making personal wind and solar power generators an official and attractive form of investment
- Funding R&D into higher capacity and cheaper solar power generation and rewarding companies doing their own R&D
- Partly tax-deductible investment in Environmentally Friendly Businesses
- Partly tax-deductible low emission vehicles
- Partly tax-deductible Green energy bills
- ...and a heap more!
See how these initiatives are ECONOMICALLY desirable as well as morally desirable. Phrases like "Climate Tax" and "Emissions Trading" are unheard of in these countries because they are NOT economically desirable and put people off-side.
It is a well-known fact that if people want to succeed at something, COPY THE SUCCESSFUL. It's really very simple but Australian politicians don't seem to get that!
COPY, COPY and COPY some more, please!
Re: Follow Mainstream Science
Is it "anti-science" to want to know what the planet's temperature "should be"?
Here's a game everyone can play -- set yourself up a spreadsheet model to calculate earth's expected mean temperature. I won't colour anyone's results by pointing you at the formula or the figures to use (you can find them on government sites via the web easily enough).
Why? Because then you'll find there is no agreement on earth's albedo (sunlight reflectance) and net energy absorbed at surface, nor on feedback (greenhouse effect) with anything like the precision required to track whether it is changing in response to what is really a slight elevation in a trace gas. There's a whole range of plausible figures (guesses) out there.
Want an even simpler surprise? Search for "the elusive absolute surface air temperature (sat)" which is a Nasa-hosted question and answer with Dr. James Hansen. Turns out we have no standard reference of even what we mean by "surface temperature" or agreed methodology to try to derive it.
And our "you-beaut" climate models? Check out the IPCC's Coupled Model Intercomparison Project where unforced baseline runs deliver a range of plausible "correct" temperatures for earth from 11.5°C to almost 17°C.
Personally I'm getting a bit irritated with people claiming "science says" enhanced greenhouse is an urgent problem when the scientists I ask freely admit we do not know how earth's albedo varies as cloudiness changes with major ocean cycle phases, do not know what should be considered the right greenhouse feedback percentage or how much it varies naturally or even whether earth is genuinely warmer or cooler than it "should be".
Don't take my word for it -- try looking up the numbers you need and calculating it. Just don't complain to me when you find there are authoritative sources for the effective emission temperature of the sun that yield a huge range of plausible temperatures for earth -- try using Nasa's top of atmosphere irradiance number -- oh, that's right, depending on which Nasa reference you use you still have a range of several Watts to cope with (more than the IPCC's estimate for a doubling of CO2).
Never mind, it's a fun game for the whole family and there's really no wrong answer since you can find authoritative numbers to support nearly any result you like ;-)
Go ahead and tell us more about science and anti-science Paul Gilding, I'm really quite keen to learn. What I'm not keen to do is invest on make-believe and "everyone says". So, is it really too much to ask whether earth is warmer or cooler than it "should be" and just what that temperature might be?
Re: Follow Mainstream Science
Thank you Paul Hanley for a breath of fresh air amongst the anti-science commentary from some others. Of course there are uncertainties in climate science, and exploring those is healthy science and a good thing. But when the debate moves into denying what all the mainstream scientific organisations say, even those as significant as the US Academies of Science, then we are moving into dangerous, irrational territory.
Follow mainstream science
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organisations also hold non-committal positions.
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2009
A 2009 study—published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States—polled 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions.
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[96]
[edit] Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[97]
It's the economy, stupid
If the prime minister was truely honest with the Australian people she would not be saying we need to switch to renewables. She would be saying we need to go nuclear if we want to address climate change.
If the prime minister is serious about the economy she would never advocate a wholesale switch to renewables. It will be economic disaster.
climate deniers & reality
To deny that anthropogenic climate change is real in 2010 is as rational as to deny that a virus causes AIDS. Some people do this, but we should be just as dismissive of one of these claims as the other. All it takes to understand the climate problem is to makes oneself just moderately acquainted with the large and accessible body of scientific investigation that now describes it. Anyone who proclaims a fixed opinion but refuses to do this ought to be ignored. Anyone who is confused rather than prejudiced is welcome to visit my website [www.grandkidzfuture.com] where I provide summaries and links to the evidence, so you can make up your own mind.
John Price
Per capita
Once again Australia's performance is referenced in "per capita" terms because this is the only context that makes us look reckless. Highest emitter "per capita" is Qatar at about 40 metric tonnes per person yet only contributes about .22% of CO2 to the global atmosphere. We are about 16 mt per person to contribute only about 1.43% . China, USA etc are contributing over 20% each .This shows the "per capita" measure is a bunch of "crap" as is the CO2 alarmist argument.
Why - lead we are way too small!
Why should Australia with only ?% world pop. ?% world CO2 emissions etc. which is an argument for not acting also aim to produce the best golfers, swimmers, cricketers, hockey teams, pole vaulters, hurdlers, surely our population means we are unable to lead the world in sport! - yet we expect it-and in some cases achieve it - change the mindset.
Spin
I hate spin, can we stop calling Carbon Dioxide a Pollutant.
Zero Carbon in our atmosphere would cause the death of nearly all plant and animal life on the planet in a matter of months.
Whether one is a skeptic or believer can we get rid of the spin, and start expressing the truth.
Truth one, climate change due to CO2 emissions is a theory based on computer modelling. Whether it is true or not will only be determined when the time comes.
Truth two. The worst climate modelling predictions are so diabolical, they cannot be ignored simply because they cannot be proven correct, this does not mean they are proven wrong.
Truth three. Australia emits less than 2% of world emissions. What we emit as individuals is irrelevant we can only legislate to reduce national emissions, which in world terms are almost irrelevant.
Truth four. We import goods from China because they have a cost advantage, being lower wages and less red tape. Even though we disagree with the Chinese human rights record and other matters we still import the goods. Not introducing new renewable generation capacity would provide Australia with a competitive advantage, it should not result in job losses, but the reverse.
Truth five. What if climate change is true and cannot be prevented, some climate scientists say we are close to the point of no return now. If so what is our countries insurance policy against failure. Should we spend money on water infrastructure now, or wind turbines? There must be a fall back plan, no matter who is proven right in time, skeptics or the true believers.
Common sense at last being articulated by the majority
A quick review of the majority who have commented here leaves little doubt in my mind that those with half a brain can figure it out for themselves.
There's a message here for your next Draft speech Paul Gilding since there's no way Ms Gillard's going to use this one. She wants to win this election..
Well said Mike Borgelt, Barry Hearn, Christian Sollberger, Brent Walker, Bill Koutalianos & Cameron Hoare. We have some common ground to Take Forward to the coming Federal Election where a vote for the Climate Sceptics Party will make far more sense than for any of the other 'players' who seek to placate those promoting the AGW mantra.
NOT ECONOMY DESTROYING
More interesting figures for Australia:
(NOTE: The big difference is that the carbon tax approach puts a price on dirty power that raises the cost of dirty power to the price required to justify investment in clean power. By contrast, MRET effectively uses a levy on dirty power to subsidize clean power so the average cost of power equals the weighted average cost of clean and dirty power.)
6. Replacing MRET with contracts for the supply of clean electricity would reduce the required price increases further because it gives investors more certainity and should use competitve tendering to set contract prices.
7. The cost would be even lower if a gas fired transition were used instead of going straight to renewables. Rough calculations sugggest that the price would only need to be about 1.5 cents/kwh to justify complete replacement of coal fired with CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) to give a 60% reduction in power generation related emissions. (Basis figures mentioned by Richard McIndoe (CEO TRUenergy on ABC insiders.)
8. There is no reason why the contracts for the full conversion of coal to gas to gas could not be set up before the end of 2012 and the conversion be completed by th end of 2015.
We dont need the sacrifice speech. Major advances can be made now with negligable impact on our pockets. The problem in the past was that, under CPRS it was not clear what the impact would be.
;
Carbon Price
I aggree with Barry Hearn in that it is unlikely that there will be a global price on carbon. Many europeans countries are starting to distance themselves from this, particularly with the destruction of the Spanish economy from the uneconomic pursuit of green energy,as an example of where this stupidity can lead. China, India, and the developing world will never accept anything which will limit their development and are accelerating with the contruction of coal fired generation. The USA is unlikely to get any bill passed before the mid term elections at the end of this year and all indications are that the democrats will not have any house majority following these elections.
The best course of action for Australia is be cautious and to wait and see what eventuates on the world stage before any action is taken here. You might even say that this would be consistent with that meaningless non principle often quoted by the green activists, "The Precautionary Principle"
It is NOT the sun and IS the economy.
I am continually amazed that a percentage of apparently sentient humans are still unconvinced about the irrelevance of sun cycles and the effects of CO2 on our little home planet.
Be that is it may, this draft speech lays out a few home truths about the world economy. Even China, while building 500MW of coal fired power per week is committed to (from memory) 25 x 880MW Type III+ nuclear power generating plants. This is huge by any scale and is a clear indication of the direction China has chosen to go. Chinese coal is forecast to peak soon, if not already. They will choose the cheapest available technology - which, in only a few years, will no longer be coal, but Type III+ Nuclear, followed by Type IV, which will not require imported or mined uranium - these will use the used fuel from Type III and earlier reactors, so no cash drain.
This will have an amazing influence on Australia's coal prospects. China will be lost to Australia as a destination for all except metallurgical coal.
There is not a thing that Australian people or corporations can do about this - the change is clear and it is on the way. China's coal needs will begin to taper off just as soon as they can get enough nuclear power. The writing is on the wall, but can Australians, especially the head-in-the-sand Greens read it?
edit
"...our power infrastructure will have to be transformed to renewables."
should read
"...our power infrastructure will have to be transformed to zero-carbon sources."
Indeed we do need to move in the same direction as the US, China, Europe, Korea and Japan. None of those are banking solely on renewables.
It's the economy stupid
No, its the Sun stupid. Climate change is cyclical, natural and the main driver of our climate is unquestionably the Sun, regardless of how the IPCC try very hard to ignore it. Man can never hope to control temperatures through more or less CO2 emissions because CO2's contribution to temperature is negligible at current saturation levels. Furthermore man's share of CO2 contributions is also small, at 3.5% compared to nature's 96.5%. What we can be confident about, is that governments and other vested interests will never reject a new income stream.
"....lose the economic race to a low carbon future to countries like China.", give it a break, China's emissions are rising exponentially.
Its the economy, stupid
This all sounds good but the World actually needs higher atmospheric CO2 levels if crop production is going to keep up with population growth and growing affluence - particularly as at least another 1 billion people move into the economic middle class over the next 40 years.
I do not subscribe to the CO2 theory at all and nor should anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history, science or computer modelling. But I do believe that the world needs to permanently address its reliance on fossel fuels. So if they gave up the climate change nonsence and stated that by taxing carbon it would help to move mankind from reliance on fossil fuels I would be happier about it. But to base this on a scare campaign gets me cross.
Nuclear is the only long term option for base load power supply so the sooner we embrace this the better. Getting the truth about the 3rd and 4th generation nuclear power stations out in a form that can be understood by the westy worriers would be a good start. Any thoughts how this could be done. They have been sucessful in other countries including ones with impeccible green credentials like Denmark, Norway and Sweden so it can't be too hard!
climate change
what a lot of BS about nothing. Please gives scientific evidence before we are committed to more taxes. Governments are only to destroy wealth, they certainly do not create any. Look at those many stuff ups like the house insulation, school building and the so called green projects. We need less of those politicians and bureaucrats and more people willing to do a hard days work for fair return without taxes robbing us blind.
how anyone expects the economy to grow...
"Just how anyone expects the economy to grow based on subsidies to unworkable alternative energy schemes using tax money taken from the productive sectors is beyond me."
That's how the coal industry has survived and prospered for this long. There's no new approach suggested here.
What world carbon price?
Am I reading the wrong international papers or something? Europe is backing away from carbon hysteria and "carbon pricing" despite how heavily their politicians have vested themselves in the green mantra. China is exploiting Western eco guilt while building coal-fired generation as fast as they can go and adding millions of cars, basically petrol-powered.
Maybe a little honesty would work? Something along the lines of: "we aren't sacrificing our industry or giving up our export markets so its carbon all the way!" That might cure business uncertainty.
Interesting Statistics
Carbon dioxide emissions in metric tons per capita:
Australia - 18
Danmark - 9.9 (20% Windpower)
Iceland - 7.3 (24% Geothermal)
France - 6.2 (75% Nuclear)
Source: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators?cid=GPD_WDI
Maybe we can learn something from the French !
It's the economy, stupid
Just how anyone expects the economy to grow based on subsidies to unworkable alternative energy schemes using tax money taken from the productive sectors is beyond me.
Mythical solutions to a non problem. There is NO credible evidence, NONE, that a little extra CO2 is doing anything deleterious to the biosphere or human civilization. If you are worried about CO2 and Australia's contribution to it then push for nuclear power to replace coal in the next 15 years. This would result in around 40% reduction in Australia's man made emissions of CO2 and of course make no difference to the planet even if a little extra CO2 was a problem.
Mike Borgelt
Brilliant speech
we can only dream that la' Gillard would stump up with such vision and leadership...
*sigh*
polly want another cracker?
Gillard is, after all, a polly. With only the possibility of the usual term in government she would rather dye her hair green than tell the Australian public we need to knuckle down and do it tough. I agree with you. This is the speech she will not make.