THE one certainty of climate change (anthropogenic or not) is that it is unstoppable. Government advertisements suggest worst-case scenarios but they do not concede that these are no less likely should Australia cut its carbon dioxide output. Whether or not you believe in man-made climate change, it’s out of our control.
More significantly, it is out of the control of every political leader. There is no prospect that nations will agree on global action sufficient to reduce the total level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
At some point, probably about the time the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill - a carbon tax - comes before parliament and in the lead-up to the next election, the electorate will realise they are being asked to pay for something they cannot have: a guarantee against climate change.
What they can have is a plan to adapt to climate change, as and when it occurs. This plan is not much in evidence. The politics of such a plan are easy: do not waste money on a carbon tax. What is the betting that in the political void created by the realisation that resistance to climate change is futile, a No Carbon Tax Party will emerge?
The world will agree to do no more than slow the rate of increase of carbon emissions a head. At best, the West will decrease its total output a little and the rest will increase their output a little more slowly than would otherwise be the case.
The rate of population increase and industrial development will ensure an overall increase. In other words, there is no chance of capping the global output of carbon dioxide, much less reducing it. But the major Australian political parties and for different reasons the Greens will continue to talk of carbon reduction as if it will stop climate change.
The question is not which country will be last to sign up to a new climate change agreement, but which will be first to call a stop to the attempt.
The key policy question is how Australia can waste the least amount of money avoiding the unavoidable. Every dollar saved on not proceeding with the carbon tax can be devoted to adapting to climate change as and when it occurs.
The real response to climate change is straightforward. The Queensland Government’s response to the five-year drought, perhaps the most important risk of climate change, in southeast Queensland is a good example.
Wisely, the Queensland Government decided it could not stop the drought (climate change) and it did not try. Instead, it responded to the needs of citizens for water by restricting water use and spending $9 billion drought-proofing the economy.
It is building a new dam, thereby spreading the area of rainfall capture, connecting the dams to enable water to be pumped around in response to rainfall change, recycling water and building a desalination plant. Broadly, these are the only responses a government could make.
As the dams have filled and the alternative sources of water come nearer to completion, the Government is seeking an exit strategy from drought restrictions. Life in southeast Queensland will return to normal despite the drought, and the region will have adapted, as rich economies can and do.
Southeast Queensland water users will pay the price, indeed are probably happy to, given the insignificant cost of water compared to its immense significance to everyday life.
This is the real climate change debate. If the electorate sees it and tastes it, it will pay the bill. By contrast, the carbon tax looks like tilting at windmills.
The carbon tax will not stop the need for climate adaption. Even under the Greens’ scenario for a carbon-free economy, climate change will occur but the economy would be less able to afford to adjust.
Within a generation, the main polluters will be the likes of China and India. These countries will want specific climate deals to suit their needs. They may berate Australia for being a higher per capita polluter, but China will want all of the liquid natural gas, and India will want all of the uranium we can sell. By contrast, international agreements to restrain carbon dioxide output will be so much hot air.
The electorate would like its leaders to fix the problem, but if it dawns on voters that there is no “stop climate change” option, they will be angry at the consequent underspend on adaption. What chance a No Carbon Tax senator or two by 2010?
By Gary Johns (who was a minister in the Keating government).
Sourced From
{ 0 comments… add one now }
Leave a Comment