Imagine a bomb that could immediately kill upwards of 75,000 people, 125,000 more in the five years following the blast. That was in 1945. 

Now, imagine over 27,000 nuclear weapons, fifty of which could kill 200 million people – or the combined populations of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany. 

Only 9 countries in the world are part of this ‘nuclear club’: Russia, USA, France, the UK, China, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Of these countries, only China has ruled out using its weapons except in response to a nuclear attack. Both the US and Russia keep a portion of their weapons on hair-trigger alert, able to be deployed in minutes. 

The use of nuclear technology in the world threatens global security and human survival: especially with the threat of terrorism. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei has expressed fear that “nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of extremist groups in Pakistan or Afghanistan.” Annually, quantities of fissile material or weapons-grade plutonium go unaccounted for. With the right instruments and technology, possibly made available by religiously fervent scientists, terrorists would be able to construct a crude nuclear bomb, with consequences far more devastating than those of September 11.

If nuclear weapons were banned worldwide, the US alone would spend $40 billion less per year. Britain could avoid replacing its nuclear submarines at the cost of $154 billion over the next three decades. $40 billion a year is roughly the same cost as universal access to basic education, healthcare, adequate food, clean water and safe sewers for the population of the entire world. 

186 countries worldwide don’t have nuclear weapons. While Australia is one of them, it functions as an ‘umbrella state’: having accepted a ‘security guarantee’ under the US nuclear shield, it lends infrastructure to the nuclear war machine. If nuclear weapons were abolished, more money would be available for humanitarian purposes, and the world be a more secure place. What is required for this to happen is a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty to ban and eliminate the nuclear bomb. The overwhelming majority of countries and people want such a treaty – in fact, China, India, North Korea and Pakistan have all expressed their support for such a convention. All that remains is for the ‘big boys’ to consider giving up their toys.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Dear Mr. Rudd,

We are living through a momentous time. Recent events such as the global financial crisis, Barack Obama’s election, the apology to the Stolen Generations, are of great historical significance, with consequences that will resound through centuries to come. Decisions made by politicians in the upcoming few years have the potential to usher in a future of security and prosperity. Alternately, wrong or misguided decisions could spell disaster. It is with this in mind that I would like you to think more deeply about several aspects of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The first issue of concern is the 5% minimum target for reductions. 

In 2007, you brought your party into power, offering a vision of a new leadership. While admittedly similar to John Howard in many regards, you offered voters a more intelligent, more thoughtful, and all-together more human choice for Prime Minister. On the issue of climate change you promised to sign Kyoto and bring in other reforms: most notably, to commit to a new international greenhouse gas emissions target, even if big polluters like China and the United States do not sign up. The 5% target can only be understood as a betrayal of this promise.

I understand that, due to population modelling, this 5% target turns out to be 27-34% below 2000 levels on a per capita basis. This number is, however, misleading. Although Australia is only responsible for 1.1% of global emissions, we are the greatest emitter per capita, at 20.6 megatonnes of carbon dioxide per person annually. While China is the world’s biggest emitter, they only emit 4.6 megatonnes of carbon dioxide per person. Surely, this considered, Australia has room to cut our emissions more significantly. As the world’s largest per capita emitter, we should be making the largest per capita emission cuts, trying to arrive at a level that is globally sustainable. 

Beyond the target itself though, are more egregious policy flaws in the matter of compensation. Firstly, the sheer amount of compensation is ridiculous. The purpose of an emissions trading scheme is to take an external cost, carbon dioxide pollution, which doesn’t cost the business but does cost the world, and internalise it, so that there is an economic incentive to reduce pollution. If 97% of the funds are being used as compensation, then the price signal is dampened and the urgent need for ‘business as usual’ to change will not be properly realised. Additionally, the allocation of compensation is flawed. Many of Australia’s worst polluters are set to receive amounts in the hundreds of millions in compensation, over the top compensation that will only cost taxpayers into the future. As you no doubt know, Ross Garnaut has also criticised aspects of the compensation, pointing out that there appeared to be no clear principles or criteria behind particular decisions. More particularly, the Scheme states that petrol prices will not change in the first three years. Given the natural market variation in petrol price, a one-off increase, in the context of already volatile prices, would hardly impoverish low-income families. Given that those on a high-income stand to save more from a reduction in the price of petrol, it makes more sense to allow the price of petrol to rise. $4.4 billion would be saved if the fuel-tax adjustment were not instituted, some of which could no doubt be used to compensate those who would be threatened by a higher petrol price. This would serve to adequately promote changes in consumer behaviour towards sustainable methods of transport. 

The coal industry is also set to receive $1.4 billion dollars over the first two years of the trading scheme, because it is ‘Strongly Affected’. The reason it is strongly affected is because it emits a huge amout of greenhouse pollution. While the White Paper alludes to CCS as a possible method for allowing coal to continue to play a part in energy generation, this technology is prohibitively expensive and is unlikely to be in any way viable until at least 2020. The recent coal spill in Tennessee, which covered as many as 400 acres of land with toxic ash up to six feet deep, also reminds us of the intrinsic harms associated with ongoing coal mining. Energy generation from coal has no rightful place in Australia’s future. The facts that so much money goes to this highly dangerous industry, that the price of petrol will not change, and that so much money is going into compensation render the proposed trading scheme particularly ineffective. 

I understand though, that there are persuasive arguments against a stronger trading scheme, these being that Australia is responsible for only a small proportion of global emissions, that we must protect our jobs and economy, and that our isolated actions would have no value. None of these arguments, however, justifies the flimsiness of the proposed scheme. 

The first point I have referred to earlier. While Australia is responsible for only a small proportion of global emissions, we are the greatest polluter per capita. Under a successful long-term global scheme, emission allowances would necessarily be based upon the population of the nation in question. We thus ought to consider our relatively small population and make cuts that properly address our disproportionate consumption. Furthermore, Australia is privileged to be a first world nation. The economic growth that Australia has historically enjoyed is what has enabled our comfortable lifestyle. Other countries are not so fortunate and are still trying to grow their economies in order to meet the basic needs of their population. We must acknowledge our privilege in being so well-placed to face the problem of climate change: despite our small overall current contribution, we must act as befits our relative wealth and position, and make appropriate cuts. 

The question of jobs and economy is something of a false dilemma; the inaccurate perception that we must choose between economic growth and trying to mitigate climate change. For example, increases in efficiency will be a necessary part of dealing with climate change. Joseph Romm, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress who was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration, and whose blog is available at www.climateprogress.org, cites numerous examples of cases where investment in efficiency has not only reduced pollution, but provided significant returns. Programs he refers to have yielded economic returns of an estimated $40 billion from an investment of $13 billion. Additionally, efficiency can continually be reinvested in, as the technology is continually improving and the information is spreading to more people. In Australia, research estimates that South Australia could cut its energy use by 20% over a 20 year period and create up to 2700 jobs through investment in efficiency. Nationwide, an ongoing national study (SEAV and Allen Consulting Group) has found that implementing 50% of the currently commercially available energy efficiency measures would — over 12 years — reduce stationary energy use by 9%, create an extra 9000 jobs and increase GDP by $1.8 billion. These figures provide some indication of the jobs that promotion of efficiency could create. More general investment in green energy and technology is sure to increase employment. Germany is known for its pioneering solar feed-in tariff and is a world leader in renewable energy. They have been able to add 57,000 jobs in the wind, solar, hydro, and biomass industries between 2004 and 2006. Already in Australia, many businesses are realising the competitive advantage to be had by being able to produce their products more cheaply and are investing in sustainability projects. These businesses have realised that movement to mitigate climate change is not about sacrifice but about sustainability, about finding ways to waste less. Fundamentally, your government must recognise this truth, that dealing with climate change in fact offers Australia an unprecedented opportunity to create jobs, grow our economy, and capitalise upon our unique capability to utilise renewable sources of energy. 

While protesting outside the Stamford Grand, wherein was held Adelaide’s public consultation on the white paper of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, I was taken to task by a passer-by. She pointed out that there isn’t some sort of fence around Australia, that we function as part of a global conglomerate, and that we should wait on global co-operation before proceeding too seriously. While her premises were sound, her conclusions rung false. As I have previously discussed, Australia, as a wealthy nation, bears a responsibility to, from its position of power, do a great deal to assist global mitigation efforts. Less wealthy nations are looking to us to show leadership on this matter; the 5% target is seen as ‘throwing in the towel’, and this perception discourages developing countries from signing on to a global climate package. South African Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk has been featured in The Australian as saying “I don’t believe [Australia’s package] is nearly good enough to bring developing countries to the table.” Oxfam representatives have also dismissed the proposed 5/15% range, saying “Clearly this is not a credible range for Australia.” Australia has often been a powerful play in international negotiations, for example, an Australian headed the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is time for us again to rise to the challenge and declare emissions reductions targets that will provide an example to the rest of the world of our commitment and resolve and our understanding of the opportunities that mitigation affords.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the science and the science is unequivocal. Nobel Laureate Dr. Steve Chu, Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California, has warned of “sudden, unpredictable, and irreversible disaster.” Professor James Lovelock, independent scientist, originator of the Gaia Theory, described by New Scientist as one of the century’s greatest thinkers, has prophesied that maybe 20% of humanity will survive. James E. Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, refers to the potential for large-scale species extermination, ice-sheet disintegration, and the creation of havoc and hundreds of millions of climate refugees. The environment cannot be negotiated with. The ‘safe’ or ‘pragmatic’ course on climate change isn’t a cursory attempt to mitigation that prioritises the growth of Australia’s polluting industries. The only safe, pragmatic and sensible option is one that puts the Australia’s next generation before the next election. I urge you, Mr. Rudd, to re-think the proposed scheme. If Australia is to change, we need clear political leadership, and you are in a unique position to deliver. The future of Australia lies very much in your hands.

Popularity: 78% [?]

When I was younger, friends would bemoan the fact that their parent/s smoked. However, they always accepted it, noting that their parents had grown up in a different time. Unfortunately, despite the wide availability of accurate information these days, people continue to smoke. While I cannot understand this decision, I feel it is due at least partly to both a lack of awareness of certain consequences of smoking, and an understanding of those consequences. I hope with this note to go into this a little, considering the negative health, environmental and social effects.

Smoking is immensely harmful to the person who does it. In Australia, it is the largest preventable cause of premature death and disease. Lung cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, heart disease, stroke, and various other cancers are some of the effects of smoking, effects that kill about 15 000 Australians annually. Lower fertility, problems with pregnancy, blindness, and bone degradation are other consequences. Conceivably, smokers could say that they are allowed to do what they want with their own health. However, given that there are countless people dying against their will from unpreventable causes that they had no chance to avoid, this argument strikes me as facile. While smokers may have the ‘right’ to harm their own health, they have a responsibility to not take it for granted, given that so many are not as healthy as they may be. Not all people are lucky enough to have good health, so those who do should show proper care for themselves.

Overriding this rather abstract argument though is the fact that, even if smokers can destroy their own health, they have no right to harm the health of others: exactly what smokers do. Environmental tobacco smoke, which is what non-smokers passively breathe, is a known carcinogen – a cancer-causing agent. Other serious harms arising from the breathing of air polluted by tobacco smoke include bronchitis, pneumonia and other chest illnesses, asthma, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. An Australia report refers to increased: likelihood of suffering from asthmatic symptoms, risk of heart attack, risk of developing lung cancer, and risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Smokers are actively contributing to the ill health of their friends and all those who are so unfortunate as to breathe the air that has been polluted. No person has the right to inflict this sort of harm upon others against their will; no smoker, therefore, has the right to smoke where it can harm others. 

The environmental effects of smoking are also significant. The process of curing tobacco requires wood to be burnt to dry the leaves, which leads to deforestation. Around 60 million trees are felled each year in Brazil for this purpose, in Pakistan, 1.5 million cubic metres of wood are annually consumed. Further, paper is needed to roll and package cigarettes: a cigarette manufacturing machine uses four miles of paper per hour for this. This large scale deforestation damages the land and contributes to increased flooding, decreased food output and can affect the local climate. On a global scale, many scientists believe deforestation is changing the world’s climate and contributing to global warming

The growing of tobacco requires extensive pesticide and herbicide use. Tobacco depletes soil nutrients at a heavy rate, so requires regular inputs of chemical fertilizers. For example, during the three month period from making the seedbed to transplanting the seed in the field, up to 16 applications of pesticide may be recommended. These products directly poison farm workers – many of whom are children – and cause chronic health problems; they also seep into the soil and pollute waterways and ecological systems and poison livestock and food crops.

The volume of rubbish created by smoking, from the butts, packaging and foil, is deplorable. In 1993, all the cigarette butts thrown away in America weighed as much as 30 800 large elephants. In Australia, almost 1 in 3 butts end up as litter, and discarded components account for up to 43% of all litter in South Australia. This litter gets into bodies of water and beaches, killing marine fauna. The butts also contain toxic chemicals, which leach into the water poisoning organisms. The consequences of all this cigarette waste is intimidating, the potential cost of cleaning it all up frightful.

Only in the context of the egregious health and environmental effects of smoking can its true social costs be understood. In 2002, a report estimated the cost of tobacco use in Australia as $21.06 billion. This expense arose mainly from loss of production due to illness and death and health care costs. Other factors are the costs of passive smoking, welfare costs, ambulance services and fire damage. The burden that this is on the public purse effectively detracts from the quality and availability of health care to other people who may be suffering from other diseases not of their own making. Additionally, smoking is an effect of and a contributor to social inequality: “The greatest burden of illness and costs due to tobacco occurs among households in the lowest quintile of social advantage: smoking is most devastating for those who can least afford it” (National Tobacco Strategy 2004-2009). 

Smoking also has a cost outside of the first world, appalling enough that no casual donation to Make Poverty History could make up for it. Two-thirds of the world’s tobacco is produced in developing countries, taking up land that could be used to feed 10-20 million people. This occurs because the first world is more willing to spend money on a luxury like tobacco than those in the third world are able to spend on food. Land is thus used to produce the commodity of tobacco, endangering a reliable food supply. When you consider that 60% of the 8 million preventable deaths of chlidren annually are due to malnutrition, you certainly have to wonder how anyone could spend money on a pack of cigarettes.

There is no such thing as a ‘social smoker’. Smoking is an anti-social action that harms oneself, others, the environment and is an impediment to global equity. Not only is every cigarette doing you damage, smoking it is an act of indifference to the wellbeing of yourself, those around you, the state of the world, and the plight of the third world. Next time, before you buy a pack of cigarettes, consider doing us all a favour.

Popularity: 8% [?]

In the third century BCE, when philosophy and science were still the same discipline, Aristotle outlined his view of the good. Aristotle declared the supreme, complete, final human good to be happiness, in that there is no good better than or equal to it, it leaves us wanting nothing, and it is sought simply for its own sake. Since then, philosophy and science have diverged, but the empirical instruments of science bring us no closer to a clear idea of happiness or how it is best achieved. While, psychologists measure subjective well-being, asking respondents how happy they feel, philosophers are more interested in the activity of being happy, in objective being: a state that we have no instruments to measure and no units to measure it in. In the absence of empirical study, philosophers have occupied themselves with this question, a question considered by some philosophers to be at the very heart of their quest for wisdom. Two questions occupied these minds: is happiness the supreme good? How is happiness best achieved? Immanuel Kant and Epicurus offer two alternate views of this, and, by rationally evaluating their views, it is possible to arrive at a more convincing evaluation of the part happiness has to play in human life. 

A critical view of happiness’ role in life, antithetical to Aristotle’s belief, was explored by Immanuel Kant. Kant thought that pursuing happiness ought always to come second to acting morally. In his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, he argued that moral behaviour and hedonistic behaviour are often in opposition; and that we ought to take the moral path in such circumstances. It is because Kant didn’t consider happiness to be the supreme good that he thought we should not let its pursuit override moral decision making.

Kant’s conviction regarding happiness not being the supreme human good took the form of a modus tollens. If happiness were the supreme human good, he argued, humans would be better equipped for seeking it. Humans aren’t, therefore happiness mustn’t be the supreme human good. He pointed to inconsistencies in our nature that seem to prevent us from enjoying happiness as evidence of his claim. The fact that humans have a conscience suggested to him that we aren’t naturally inclined towards happiness, as our natural conscience makes us feel guilty when we do things that might otherwise make us feel only good. Also, the fact that humans weren’t instinctively guided towards happiness, that we had free will, and that it wasn’t always easy to divine the path towards happiness added to his argument. A being made for happiness, he thought, would not have to try to achieve it. 

In terms of the proposed dichotomy between happiness and moral behaviour, Kant’s views are to some extent shared by John Stuart Mill. Mill, although he saw the promotion of happiness as utmost also said that sometimes lesser pleasures not fitting to a human must be ignored in preference of nobler pleasures that were worthy of a human. This point of view is famously remembered in the quotation, “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” 

While many philosophers have been ready to discredit the role of happiness in life, one classical philosopher emerges as a philosophical apologist for those who seek pleasure – Epicurus. Epicurus thought that happiness – the final, complete and supreme good – could not be conceived of without sensual pleasure: “Pleasure is the beginning and the goal of a happy life.” Epicurus thought that philosophy itself ought to be a means of achieving happiness. 

Epicurus however, thought people behaved very confusedly when coming up with effective ways to lead happy lives. In order to avoid this and to rationally come to grips with what was necessary for a happy life, Epicurus used the Socratic Method. He would examine a statement such as ‘I need great wealth to be happy’ and suggest two counter-questions: ‘Can one have great wealth and be unhappy? Can one be happy and not have great wealth?’ By means of this method, Epicurus was able to arrive at a list of things required for a happy life. The first of these was friendship. With true friendship, Epicurus realised, came the respect and love that all people need and that money could never guarantee – in his own words, “Of all the things that wisdom provides to help one live one’s entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is the possession of friendship.” Epicurus also realised the importance of freedom, in allowing one to avoid the obligations and annoyances of employment and financial competition: “We must free ourselves from the prison of everyday affairs and politics.” To achieve this freedom, Epicurus and his followers entered into a simpler existence, detaching themselves from Athenian commercial life. The third ingredient of a happy life was thought. Through thought, one was able to deal with any anxieties. If the anxiety could not be directly dealt with, thought still allowed Epicurus’ friends to deal with the confusion and uncertainty related to many problems. Philosophical analysis was the key to their peaceful and happy lives. 

We can thus see what would have been surprising to Epicurus’ contemporaries and belies the modern definition of the word ‘Epicure’: Epicurus had established a method of pursuing happiness independent of money or sensual excess. Other than one’s basic needs, all that was necessary for happiness were the pleasures of friendship, freedom, and thought. Once one had a level of money sufficient to secure food, shelter and clothing, no excess money was required to enjoy a pleasurable existence. 

Given the contrast between Kant’s and Epicurus’ views, it would seem that some evaluation is required, and indeed, such evaluation sheds useful light on their philosophies. In regards to Kant’s emphasis on the need to choose between morality and happiness, this seems to be a false dilemma, as there may be alternatives. In fact, Guyer explains that while in Kant’s view morality is all-important, the object of morality is “the preservation of human beings as ends in themselves together with the promotion and fulfilment of their permissible ends.” Guyer goes on to explain that such respect for human beings is indeed necessary for human society, thus nature is, at the very least, compatible with the unified realisation of virtue and happiness. The sort of happiness of which Kant is so critical would be more clearly expressed as pleasure, “the aim of impulse” in George Santayana’s words, which is fleeting and insubstantial, compared to the lasting happiness, “the aim of reason” , described by Aristotle. 

Kant’s conditional argument regarding happiness not being the supreme good, while valid, can be exposed as unsound: it is unclear how humans could be any better equipped for seeking happiness. Conscience and free will, essentials of human nature, are not in fact obstacles to happiness, but make its attainment possible. Animals, lacking these human faculties, can hardly be described as happy – a dog’s tail wagging is little more than an instinctive response to pleasurable stimulus. In contrast, human happiness arises out of the meaningful exercise of free will and a clear conscience. Thus, contrary to Kant’s argument, conscience and free will ultimately enable true human happiness, and are not obstacles to it.

Epicurus’ philosophical position, arrived at by the truth-seeking Socratic Method, is more resistant to refutation. We can study the validity of his conclusions by applying the Socratic Method to them: Can one not have friends and be happy? Can one be happy without freedom? Can one be happy without reflection? Ultimately the answers to these questions are based not in abstract argument but personal feeling, and personal feelings seem to support Epicurus’ conclusions by statistical induction– according to The Australia Institute, 65% of people consider either “Partner/spouse and family relationships” or “Community and friends” to be “the most important thing for…happiness”. Additionally, it is hard to picture a happy life that lacks friendship, freedom, and space for reflection. Epicurus’ potentially contradictory fondness for pleasure must be understood in this context, as he only considers it worthwhile as a means of arriving at more lasting happiness, not something to be pursued for itself.

Also philosophically sound about the sustainable lifestyle of content espoused by Epicurus is how it subverts Kant’s dilemma: Epicurus aims solely for happiness and, by doing so, avoids harming others and brings happiness his companions. If one self-interestedly develops friendship, freedom and thought, than the pursuit of happiness is beneficial to one and all.

From an examination of these two philosophies, it seems that they are not as opposed as a superficial consideration may have suggested. Both philosophers had a view of the supreme good, and they viewed happiness as either the supreme good itself, or an outcome synonymous with it. Both philosophers offered a view of what led to happy existence: Kant emphasised the path towards a happy society, Epicurus the path towards happy individuals. These two paths have been shown to be supportive of one another, it is thus possible to draw a synthesis from these viewpoints. Happiness is indeed the supreme human good. It consists not in the narrow-minded or immoral pursuit of pleasure, but in a rational, intelligent and reflective approach to relationships and life. This exists in necessary symbiosis with moral behaviour as respect for other humans who are also entitled to happiness. Indeed, it is hard for people to feel happy when they have been behaving wrongly, as they rightly have a sense of the harm they have caused others and feel sorry for that. For those seeking happiness, no action whose consequences are overwhelmingly harmful to others will bring that; for those seeking morality over happiness, they will soon find that such division is not necessary.

It is now worth returning to Mill’s famous line, “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” Presumably, the reasoning behind this is that Socrates was doing valuable and necessary philosophical work such that, even if it didn’t make him happy, he was still better off than a satisfied fool. But implicit in Mill’s reasoning is the assumption that Socrates wouldn’t be satisfied by his work, that the ridicule and failure that beset him would have left him downhearted. On the contrary, Socrates, while he lamented the sad state into which Athens had fallen, delighted in his role, comparing himself to a gadfly prodding a lazy mule into motion. Even when sentenced to death for his work, Socrates accepted this conclusion and elected not to flee. Artistic depictions of his death by self-poisoning show him animated to the last, debating a point with a student even as he reaches for the fatal hemlock. Are these the actions of a dissatisfied man?

And what of the satisfied fool? This fool presumably lives a life that in no way realises the esteemed ideals of Socrates’ existence, instead opting for self-absorption, the neglect of friendships, freedom and thought in preference for the transient pleasures of luxury, power, or social acclaim. This fool’s satisfaction is ephemeral and insubstantial, based on the opinions of others or the fulfilment of others’ expectations. Having reached their desired position, they, like Macbeth, modern celebrities, or even schoolyard jocks will be beset with anxiety, having constantly to maintain an acceptable public image. Thus they cannot feel the security and self-confidence available to individuals such as Epicurus, whose happiness is contained within themselves. 

In concluding then, it is not better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied, as a dissatisfied Socrates would certainly not be performing the valuable philosophy that have fixed him in history, and the fool’s satisfaction is ephemeral and beset by anxiety. Happiness consists in doing that which brings meaning to one’s life and the lives of others, in spending time with those who love and respect one, in thinking about possible causes of anxiety, and in being free from tedium. Indeed then, Mill may have more accurately said, it is better to be Socrates happy than a fool pleased.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Climate change, global warming, emission targets and renewables are among many terms now widely used by the community, no longer limited to industry specific groups. Climate change is not a localised issue, nor is it one that discriminates based on superficial factors. Although the local impacts will be felt differently, essentially it is a global phenomenon. One that will effect everyone; with the poorest nations and their peoples to be the first impacted.

We have already seen the submergence of Tuvalu due to rising sea levels. We have seen the implications of drought not only in third world countries but, also closer to home in the Murray Darling River. We have seen cyclones wiping out whole communities in Burma and Queensland. We, the youth of today have grown up with these images embedded into our memory. These events are not abnormalities, they are merely the precursor for what is to come.

As evident in the Garnaut Report these occurrences can no longer be completely avoided but, they can be downsized. The youth of today are forced to grow up in a world facing a diabolical challenge. This stark reality has occurred predominately due to governmental inaction, nationally and globally. The youth of today are forced to call upon the new Australian government to show leadership in the face of crisis. Whilst youth or community movements are a focal point in preventing climate change, it is the responsibility of the Government to represent the needs of society at large. 

The Government have not imposed a flawed tax or illogical carbon emissions trading scheme. They have done nothing. Signing Kyoto was the first step to resolving climate change however, it is not the only step. Complying to an international treaty does not give the Government the freedom to invest in geosequestration rather than renewables, dredge bays or build pulp mills. The consequences of any of these actions are not beneficial or logical.

The Garnaut Report not only confirms that climate change exists, despite denial from certain community groups. It goes one step further to suggest that climate change is happening at a faster rate than previously predicted by the IPCC.

Garnaut recommends that Australia introduces a carbon emissions trading scheme by 2010. Fifteen per cent of Australia’s emissions are derived from transportation hence, it is vital that fuel is included in the scheme. Whilst this presents a fundamental challenge to working families, the opportunity to substantially invest in public transport and green infrastructure should be embraced by the Government. Societal trends in the past year have demonstrated the rise of public transport despite the state that it is in. The limiting of forestry and coal mining would also be focal points of such a scheme. Although this would result in the gradual discontinuation of the coal industry, it allows for the introduction and implementation of the sustainable renewables industry. Allowing the coal industry, and as a consequent climate change, to run rampant would result in the decimation of the tourism and agricultural industries amongst others.

Governmental support of coal and supposedly clean coal by the government has resulted in citizens forced into resorting to direct action through non-violent civil disobedience. The urgency of climate change is not reflected in public policy. The Government needs to create a just transition for communities by investing in real green energy. These actions must be implemented immediately, climate change is a problem that demands action today, not tomorrow.

Whilst these solutions are vital, they do not necessarily alleviate the rate at which energy is being consumed in Australia. The community needs to be educated in the urgency and consequences of any inaction demonstrated on their behalf. Across Australia and the globe, we have seen the emergence of community climate change campaigns.

The education of community groups and students alike is needed in order to achieve a wider understanding of the issue. The will inevitably lead to the realisation that Australia does not have the capacity to help climate refugees. These will be the people that have to suffer the most. Unless Australia’s international immigration policies are reformed, then in the very near future we could have many millions of people displaced permanently.
Solving the problem of climate change is not just directly addressing the current pressing implications, it is also about sustainable development for the future. It is wise, and recommended by many economists, that Australia adopts an environmentally sustainable development policy. This would ensure major corporations to schools and community groups will be forced to reconsider any steps taken towards further urbanisation. By forward thinking, the Government would essentially be avoiding the replications of current societal issues.

The actions that we, as individuals, choose to perform can either benefit or degrade the environment further. There are many easy solutions, such as changing your light bulb or convincing those around you to also live energy efficiently. In addition to this, you could support environmentally conscientious community groups or non-governmental organisations. Alternatively, actively engaging in the democratic process of Australia is also an element of contributing to the prevention of disastrous climate change. Australians of all ages and walks of life are afforded the luxury of shaping the way their country is governed. Hence, it is important that people participate in the lobbying of government through advocacy and letter writing.

An increase of two degrees Celsius in the global temperature appears to be unavoidable if nothing is done to address the problem. This would have devastating results, resulting in a chain reaction of subsequent temperature increases. A one degree rise, which is unavoidable, would result with a dramatic increase of climate refugees and famine. Two degrees would begin with the extinction of one third of the world’s species, to an increase of four degrees which would leave Great Britain unlivable. Such a rise in temperature is not feasible, climate change is not a political game. Garnaut asserts that bipartisan action is the only effective means to stop climate change. This is not something that we want to risk in order to just win the next election.

Individual action is the first step in halting climate change, and this often transcends into collective action by common interest groups. Community action in regards to climate change needs to be complemented with regulations and policy reforms by the Government.

Climate change is present and on the rise now, it is not only the children of the future who will be effected. It’s us now. The future of our livelihoods as we know it is at stake. The future of the planet we inhabit, the planet we consider home is at stake. We have everything to lose but, we could also have everything to gain. Never before has there been a time where both the people and the Government can create extraordinary social change.

The time for tokenism is over.

Action must start now.

This piece was co-authored by Linh Do, Jake Wishart, Tony McCarthy and David Toovey.

Popularity: 11% [?]