Being a climate activist can be a very draining business. Being aware that humanity is, on its current emissions path, going to face terrible increases in global temperatures, rising sea levels, chaotic and highly destructive weather events, the loss of land for growing food, and a diminishment of water security, is concerning. But time after time, the needed change that I and others like me try to promote, is stonewalled, either by the apathy or self-concern of ordinary people, or politically, by vested interests who hold inordinate sway over Government decision making processes. 

In some ways, the whole situation isn’t too unlike that in Richard Adams’ ‘Watership Down’, in which Fiver, the lagomorphic protagonist is seized with a vision of an apocalyptic future, in this case for the rabbit warren he calls home. Although the rabbit chief and his militia scorn Fiver, a few rabbits are swayed; and he and his companions, some of whom are only accompanying him out of pity, leave the warren in search of a new home. Their journey is not without trial, but the suffering and loss that they endure is found to be justified when, later, they are told by the few survivors that their old warren was exterminated by humans. Unfortunately, this analogy falls short of describing the current real world situation. The climate realists, who are very much in the role of Fiver in the modern world, do not have the luxury of being able to take like-minded companions and secede from the global climate. Instead, they are compelled to try, time and time again, to sway public opinion, to sway political process, because their survival, indeed, everyone’s survival, is dependent upon the threat being not just recognised, but addressed.

It all gets a bit ‘Australia 1970′, ‘that we are ruined by the thing we kill’. While climate realists are attempting to save humanity, they are too often dismissed as mere environmentalists, as if it is possible for humanity to function independently of the environment in which we live. Even people who accept the message too-often fail to modify their action accordingly, and it becomes yet another good idea, like fair-trade, or vegetarianism, which is too inconvenient or too costly to take on board. And even when progress is being made, when a growing proportion of the population is concerned enough to take action, industry-funded scientists abuse their position in society to muddy the waters and stir up doubt, which enables selfish people to continue to excuse their actions, and governments to continue putting off the inevitable.

But that’s not the point of this little spiel. The point of this spiel is that the good fight is worthwhile. This was impressed upon me last night, as I watched a free screening of ‘Telling The Truth’, a rather wittily named documentary that follows seven Al Gore-trained climate project presenters as they each deliver their personalised version of his slideshow to various audiences across Australia. I saw people from all over Australia, and from all over society: not just the dreadlocked stoners that some would have you believe are the majority of climate activists, but doctors, sportspeople, students, businessmen, all trying to change the world for the better. Each of these people was motivated to act on climate change for different reasons: some were trying to protect their children’s future, some dreamed of a less injust world, others wanted to be able to keep living in their house. It was great. They weren’t the sort of policy hacks who might attend seminars and write letters to the newspaper (ie me), but they believed in what they were doing, and they were making a difference. 

So I began thinking about my own growth as a climate change activist, from a largely unaware lad who was surprised to know that his vegetarianism was helping the climate to an informed and passionate chap (not a lad anymore) who mentally ticked off a box when a senior meteorologist speaking about climate change referred to an albedo flip. I thought about the friends and the beautiful people I had met and worked alongside, the inspiring figures who, by their dedication and commitment, gave hope to others, or who, by their willingness to take direct action, promoted discussion and encouraged others to do more. I thought of the members of the various groups in which I’m involved, not one of whom is remarkable, but all of whom are doing remarkable things, giving up time, energy and money to try to keep this issue at the front of people’s minds. 

And I thought about how I sometimes feel like this issue is consuming me, like I am giving up too much, potentially losing who I am. But I realised that that’s not the case. I know, of all of the things I have done or that I do, it’s not the academic pursuits that make me who I am. I’m just happy in myself that I have been able to contribute to what is a vital growing global movement for justice and sustainability. I think of who I am now, of what I feel, of whom I know. I am doing what I do because I know it is the right thing. I am doing it because I have a vision of a society where we are healthier, where our energy supply isn’t dependent upon sending people to war, where the environment isn’t polluted by oil and slurry spills, groundwater contamination, and mine waste being dumped into waterways. Where people don’t have to spend hours in traffic to function, where essentials are within riding distance, and people have more time to spent with their families and friends. Aiding in the realisation of this vision is the single best contribution I can make to this world.

Popularity: 86% [?]

I was recently in Bonn, Germany, for the UNFCCC talks, sitting on a panel of young people at a conference side event where we talked about ‘Re-defining Pragmatism’.  

During the questions, I was asked one of the toughest questions that I’ve had to publicly respond to in a long time… “What is your vision for the sustainable world you want by 2050?”

We spend a lot of time in the environment/climate/justice movement talking about how we need to “take urgent action now”. We’re very good at talking about the changes that we want to see - more renewable energy, an end to coal and fossil fuels. We want to decrease wasteful, unnecessary consumption and have ‘cyclical’ production systems, recycling, instead of linear extract-use-waste systems. We want an end to materialism. We want an end to deforestation. We want people in the least developed countries to have clean water to drink and access to healthcare. We want bicycles, buses and trains, not cars. And if cars, fully electric. We want polluting activities to cost more so that there is a financial incentive to be environmentally friendly. We want a fundamental shift in the way that our society, industry and economy operate. We want local food production and an acknowledgement that we’re currently overpopulated and need, somehow, to address this. We don’t want biofuels that destroy livelihoods or which compete with food production. But limited amounts of biofuel, from agricultural wastes, if they would otherwise be wasted are ok. We want you to eat less red meat.

We say that we - today’s youth - are the generation who are willing to make these changes reality over the next four decades, during our working lifetimes. On this topic, youth in Bonn ran a ridiculously-successful t-shirt campaign called ‘How old will you be in 2050?’ Personally, I’ll be 65, just retiring after dedicating my working life to the sustainability transition.

But when all of these changes are in place, in 2050, how will the world be different? What sort of society will we have? What is the key difference between now and then? We know that we need ‘a fundamental shift’, but what to?

This was the question that I was confronted with (and surprised by) at the side-event last week. While I know the answer in my heart, and have thought about it in countless ‘visioning sessions’, I have rarely had to articulate it.

I started to list the things that I outlined above… “We want a world where all the electricity comes from renewables, no more fossil fuels, a world where people ride their bike instead of driving cars.” It was about this moment that I realised that this was fairly predictable, and not what the Texan reporter was looking for.

“But all that is the obvious stuff. What we need between now and 2050 is a fundamental revolution in our social values. Where we understand and focus on what really makes us happy, instead of how much money we make.”

Without wanting to waffle for too long in responding to the question, I pointed to an end to wasteful materialism and the capitalist growth-at-all-costs economy, and referred to the study of happiness and the happiness economics that they do at Harvard, and other places. 

I also managed to briefly outline a few aspects of my vision - a world where we no longer ‘work jobs we hate to buy shit we don’t need’, where we entertain ourselves with arts, music, sport, community, cooking and sharing meals with friends, instead of going to the shopping mall to ‘consume’.

There’s obviously a lot more work to be done here. Communicating a positive vision of the sustainable future - and not just the stuff/technology/practices that it has in it, but the values which underpin it - is crucial to our success. I’d like to start collecting these visions and over the next few months, synthsise them into something that is widely communicable. Then we can make this vision not just personal, but political too.

Two experiences that I’ve collected in the past five months of travelling give me some indication of the world that I want to head towards

1. It’s Easter Sunday in Amsterdam today, and everything is shut. People are staying in their houses and not out on the streets as they usually are in Amsterdam. So it’s been quiet all day. I’m standing on the balcony listening to some birds and sipping tea. Then, suddenly, emerging from around the corner, an eclectic four-piece band (Trumpet, Saxaphone, Tamborine and Accordion!) bursts into my quiet reality playing sweet Samba music. They’re colourfully dressed, appear totally impromptu, and are a mix of ages and races. There is no choreography. I watch for a few minutes as they make their way down my street - windows are opening, people stepping onto their balconies to see what is going on. Some are even dancing. The street is alive! When the song finishes and the band disappears around the next corner, a polite round of applause comes from the balconies, and people return to whatever they were doing before. Such random acts of beauty and kindness are something that I envisage being not just ‘random’ in 2050, but a focus of our existence.

2. In January I had the immense pleasure of living at London’s Temporary School of Thought. Just today I came across a notepad where I had recorded some reflections on the school, which I’ve never had the opportunity to share. I think that this goes some way towards the vision that I am trying to articulate.

“From day one in this society we are made to conform, to be less free, with less choice - through indoctrination by our school systems, through fear of authority, through rigid moral rules imposed on us by closed-minded religions, and through the false ideals that advertising causes us to pursue. In direct opposition to this conformity, the community here [at the Temporary School] is totally free - we educate ourselves how and when they want to, we explore the nuances of existence and life, and we are constantly discovering new ways of thinking.

An authority unto itself alone, with no recognition or even acknowledgement of systemic powers, the moral code of the School and it’s friends is based only on mutual respect, trust and community. The ideals shared here have nothing to do with what advertising has told us to aspire to.

In 2050, we will be a society that is:

Unplugged but switched on.

Truly alive. Safe, beautiful, fun, welcoming. Coommunity.

Independent. Free. Temporary.

Always expressing love as the joyful recognition of each other’s existence,

even on the quieter, harder days.

This is the joyfully cobbled together, temporary, school of thought.

We drink lots of tea.

A sustainable world is a creative world.

This was first posted on Climate Change Perspectives

Popularity: 96% [?]

I love how they have senate submissions and ask stakeholders to contribute. Arguably on every issue, but particularly on climate policy, every single global citizen is a stakeholder. But I’m not sure if they could handle 7 billion submissions. 

The Australian people are facing a catastrophe if we do not act to mitigate the threat of climate change. Human society has so far flourished during a period known as the Holocene, during which global mean surface temperatures have varied little, and the sea level has been almost constant. Climate change threatens to disturb this balance, drive up temperatures, raise sea levels, and endanger human civilisation as we know it.

The CPRS legislation indicates a fatal disregard for this scientifically-accepted conclusion. The 5%/15% target is woeful and scientifically inadequate. The compensation to polluters fails to create an incentive or serious price signal that will drive the change that is needed in our society – most worryingly is the compensation given to the coal industry. While the compensation given to EITE industries is expensive, I agree with it in principle. The compensation given to the coal industry is without rationale or justification – James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute, amongst many other scientists, justly calls for an end to all coal-burning as a necessary step to addressing global warming. Furthermore, the scheme allows for unlimited international ‘carbon credits’, that is, businesses can offset their domestic emissions by decreasing emissions in other countries. As I understand it, treasury modelling indicates that Australia’s emissions will actually rise, given this provision. While this may seem a technical point, the truth is that we need to not just reduce international emissions, but have a paradigm shift in Australian cities, and move towards a carbon-free future. International exports do not support this.

Also, as you hopefully are aware, Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute makes an irresistible case against the CPRS on the grounds that it ignores the efforts of individuals. In short, emissions reductions undertaken by concerned individuals – say, by installing insulation, or solar hot water - will simply free up permits to be used by others, most likely the big polluters. The 5% target thus represents not only a ceiling, but a floor, and emissions reductions cannot go beneath that in the current scheme.

Addressing climate change is the single most important issue facing the world today. Luckily, we need not address it at the expense of human well-being. Various modelling has shown that stabilising at a lower level of carbon dioxides has a net-cost near zero. Aside from protecting a livable climate, benefits would include: lower rates of the respiratory illness brought about by photochemical smog and airborne pollutants; lowering the strain that these illnesses put on our health system and those costs; reducing oil imports from middle-eastern countries with a history of supporting terrorism – imports that effectively subsidise terror; minimising the other environmental harms associated with fossil fuel mining and production, such as oil spills, coal ash slides, groundwater contamination and wilderness and habitat destruction.

Economic benefits would inevitable flow from this movement. International competitivity would be increased by greater environmental legislation – countries such as Germany are an example of this, having a high rate of patents of environmental technology. Green jobs would be created, jobs that couldn’t be outsourced, and many of these jobs would be in rural areas. Investments in efficiency would shortly pay for themselves, working out to be cost-negative, saving both businesses and individuals money. The extra disposable income for all people would act as a further stimulus to the economy. 

The case for climate action, properly understood, is, quite simply, without flaw. In this day and age, every parliamentarian – indeed, every holder of power in every nation – is morally indebted to those who their decisions affect, and this moral obligation demands decisive, inspirational, world-changing and life-saving action against climate change.

Popularity: 98% [?]

THE USA IS BACK! But still not good enough.

Well, that was refreshing.

A few hours ago, the new US administration made their first public input into the UNFCCC process! It was yet another pleasurable reminder that G.W. Bush is gone, and that his legacy is slowly dying.

Todd Stern, the new, much-celebrated, US Special Envoy on Climate Change, opened his speech with a message that he transmitted ‘direct from President Obama’:

“We’re very glad we’re back. We want to make up for lost time, and we are seized with the urgency of the task before us.”

This was received with a rapturous, enthusiastic round of applause - the sound of hope ringing in the room.

“You will not here anyone on this very skilled US team cast doubt upon the science of global climate change,” said Stern, again demonstrating how substantive a shift occurred on November 4. Every climate campaigner in the room, when reflecting back to the dark days of climate scepticism in the US administration, seemed to breathe a sigh of relief at that moment.

Stern even said that ‘the US acknowledges their responsibility as the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases’. Another big step forward. Another sign of hope. With all this hope, it would have been so easy to get carried away.

Thankfully though, Tuvalu, an AOSIS member, brought the room back town to earth after America spoke, warning us to take the words of the US with a grain of salt:

“It is beholden on me as a representative of the most vulnerable country in the world to speak out. We welcome the United States remarks… but we hope the rhetoric is matched by reality.”

With this in mind, I’d like to offer some advice to US activists - don’t pause your campaigning to celebrate the government’s rhetoric. Let’s not be stupid about this. Don’t ‘give them time’ without criticism, naively hoping that they’ll do the right thing, translating good words into real action. If you don’t push them, hard, then you won’t be rewarded. We learned this the hard way in Australia, after the election of Kevin Rudd, November 24 2007. Let me tell a story to illustrate…

Consider the parallels with the current ‘Obama situation’:

One week after his election, our new PM Kevin Rudd publicly ratified the Kyoto protocol, as his first act of government. It was publicly acclaimed as great leadership. The nation celebrated. I was proud to be Australian again. However, in 20-20 hindsight, it wasn’t anything more than a symbolic act, and it certainly wasn’t ‘international leadership’ – it didn’t step out ahead of the pack and lead, it just brought Australia into the ‘Kyoto club’ that they had been out of for so long. Our praise of the government’s action went on for a little too long.

Following ratification, the Rudd government announced a year-long plan of reports, drafts and papers, which now seems to have been designed to placate the Australian environment movement, create the illusion of progress, and distract us from ‘the big picture’. The Garnaut interim report, draft report and review; the green paper and then the white paper on emissions trading, the targets. Australia’s targets were originally scheduled to be announced well before Poznan, but were instead delayed until the day after COP14 closed – and then they were only 5-15% below 2000 levels – a total disaster.

The ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’ – government-speak for Australian emissions trading – is now so poorly designed and gives out so much compensation to polluters, that the climate movement in Australia is now saying that it must be scrapped in its current form. One year after the ‘inspiration’ of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong have demonstrated that in fact, they are still laggards, not leaders on climate.

And all this because many of us in the climate movement naively trusted them, placing our hope in government to bring us the solutions that we wanted, and ‘giving them the space’ to make progress through the bureaucracy. It didn’t work.

America – don’t make the same mistake. Don’t trust Obama to save your nation’s climate policies without serious pushing from the people. You of all nations know that healthy public criticism is what makes democracy great.

I am personally extremely concerned - especially after today’s press conference in Bonn of American climate NGOs - about the polite restraint within the NGO sector from criticism of the new administration.

Isn’t it clear to the US movement that Obama’s target of 1990 by 2020 is entirely inadequate, and needs to be shifted? Even the old, conservative IPCC science says ‘at least 25-40% below 1990 levels’ is what is required by 2020. Al Gore’s ‘We’ campaign is talking about 100% renewable energy by 2020. That sort of thing is visionary, and that is where government policy needs to go.

In Todd Stern’s presentation in plenary today, he referred to the possibility of agreeing on a global reduction target of ‘more than 15% by 2020?. Sorry, America, but that’s the wrong answer. The global target needs to be at least 40% by 2020. 15% is strongly likely lead to runaway climate change, and destroy our future. Not good enough, Obama.

Additionally, they new administration is still focused on the ‘economic growth’ paradigm, and on ‘capitalising’ on the solutions to climate change – which is a long way from the total paradigm-shift that many in civil society are now calling for, as an opportunity emerging from the financial crisis. Also, Obama is persisting with Bush’s ‘Major Economies’ process – having renamed it from the ‘Major Economies Meeting’, or ‘MEM’ to the ‘MEF’ instead. That’s ‘F’ for ‘Forum’. By including 16 ‘major economies’ in parallel talks to the UN climate process, they are effectively removing the voices of the smaller, poorer, and more climate-vulnerable nations from their discussions. It is not morally correct.

So what should the movement do about this? While it’s great that Obama is not Bush, and we should smile about that – let’s not allow this to create an illusion that the new administration is somehow a ‘leader’ on climate. Because they certainly aren’t. The real leadership is from the most vulnerable nations – AOSIS and LDCs. And it is with them that our solidarity and focus should lie.

Strengthening the US climate movement is crucial. The next four decades to 2050 will be a people-led but government-supported sustainability revolution. The USA, even after today’s progress, still doesn’t support the growing movement. The government is still a block to action.

If Obama’s reputation as ‘a movement man’ – a man who listens to the people – has any substance to it, then the path to removing their block and replacing it with support is clear.

As the climate movement, we need to not pause, but to keep criticising, encouraging and pushing the USA in the right direction, in negotiations and in the public sphere, until their political walls give way.

This post first appeared in Climate Change Perspectives.

Popularity: 100% [?]

When one considers the social progress that has been made in the course of human history, there is a great deal to be grateful for. We used to live in societies where women and non-whites were subjugated, where sexual expression was repressed, where healthcare and education were rudimentary and hardly available to the lower classes. However, over the course of centuries, progress has been made. The evolution of more democratic forms of government seems to have facilitated the improvement of health and education services. Many forms of discrimination have been abolished or legislated against, generally as the result of a mass movement. Ideas previously overlooked, such as animal rights, have also seen progress - the Great Ape Project, founded in 1993, aims to have non-human great apes granted several basic rights.

Reflecting upon this, it seems that there is some sort of path that human civilisation is on. This path leads to a society that is characterised by greater equality and respect for all of its members. Whether or not there is some ‘city on the hill’ where all conceivable social progress has been made, or whether it is an endless journey, there is no doubt that humanity as a whole is more than just it has historically been. While recent developments in the context of global terrorism have seen these rights violated in some instances, this situation of human social progress, can be thought of like a ratchet, such that each step, once made, is almost irreversible, and that a right or recognition, once granted, is now available for all humans.

This sort of advancement can also be seen in humanity’s attitude towards the environment. While it is true that human environmental destruction is greater than it ever has been, even to the point of threatening current civilisation, our awareness of the vulnerability of the environment seems to be more acute than ever, no doubt partly motivated by a selfish awareness that environmental destruction will spell our own demise. The banning of CFCs, in terms of environmental protection, is comparable to other developments in social progress: there was something wrong, laws and attitudes changed, and now humanity is in a better place than it was. Personally, I see a lot of hope in this regard. Opportunities to help the environment abound more than ever, and people are taking advantage of these. On a recent trip to Melbourne, I was able to bus to and from the airport. I took a bus back to Adelaide and offset my emissions. The camp I attended had an ‘Environmental Sustainability Officer’, who had overseen revegetation projects and the installation of rainwater tanks, which supplied water for showering or gardening. A friend who put me up for a night or two had an awe-inspiring vegetable garden. Her organic waste went into a compost for this garden and other waste was recycled as much as possible. In South Australia, a ban on plastic bags has been introduced and, once it takes effect, customers will have to use the re-usable ‘green bags’ that are the obvious solution to the problem of disposable bags. In addition to this, the state has met its target of 20% energy from renewable sources. Federally, a similar target is to be instituted, and the introduction of a Carbon Trading Scheme in 2010 will no doubt also encourage environmentally sustainable practises. One might think that, on the environmental front, things are just peachy.

Well, it’s not quite a case of ‘you couldn’t be more wrong’, but there is one difference between making social progress and making environmental progress. The social advances that have been made didn’t occur in an environment of urgency. Women campaigning for women’s rights didn’t need to achieve their goal by a certain time and, while the existence of discrimination in the past would always be sad, it would be possible to prevent it from directly affecting the present once equal rights were gained. Regarding gay marriage, while I think that it should be made legal, I don’t fervently campaign for it: when Prop. 8, a proposition to remove the right of gay people to marry, passed in California: 62% of voters over 65 voted for it, a similar proportion of younger voters voted against it. This demonstrates that the legalisation of gay marriage is almost inevitable – it is a simply a matter of time, as those who would vote against it are gradually taken to the grave. While it is shameful that it will take maybe twenty more years for this injustice to be righted, those twenty years aren’t much considering the centuries of injustice that preceded them.

Environmental progress is a different ball game, because even if it may be desirable, there is an inescapable deadline on making change. Lowering of our carbon emissions is definitely set to happen, as technologies continue to improve and people continue to realise how easy it is to change. This lowering is urgent, and must occur within the next few years. Head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and an economist, has made it clear:

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” 

Tackling climate change isn’t comparable to opposing apartheid or supporting the legalisation of euthanasia: climate change is a threat to human civilisation that demands immediate and urgent action. If this action occurs doesn’t occur in time, even if it does eventually, the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere will contribute to irreversibel change. A rapid reduction in emissions from 2010 would still result in 2.1 – 2.8ºC rise in global temperature by 2100. On our current emissions path, we are looking at 5.5 C: mass extinction, ocean acidification, desertification, brutal heat-waves and rising sea levels.

Climate Change isn’t an unfortunate injustice that ought to be righted some time in the future. It is a threat to human civilisation as we know it. 

Image courtesy of westcoastclimateequity.org

Popularity: 26% [?]

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: 45% [?]

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: 37% [?]