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: 66% [?]

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: 76% [?]