Commentary

18 Comments

Australia is experiencing a crescendo of nonsense in relation to our contribution to halting anthropogenic climate change. The danger is that by shouting loudest, longest, the proponents of some highly inconsistent arguments are gaining the upper hand.

The government's round-table meeting on Friday with the heads of some of Australia's largest companies – BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, BlueScope Steel, Woodside, Woolworths and NAB – was, by all accounts, a kind of shouting match over the levels of compensation our biggest carbon emitting corporates will receive under the government's proposed carbon tax.

But no, it's not those company representatives being inconsistent or nonsensical – they are doing their job, putting their shareholders first and attempting to protect the profitability of their businesses.

Rather, it's media comment that is twisting legitimate corporate concerns into perverse arguments – pricing carbon is too difficult, it will never work, Australia is too small to make a difference, and even that democracy itself it incompatible with coordinated global action of this kind.

Let's look at the last point first. Since September 2001, a large group of democratic nations have mobilised to fight an insidious trend – the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks, in which the few sought to control the many through acts of inhuman violence. The 'war on terror' was launched to fight an uncertain enemy in remote an inhospitable theatres of action – indeed, brave Australians continue to make a disproportionate contribution to this cause in Afghanistan.

Democratic nations likewise partnered with not-so-democratic China in 2009, to launch an unprecedented fiscal stimulus to prevent an economic collapse from which we may have taken decades if not centuries to recover.

There is no reason to think governments and businesses globally cannot succeed in reducing and then controlling our contribution to global warming.

Fatuous arguments abound – that all of Australia's carbon pain will amount to nothing and that playing our role in addressing a historic market failure, will not slow global warming at all. This is defeatist in the extreme. We might be responsible for only 1.4 per cent of global emissions, but it is sobering to remember that only 0.3 per cent of humanity lives within our borders. There's a lot that can be done here. Indeed, if we do not take adequate steps to rein in our carbon emissions, those 99.7 per cent of the world's population will want to know why (China will hold us to account on carbon, March 17)

Moreover, we have long avoided such foggy thinking when it comes to defence. Putting our troops in harms way in Afghanistan is not a direct defence against the kind of attack perpetrated against our citizens in Bali in 2002 and 2005. But defence is not always about immediate cause and effect – playing an important role in the war on terror cements Australia's place in a global order that has sent a resounding message to would-be terrorists around the globe – we might be 'weak' democracies, but we will not accept your actions.

I do not know what drives the critics of steps to address global warming, but invariably their arguments ignore or distort some important facts:

-- The scientific consensus on global warming is getting stronger, not weaker. Those who question the 'radiative forcing' attributable to carbon dioxide increases should, logically, also dispute the global cooling effect of certain other human activities (see IPCC chart below, from page 136 of this report), including the changes we've made to the reflective qualities of the Earth's surface (the surface albedo) and the blanket of small particles (aerosols) we've managed to create since the beginning of the industrial revolution. But they never get a mention, because it is easier to cast the overwhelming number of scientists who support the global warming thesis as privileged, ivory tower nutters if we focus on just one aspect of their work.



-- The cost of reducing emissions increases with every passing year, as does the huge cost Australians will have to bear, along with the rest of the world, if carbon dioxide levels are not stabilised in the atmosphere at a level that limits anthropogenic warming at 'only' 2 degrees Celsius.

-- Both sides of politics in Australia acknowledge these first two points in their policy positions (if not in the public rhetoric of some Coalition figures at anti-carbon tax rallies). Both Labor and the Coalition have a policy commitment to reduce Australia's carbon emissions by 5 per cent from 2000 levels by 2020. That's a herculean task for an economy such as ours, but the means of achieving it are taking second place to the argument over whether 'Australia can make a difference'. Until either Labor or the Coalition decide to junk this objective, we are headed for carbon abatement, be it through a government-imposed price signal (a carbon tax or ETS that attempts to make less polluting activities more cost effective) or through direct government intervention (the tax/spend approach of the Coalition's direct action policy).

The problem with Australia's carbon debate is not that commentators shouldn't question the science, or the policy approach to dealing with climate change. That's a necessary part of democratic debate.

But those who do not side with the bulk of the scientific community should make that case – not keep that opinion to themselves and instead focus on arguing 'there's nothing we can do about it anyway'.

Moreover, why halt this line of reasoning half-way? If the science is wrong, let's cut government funding for the physical, chemical and biological sciences. They obviously don't know what they're doing.

If the science is accepted, but it's argued that coordinated global action can't work, let's talk instead about what we'll do when chaotic weather patterns begin wreaking havoc on human and biological systems – how will we deal with those costs?

And if Australia is too small to count in global climate change, let's stop pretending we can make a difference in other coordinated global policy areas such as defence or financial and economic policy.

These are all nonsensical arguments. And they are, unfortunately, dominating Australia's carbon debate at this time.

|  

---

Related Industry Sectors

View the latest stories on Economy

View the latest stories on Climate Change

View the latest stories on Politics & IR

---

18 Comments

Contribute to the Conversation

Lawrence Cummings wrote:

Rob Burgess is correct about about a lot of the media coverage on the proposed Carbon Tax (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11).

It seems that Australia is to get two carbon taxes. One carbon tax causes modest increases in prices for electricity, food and petrol that are quite affordable for most. Families on low incomes, who might have been forced to cut back on consumption, will be 'over-compensated'. We are told it will be barely noticeable.

The other carbon tax will force great changes on society and lead to a reduction of many tens of millions of tonnes in Australia's emissions of co2. We are told this will happen even though previous larger increases in electricity and petrol prices, without compensation, have not caused a reduction in emissions of CO2. Will the real carbon tax please stand up!

11 Apr 2011 8:49 AM

Don Callanan wrote:

Regarding uranium – as you may or may not be aware, we produce about 20 per cent of the world's uranium. We are so generous in fact we don't use any ourselves and just send it off shore to be processed and used in the world's reactors. Those on the receiving end then enrich the uranium and use it in their nuclear reactors and voila – low carbon emission electricity! A miracle – it is like magic!

About 17 per cent of the world's electricity is generated this way and we don't take credit for one watt of it. In fact, low carbon emission per capita in Europe gets about 25-30 per cent of its electricity this way. Good on ya, guys – we are such a bunch of knuckle dragging high emission scumbags here in Australia. What are we gonna do, huh? (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11.)

11 Apr 2011 8:50 AM

Rob Smith wrote:

The issue around all of this is that the government wants to introduce another tax which again will hit middle and upper income earners while compensating lower earners (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11).

It's not about global warming, its about wealth redistribution, so why is the government hiding behind climate change? Anything to do with holding onto power, perhaps?

11 Apr 2011 12:17 PM

Cedric Byrne wrote:

I guess I'm a "knucklehead" Rob, so maybe you can enlighten me as to how we replace the 220 billion kWH generated by our coal-fired generators? Please do the numbers for all of those "knuckleheads" who have yet to figure it out (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11).

11 Apr 2011 12:39 PM

Phil Hovell wrote:

Reading carbon tax articles from those with a pro or anti view is taking me further away from knowing what is 'best' or 'least worst' for Australia.

It appears that brown coal power stations are the single biggest problem that we have to fix in a carbon reduction programme. Can someone tell me in simple terms how and when a carbon tax will lead to the closure and replacement of these brown coal power stations? (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11.)

11 Apr 2011 1:13 PM

Kevin Page wrote:

Is it possible to get more information on thorium? Is a thorium fuelled reactor so much more expensive than a uranium fuelled reactor, considering it is reputed to be much safer? When are the people who count likely to investigate the possibilities? A full scale investigation would seem to be required if we are to replace coal-fired power stations with something which can produce base-load electricity with less co2, safely (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11).

11 Apr 2011 1:58 PM

Grant Colbran wrote:

I agree with the science behind global warming but I think that if the government was serious about changing peoples attitudes they would gradually put a tax on all of the products that cause greenhouse gasses at the point where they are extracted – and not at the point where they create co2 (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11).

The miners should be taxed at the point of sale. This would ensure a more level playing field. Under the government's proposal our electricity producers pay the tax and then the consumer but when we sell it to China or India their electricity producers pay noting. As a result their industries will be more competitive than ours. There will be no change in attitudes by subsidising consumers and some industries.

As a result it is fairly obvious that this is a wealth distribution exercise. The trouble with this little Labor experiment is that it will cost many thousands of Australia jobs.

11 Apr 2011 2:34 PM

Michael Barry wrote:

It is interesting to compare the thrust of this article (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11) and related comments with that of Alan Kohler's today (See Carbon reality bites).

11 Apr 2011 3:31 PM

Steve Cannard wrote:

Rob,

I don't think it's irrelevant that if Australia meets its target of 5% reduction in carbon emission it will have absolutely no effect on climate change. We will be putting our country at an incredible economic disadvantage for a moral position of superiority over 'them'. (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11.)

The fact that China and India (for instance) do not intent to reduce emissions - in fact they will be significantly increasing their emissions over the coming decades will swamp any reductions Australia makes by a quantum figure. The result is that Australia becomes less competitive and more vulnerable for no benefit to the environment.

I would much rather see Australia implement a very modest carbon tax (say $5-10/ton) and put all of the revenue into clean energy research. The goal would be to make renewables more competitive with carbon - as opposed to making carbon more expensive. The point is that cheap energy is the basis of our prosperity - without it our standard of living is under attack.

Another objection I have to the carbon tax is that it is highly politicised and I do not see you argue convincingly that this is nonsense. I agree with Alan Kohler ('What's greening Gillard's Gills') that the revenue is likely to become a pork barrel fund that is used to buy votes instead of benefit the environment. It is one thing to do our best for the environment; it is entirely another thing to lock ourselves into a fiscal straitjacket that serves to keep politicians in power.

11 Apr 2011 3:49 PM

Neville Connor wrote:

Co2 is such a minute proportion of the gases in the atmosphere – how much do we have to reduce it by to make a difference? (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11.)

Anyone who believed this action would result in drastic change in our weather patterns, must have questioned their own gullibility when Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery mused, "That it could be several hundred to a thousand years before any noticeable change". Please stop Tim before he does any real damage to our economy. Maybe he could have a cartoon column in The Australian or perhaps the AFR.

11 Apr 2011 4:41 PM

Jon Peterson wrote:

How quaint: "focus on arguing 'there's nothing we can do about it anyway'. " (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11.)

11 Apr 2011 10:13 PM

Andrew Phillips wrote:

It amazes me why this whole argument has got down to simply "carbon" when the real argument is about pollution (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11).

Businesses and individuals are now so much more aware that we can't just dump toxic products just anywhere! Taxing the people is just a means to create a slush fund, a redistribution of wealth, from the many for the benefit of those in power to further there careers. It will achieve very little and the individuals who make up our nations will not see any difference but be much poorer for the experience.

11 Apr 2011 10:19 PM

Chris Steinfort wrote:

Dear Rob, I have read your articles for weeks and have decided that I think you should leave Business Spectator and go to Climate Spectator, where other sycophantic global warmists aggregate (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11).

It seems that you cannot see the cost and the lack of benefit form a carbon tax and you continue to pose weak arguments in favour of it. The bottom line is that most of us will be paying a lot more tax, many of us will lose their jobs, and Australia will lose its greatest industrial asset – cheap energy. And there will be no global benefit for mother earth. Please spare us your opinion.

11 Apr 2011 10:48 PM

Victoria Collins wrote:

Carbon tax a "wealth distribution exercise"? (See 'A level carbon tax playing field', Conversation contribution, April 11).

There will be a rate of approximately $17/week out of the pockets of the uncompensated to the compensated, if a $25-30/tonne co2 carbon price is set. Gee, that'll really cause massive social dislocation and the wealthy to be flung onto the streets. Not.

Now, were all these 'wealth distribution' whingers on their high horses when Howard overcompensated the pensioners and low and middle income earners for the introduction of the GST? Sound of crickets chirping. (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11.)

12 Apr 2011 1:23 PM

George Antony wrote:

Rob, this article of yours is quite shrill (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11).

Others have addressed major logical faults, so I will just remark on this "if we don't act today, it will be more expensive tomorrow" argument.

This ain't necessarily so. Technology is improving by the day, becoming both more effective and cheaper. If the decision is about replacing a bit of carbon-belching asset with "green" technology next year or later, doing it later will be cheaper. (This is private profitability, ignoring the lost opportunity of abatement.)

What is more expensive is if we replace the same piece of equipment with similarly carbon-emitting new gear now, and then have to scrap it prematurely to go "green". However, pretending that this is the only replacement scenario is incorrect.

12 Apr 2011 10:20 PM

Paul Winthrop wrote:

Sorry Rob, but I feel you lost all credibility with the statement "to prevent an economic collapse from which we may have taken decades if not centuries to recover" (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11).

Perhaps the fiscal stimulus money would have been better spent on renewable energy research than school halls. I agree with Lawrence (See 'A tale of two carbon taxes', Conversation contribution, April 11) that recent large increases in energy and fuel costs have not reduced consumption – so how is a tax going to work? If we compensate, what will the money be spent on? More consumption! How will that help?

14 Apr 2011 2:21 PM

Mark Peasley wrote:

Rob said "If the [carbon] science is wrong, let's cut government funding for the physical, chemical and biological sciences. They obviously don't know what they're doing" (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11).

Yes please. If I was permitted, I'd do so. The idea that throwing vast amounts of taxpayer money at government research institutions yields only benefits is naive in the extreme. Add the sacred cow of "infrastructure" (the Victorian desalination plant and the new water pipeline are just some egregious examples) and "education" (BER) to the foggy ideal that that government funded "visionary" schemes pay real dividends.

15 Apr 2011 11:12 AM

Norm Johnson wrote:

This may be your opinion, Rob, but then you probably would not have to worry about losing your job or giving up anything meaningful like your house or, say, food (See A crescendo of carbon nonsense, April 11). Why don't you move to a place that does not contribute much in the scheme of things, like Tasmania, then you could hold long conversations with the like minded.

16 Apr 2011 11:10 AM

Contribute to the Conversation

To contribute your comments for possible publication, please Login or Register.

Preference will be given to succinct contributions. We may contact you via email prior to publication.

Copyright © 2012 Business Spectator Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

ABN 76 126 233 725