coljac
Colin Jacobs in, on and about the Internet
  • Entries
  • Comment
  • Popular
Recent Posts
  • Data retention TV spot...
  • Conroy’s done it again...
  • Quit Facebook Day...
  • Why I joined the Greens...
Recent Comments
  • Andy Smith You make perfect sense of course. ...
  • Web Filter Marvelous website. Reditted!...
  • An Idle Dad Thanks for the response BTW. I've b...
  • Andy Smith That all looked rather fun!...
Popular Articles
  • Superfreakonomics and bad incentives (10)
  • Blurring the lines (9)
  • Why I joined the Greens (7)
  • Hey, Tweeter. You're fired! (6)
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Writing
  • China Blog

Global Warming, Cold Feet

Posted by Colin in Opinion, Politics on 12 8th, 2007 | no responses

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics latest report indicates that we are to be one of the countries worst affected by global warming with a decrease in agricultural production on the order of 17%. This figure pales in to comparison to India’s 25%, truly a scary number when you consider how many mouths that 25% is feeding. We hardly needed any more reminding, but the visions of our planet’s broiling future keep on coming.

This is why I am starting to despair about Bali even before the negotiations have really begun. “Australia’s delegation in Bali was quoted as saying Australia ‘fully supports’ a plan for developed nations to examine cutting emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020″, we read in yesterday’s paper, but:

Mr Rudd and his Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, later issued statements stressing that Australia was not yet committing to any 2020 targets… By playing down the need for Australia to commit to the deep cuts in emissions…Labor under Kevin Rudd has agreed to set a target of a 60% cut by 2050, but has resisted setting a 2020 goal…

This is not encouraging reading. It does not suggest that Australia is about to become a leader in the global response to climate change. What is suggests to me is that Australia, like most other nations, will haggle and bargain and make rhetoric about sharing the responsibility and try and get away with a minimum of commitment. Rudd himself described the process as “horse trading.” Horse trading! Need I even point out that coming together to prevent irreversible changes to the Earth’s climate needs a different mindset than negotiating a bauxite exporting contract? If we approach global warming as a game to be optimized in our country’s favor, we are truly doomed. The horse trading will turn to recriminations as the disaster hits.

The world is crying out for leadership here, and I had high hopes we might provide it. “We owe it future generations to prevent this disaster occurring,” a parallel-universe Rudd might have said. “Whatever the cost, Australia will shoulder its obligations, and help those in the developing world to bear theirs. All humanity is in this together, and time is too short for any further prevarication and horse trading.” Fictional Rudd then evoked the spirit of the Apollo Project as he called on the world to make a massive investment in alternative energy research. “We not only plan on meeting these agressive targets but surpassing them by harnessing the limitless ingenuity of our scientists, engineers, and entrepeneurs.” I wonder, which alarms you more, the imaginary speech or the remarks printed in the real-world newspaper?

Of course, we’re much better off with Rudd than the previous government. In the same article opposition leader Brendan Nelson was quoted as saying “a 2020 target in the range mentioned in Bali would damage industries and hurt low-income Australians.” I have a hard time understanding the logic underpinning a statement like this. How can one weigh up shaving 0.2%, say, of Australia’s economic growth with preventing an unprecedented global catastrophe and decide to err in favour of the former?

It’s clear to me that the consequences of global warming are truly terrible. To cut our emissions according to the most agressive schedule, what cut in my standard of living would be required today? Couldn’t we as a nation tighten our belts and make do with a 1% increase in the tax rate, higher electricity prices, or a surcharge on the price of new cars? How will my standard of living decrease when war, famine and drought are the order of the day?

This video sums things up nicely. The costs of action can be well understood and are not unbearable. The costs of inaction are to a large extent unknown but could be catastrophic. It doesn’t matter if the true extent of global warming isn’t a certainty – it merely has to be likely or even possible for immediate action to be warranted. What’s more, I think the electorate largely agrees with me. It’s time Kevin Rudd and the the world’s leaders to step up and do what needs to be done.

(Originally from http://claytonsouthlabor.blogspot.com/)

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Recent tweets

  • Listening to Lib & ALP talk about climate change. It's all about 'balancing' jobs and costs. Balance costs with global doom? 1 day ago
  • @decryption How scarce will supplies be? 2 days ago
  • @ECH0x3 I wish it was over also, and that we won. :) 2 days ago
  • Just did a spot on The Morning Show. Think it got cut short because of Miranda Kerr's honeymoon. 3 days ago
  • #qanda We're still treating climate change like any other old policy. It's hard science, and the earth is peril. Stop quibbling! 3 days ago

Archives

  • July 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • April 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • November 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • April 2007

Blogroll

  • Andy Social
  • EFA
  • Larvatus Prodeo
  • Nic Suzor
  • Open Internet
  • Pharyngula
  • Somebody Think of the Children
  • Stilgherrian
Powered by Wordpress | Designed by Elegant Themes