JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

New feature Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings View Demo

Hi there! Beta version

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

National Times

Politicians' self-interest will drive climate action

Emily Mulligan
September 28, 2010

Opinion

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Video will begin in 5 seconds.

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Carbon tax within sight

Australia could have a carbon tax within two years as Julia Gillard announced a new climate change committee.

It's been a tough year for those of us committed to tackling the climate crisis. The previous government tried fruitlessly to legislate for an emissions trading scheme, while the tragic floods in Pakistan, record heat waves in Europe, and steadily melting ice in the arctic all hint at what life in a warming world could look like.

Still, even as one who approaches politics with a healthy dose of realism, I'm optimistic that we are turning a corner in the effort to cut the carbon dioxide emissions that are driving climate change.

First, while it may seem incomprehensible that our leaders would sit idly by while study after study made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the climate was changing, and that the burning of fossil fuels was responsible for it, we know that politicians, being politicians, act more frequently out of self-interest than they do out of common interest.

And so one must greet the announcement this week that Prime Minister Julia Gillard will herself chair a committee specifically dedicated to tackle climate change, by acknowledging the possibility that what is good for politicians is finally starting to align with what is good for the planet.

This assertion is supported by a new political reality that has the Greens enjoying more leverage in parliament than at any point in history, as well as a recent Australian Conservation Foundation poll  that shows more than 80 per cent of Australians want the new government to rapidly invest in clean energy alternatives such as wind, solar and geothermal. (Incidentally the poll showed that regional Australians are even more enthusiastic than those from cities about the switch to renewable power, dispelling an age-old myth about a rural-urban divide when it comes to cutting carbon.)

It is truism in politics that those in power, even the ones we think are on our side, don't change, maybe can't change, unless we make them.

Fortunately, the numbers are beginning to look like we are on the cusp of what the fight to tackle climate change needed all along, not more data about how gases were dangerously accumulating in the atmosphere, or tired old laments about the uselessness of politicians, but a movement of people, young and old, rural and urban, that won't take no for an answer. Former prime minister Kevin Rudd certainly learned the hazard of opposing an idea whose time has come.

And so at 350.org we're working with people from all walks of life, from across Australia and across the world, to empower and amplify the voice of the climate movement through the power of the internet.

Last October, we organised 5200 rallies in 182 countries in what CNN called "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history", to support the goal of stabilising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below 350 parts per million. You can see the energy of the movement in the 20,000 photos that streamed into our Flickr set over the day.

Our latest effort is the 10/10 Global Work Party. Working with the 10:10 campaign and many others, we are co-ordinating what is expected to be the largest practical day of action to fight climate change in history on October 10. From women in Pakistan learning to cook with solar ovens, to sumo wrestlers in Japan riding their bicycles to work, to villagers in Fiji restoring mangroves damaged by Cyclone Tomas, people are getting to work on climate solutions and sending the message to world leaders while they're at it: "We're doing our work, what about you?"

Scores of events are planned in Australia as well. For example, in Victoria, hundreds will be gathering outside the Hazelwood power plant, calling on their leaders to close one of the industrialised world's dirtiest and most inefficient coal-burning facilities. At Macquarie University, students will plant carbon-gobbling trees and share ideas on how to go green. In Townsville, folks are focusing on how permaculture can help alleviate the climate crisis.

Of course, this isn't enough. No person or country or leader can solve the crisis alone. But I'm optimistic that in Australia, even if the evidence that the world is coming to end isn't enough to spur our politicians to act on climate change, the reality that their careers will come to end if they don't, finally will.

Emily Mulligan is Australian national director of 350.org, which is creating a global movement to combat the climate crisis.

59 comments

  • I sometimes wonder just what world people like Emily Mulligan live in because it's sure not this one. The article attempts to make out that the world is moving to a consensus on implementing some form of carbon pricing when the exact opposite is actually happening. If the debacle that was Copenhagen wasn't enough then perhaps the USA which has to all intents and purposes abandoned its carbon trading legislation despite having the democrats controlling both houses of their parliament should have convinced her.

    Over the last two years I have seen the situation change from me being the lone climate change sceptic in just about every situation to where it's the believers who are now the odd ones out.

    Gillard is making all these noises about carbon trading simply to placate the greens. Forming a committee is what you do when you want to look like your taking action without actually really doing anything.

    If Gillard was serious about carbon trading there would be no committee, she'd simply prepare the legislation to be introduced post July 2011 when she would have the required votes in both houses.

    She won't do that because Australia starting a carbon trading program on its own is just plain dumb. Even if you accept the climate change story an Australian carbon trading plan won't make an iota of difference and all it will do is drive up prices for every Australian and push business offshore.

    Australians may be prepared to pay for carbon trading but not if just end up being a tax that achieve nil environmental benefit and any government that introduces such an ineffectual scheme will be comprehensively thrown out of office. Gillard knows this.

    Commenter
    Sherlock
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    September 29, 2010, 6:47AM
  • Let me ask you this sherlock. Do you use a mobile phone? Oh you do, so you accept the 'story' of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. Do you drive a car? You do? So you accept the 'story' of theromodynamics and chemistry. When you jump down from your pedestal of knowledge do you fall to the ground at an accelaration equal to 9.8m/s/s? Oh you do? So surely you believe in Newton's and Einstein's 'stories' of gravity.

    Just calling climate science the climate change 'story' doesn't make the scientific evidence for human caused climate change any less strong. What I find remarkable about climate deniers is that you are willing to trust scientific evidence and the scientific process in virtually every aspect of your life - from being taken into an operating room to hurtling across the pacific in a thin metal tube - but when it comes to that inconvenient truth, you're suddenly an expert who can dismiss the evidence as merely a 'story'.

    Yes australia isn't the only part of the solution to climate change. Yes we need China, America and the rest to jump on board too. But Australia still has a role to play. And, as Marius Klopper's (of BHP) alluded to, its in our economy's own interest to reduce our dependence on carbon.

    Commenter
    pj
    Location
    usa
    Date and time
    September 29, 2010, 7:05AM
  • Sherlock,

    You are dreaming old son. Action on climate change is now inevitable. You obviously don't like that prospect, but you better get used to it, because recalcitrance in an existential issue like this is just going to see you swept aside by the tide of historical inevitability. As the climate worsens, and the climate catastrophes increase in number and severity, the number of denialists will shrink to a rump of delusional flat earthers. Get with the program or get buried!

    Commenter
    Lesm
    Location
    Balmain
    Date and time
    September 29, 2010, 7:29AM
  • Well said, Sherlock. One of the greatest deceptions in the climate debate is the conflation of a carbon tax with addressing climate change. Simple arithmetic shows the 350.org mob to be either deluded or liars.

    Anthropogenic CO2 is about 1% of all CO2. Fact. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/

    Now even if 7 billion humans managed somehow to be entirely carbon neutral (which unless you are cloud-cuckoo nuts is not going to happen) we would knock less than 4 parts per million off the CO2 total (currently less than 400ppm).

    Simple arithmetic tells you that we are never going to get CO2 to 350ppm. Simple logic tells you that we are never going to stop climate changing by reducing our CO2 emissions. So it's a Grand Deception to suggest that a carbon tax will have even the slightest effect on world wide emissions, let alone stop or ameliorate climate change.

    Commenter
    Prince Planet
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    September 29, 2010, 7:31AM
  • Sherlock:

    Australia is one of the most carbon exposed countries in world, re our economy's carbon intensity (both energy and exports). If the world moves, and it is ever so slowly, then we need to prepare for the shift. Even BHP Billiton's CEO Marius Kloppers has realised this.

    The list of countries with carbon taxes/trading is not huge, but its not small either. Your claim that Australia would be going it alone is incorrect. Being a sceptic does not resolve you from dealing in facts. As with many climate change "sceptics", I would like to suggest you've taken this position without properly assessing the (all the) science thus your position is one of dis-belief, rather than one of scepticism, which of course has a very fine tradition in science and related fields. Let me ask a very simple question, how much of the published research on human induced climate change have you read, and understood?

    Commenter
    Cockatoo
    Date and time
    September 29, 2010, 7:41AM
  • This article is just another attempt by an employee of a pro-CO2 trading organisation to promote the thoroughly discredited IPCC propaganda over scientific evidence.

    The use of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt tactics has been done to death with those sceptical of the global warming fear mongers steadily increasing in number. This article is nothing more than Yellow Journalism at its worst.

    The current Labor/Greens coalition do not have a mandate on pushing for a CO2 tax or trading scheme. The Labor party during the last election cycle dismissed any moves on CO2 tax/trading yet with this move have proven themselves to be dishonest to the Australian people and utterly full of contempt for enrolled voters.

    With our climate continuing to cool over the next couple of decades, these charlatans will be exposed as the frauds that they are.

    For those still unsure about the Orwellian global warming tactics, please search online for Climategate and keep an open mind. If you are new to the climate debate, please check out this link:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

    Commenter
    D Bonson
    Location
    Reality
    Date and time
    September 29, 2010, 7:43AM
  • Further to carbon tax. Part of the Grand Deception is the weasel wording of calling it a carbon "price". We are being conditioned to accept that terminology. Note that Gillard et al never mention a number, or how the Tax will be calculated.

    There are 2 ways to implement a carbon tax. You can tax fossil fuels at the source, or you can tax emissions.

    Well if you look hard, you'll find that Bob Brown once nominated the level at $23/tonne. You won't find this on the Greens website.

    So if we tax only coal production, every Australian household will pay over $1000 more for their electricity.

    If we tax our emissions, every man, woman and child will pay an extra $400 a year tax. (Effectively $1000 per household) For absolutely no benefit on climate.

    And no effect on pollution. Subsidies will be given to lower income families, which will negate the amount of tax collected, and negate any move to renewable energy.

    The time to start protesting is now. We can't wait for the last minute like in Copenhagen. The Green/Labor coalition will push this through unless the spotlight is shone upon this shady group of clowns.

    Commenter
    Prince Planet
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    September 29, 2010, 7:45AM
  • I appeal to all readers to consider, seriously consider, the
    counter-argument for "action" on climate change. "Climate change" as it has been defined over the last 2 years is little more than the manifestation of a political movement stemming from the collective nuisences of those aptly described as neo-Malthusians.

    If you do care about your fellow Australians, then I ask you to follow the below link to an interview with Peter Huber. In case you don't already know Peter provides a counter-argument for forced fossil-fuel reduction, exposing the motives behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming claims.

    It's a fact that an over-zealous application of Carbon restrictions WILL damage the people and the wilderness of all nations which comprise the emerging Global-Consensus regime.

    http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=174

    Commenter
    In the interests of balance
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    September 29, 2010, 7:54AM
  • Sherlock | Sydney - September 29, 2010, 6:47AM
    Okay lets start from the top. Guess what you have most probably voted for a price on carbon. If you voted for labor you voted for a price on carbon through trying to get people like you to agree. If you voted liberal you chose to pay price on carbon through a mix of incentives which are paid by the tax payer and regulation which creates expenses for businesses which they pass on to consumers. the results of voting this way was actually greener than voting labor as one resulted in 21% increase while the libs option resulted in a 7% increase currently. Simple maths shows than that liberal method would have resulted in a much larger reduction being needed. This means more of your taxes would have to increase in order to cover the difference by my guess it would be 3 times as much. If you voted independents your preferences went to a price on carbon and if you voted green you voted for a price on carbon. If you voted informal your vote did not count meaning everyone else's vote counted more and they voted for a price on carbon. I think you could only have voted against it if you voted in Bob Katter seat.

    Commenter
    zatoo77
    Location
    dubbo
    Date and time
    September 29, 2010, 8:13AM
  • Our climate change problems are summarised as excessive use of fossil fuels, and excessive disruption of natural carbon-sequestering systems (deforestation).

    A transition away from fossil fuel use can be guided by imposition of taxes at rates sufficiently high as to discourage their use; fossil fuel use is one goose that should be steadily strangled by excessive taxation.

    Emily's involvement in 350.org derives from recognition that adverse climate change is a necessary consequence of maintaining atmospheric CO2 concentrations in excess of 350 ppm (it's presently around 390 ppm.

    Sherlock would be well-served by reading "The Human Fingerprint in Global Warming", posted at Skeptical Science's http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html by one John Cook on 29 March 2010. Sherlock could then read Hansen et al's "Target Atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim?"

    Where Emily could reconsider her views is that attempts to foist emission trading schemes on the world were no more than money-sequestering arrangements thought up by certain elements of the financial sector, who sought to create, and cash in on, public hysteria. That certain politicians nailed their colours to the emission trading mast shows that they are, well, politicians.

    That's not to say that there isn't a role for trading markets. They may prove suitable for funding the reafforestation that is the necessary other half of addressing excessive atmospheric CO2.

    Commenter
    David_FTA
    Location
    Queensland
    Date and time
    September 29, 2010, 8:21AM

More comments

Comments are now closed