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

Pricing pollution a small step in the right direction

Dermot O'Gorman
July 21, 2011

Opinion

After starting in one city, Earth Hour grew into a global event and spurred millions to change their habits to save the planet.

After starting in one city, Earth Hour grew into a global event and spurred millions to change their habits to save the planet.

The landslide of furious facts and figures, questions and retorts since the announcement of Australia's plans to put a price on pollution has been immense.

Multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns have begun duelling on our airwaves and in our newspapers.

For many, this barrage of noise – with its claims and counter-claims – has resulted in a small amount of hope and a large serving of confusion.

How will the price on pollution work? Who will pay? Will it help protect our environment?
If you can get past the ''chicken little'' rhetoric, which is swamping what should be a sensible discussion about our future, one thing becomes clear — making Australia's 500 biggest polluting companies pay to pump waste into our air is a good and necessary step.

They may claim the sky is falling, but history has shown over again that business will always play tough when there is the possibility of winning compensation for their efforts.

Putting a price on pollution means we're raising the cost of doing nothing about the problem and will finally create a financial incentive to change old habits and old technologies.

The idea is not nearly as radical as many would portray it. In fact, households and industries have long paid a price to have their rubbish removed. Now those who contribute most to Australia's pollution levels will have to do the same.

Despite the political theatre and scaremongering, Australia's efforts to reduce pollution and tackle climate change have not been led by government nor by business. In fact, both are now simply playing catch-up.

On environmental issues, including climate change, the public is often streets ahead of business. For that matter, we are often ahead of governments too.

It was the millions of people all over the country switching out their lights for one hour that made Earth Hour a watershed moment in the fight against climate change.

Business saw the success of the campaign and threw its support behind it. This support helped the campaign grow again, turning a local event into a global movement.

In the space of five years, we've grown Earth Hour from one city in Australia, to hundreds of millions of people around the world.

This simple action has inspired people to go beyond the hour and do whatever they can to reduce their impact on our planet. Millions of tiny changes have added up, and helped make living sustainably one of the highest aspirations we have.

Australia has shown that it can make a difference on the world stage. We should never underestimate our power to change the world we live in.

Now that we are putting a price on air pollution, some businesses have a lot of catching up to do. However, they need to know that we expect more from them in the future, not less.

Does that mean our personal actions don't matter? No. Far from it.

The new package announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard sets a target for Australia to reduce its pollution by at least 5 per cent over the next eight years. This is setting the bar about as low as it could go. Australia will not struggle to meet that target, given the large-scale investment in clean energy and the incentive of paying $23 per tonne for any pollution that can't be avoided.

This will shift some of the burden on to big business, meaning they will have a lot of heavy lifting to do. In the long run, it will be cheaper for them to start tackling the problem now rather than later – a message that seems to have been lost on some.

Households also have a role to play in our combined efforts to tackle climate change and protect our environment. Every individual action taken by Australians to reduce pollution will be an important addition to whatever industry does.

Despite what some naysayers claim, the choices each of us make – how we get around, the products we buy, the food we eat, the way we invest our superannuation – can have a huge impact.

Often these small changes don't just help our environment, but also make us healthier and happier people.

We have already shown that Australians can lead and push business and governments into action. Now is our chance to build on that success.

In 2012, Earth Hour will reach more than 1 billion people, showing once again that a small idea and a simple action can make a big difference.

Let's not adhere to the false comfort of thinking someone else will do the job for us.

Every little bit counts – and we will need all the help we can get to tackle this global problem.

Dermot O'Gorman is chief executive of WWF.

twitter Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU

160 comments

  • A clearly articulated case. I don't doubt that the "we'll all be ruined" brigade will come out in force though to abuse, try to claim that carbon is not a pollutant but plant food (how misleading and simplistic), and all the other " its not warming", etc etc.
    Make it happen! Stand firm Julia!

    Commenter
    Harry
    Location
    Churchill
    Date and time
    July 21, 2011, 7:56AM
  • Dermot, you failed to tell us what the big improvement is in the environment that Earth Hour has achieved? Has pollution been reduced? Are people using less emissions? If so, why do we need a carbon tax? Oh, and the 500 big polluters won't pay, it will be consumers.

    Commenter
    liklik
    Location
    sydney
    Date and time
    July 21, 2011, 7:56AM
  • Most environmental problems are local in nature. So the type of Economic Principles which justify the carbon tax can be used. But global warming is a global problem and not an Australian problem per se. Thus the Economics Principles to justify the carbon tax are simply not valid. We produce about 1.5% of the global human induced CO2 emission and so whatever we do in Australia is insignificant. It makes sense only if is part of a serious multi-national plan including China, USA, India etc.

    Another reason we need to take into account is the costs of doing anything in Australia. For example the costs of installing a solar heater on the roof of a house in the Himalayan mountains is about 6% of the costs in Australia. So it is better for Australia and Australians to arrange and pay to install solar heaters in such regions where some areas have plenty of sun all the year round. Furthermore the natives currently use wood emitting CO2 and destroying the vegetation.

    The annual INCREASES in CO2 emission in China and India are greater than the annual TOTAL CO2 emission in Australia. So if they are ways we can help China and India to reduce CO2 we can achieve real impact of global warning.

    For example we should sell uranium to India and we can achieve an annual reduction of CO2 reduction which is MANY TIMES the annual CO2 emission in Australia. Why inflict so much harm on Australia to achieve 5% reduction in our CO2 emission. The carbon tax is simply nonsensical.

    Commenter
    Dr B S Goh
    Location
    Australian in Asia
    Date and time
    July 21, 2011, 8:04AM
  • I'd love to agree that Earth Hour will make a big difference. I can't. It's for an hour. Not a lifetime. It requires little commitment and, apart from the publicity it draws, I can't see that it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things.
    Also, when you talk of putting a price on pollution you muddy the waters. Pollution to most people involves visible contamination of the environment- the oil slicks, the effluent from factories, the dirty smoke stacks. Carbon dioxide is part of the carbon cycle; the thing we all (OK, those of us paying attention) learned at school. How can it be a pollutant? It's natural innit?
    And then you start jabbering on about rising tides and sea surges and thinning ice eh? Pollution kills sea birds and kids get sick from it and birth defects eh? What's that got to do with carbon dioxide?
    See my point?
    We emit carbon dioxide in processes with far too much wasted energy. We eliminate the waste, we reduce the emissions. Efficiency.

    We are creating imbalance in the carbon cycle by our actions. We believe that's going to result in rapid environmental changes with more frequent extremes. We're taking a risk but it's a sound action if at the same time we aim to build resilience into our processes that we don't have now.
    We use processes dependent on finite energy resources. We can see alternatives with more durable and lasting resources. Makes sense to change over and place ourselves as early as possible. Get through the teething stages while we still got alternatives...
    Yep?
    Gain not blame

    Commenter
    David
    Location
    Leongatha
    Date and time
    July 21, 2011, 8:10AM
  • Yes that's all very well and good, but do you seriously expect me to pay anything up to ten dollars a week for that? Don't be ridiculous!

    Commenter
    rext
    Date and time
    July 21, 2011, 8:17AM
  • Whatever happened to that adage, "Think Global, Act Local"? Moreover, a couple of years ago the support for an ETS was in the upper 70%s and was so for a less effective, less flexible scheme. Can it truly be the Australian public are so fickle and fad-bound, that the completely bloodless, political removal (not "assassination" or "knifing") of then PM Rudd, who's popularity was rapidly flatlining, could translate to a plummeting of support for a somewhat more effective and flexible ETS, albeit one with a transitional taxation on some 500 of the counties top polluters? Sadly, recent history would indicate this fickle nature is easily tickled out. Disturbingly, it is conjured by the repitition of short, fear based slogans, hypocritically uttered and shamelessly often in self contradiction to previously stated beliefs.
    The lowest common denominator and simpleness appear to be the key to eliciting moral outrage, indignation and belief in some conspiracy by "leftists", "greenies" or even the vast majority of the worlds scientific bodies/institutions (and economists) to redistribute wealth, kill off society or insill fear in the/us poor mums and dads sitting around some kitchen table. I have yet to hear any rational, or even halfway rational, motive behind such purported conspiracies..nor indeed that "mums and dads" are glued to their kitchen table chairs nightly, fretfully pouring over wads of bills, wondering how to cope with an ETS impost equivalent of less than a couple of takeaway coffees a week. Motive to act? Anywhere reputable!

    Commenter
    Warwick
    Date and time
    July 21, 2011, 8:45AM
  • I've spent an exhausting week attempting to defend the carbon tax to a variety of people: business colleagues; workmates; friends; other parents at my child's soccer games - even my wife! It's not that I'm a crusader - far from it - but bagging the carbon tax has become a kind of conversational masonic handshake, a confirmation that we're all part of a chums' club.
    Once I try and steer the talk towards the science of ice core samples, Maunder Minimums and other concepts which my limited layman's understanding has tried to absorb there are blank looks, distrust and annoyance. I'm happy to have my own opinions challenged, but half-baked, pre-masticated pap from "experts" like "Lord" Monckton are just embarrassing.
    Something frightening has happened to the level of rational debate in Australia.
    Does Tony Abbott genuinely disbelieve in the science of climate change? Is he cynically exploiting the issue to score political points? It's scary either way.
    I'm hoping that at some point there will be a counter reaction that reinvigorates small "l" liberals and social democrats, but it may well be that the electronic age precludes any level of profound discourse.
    Guess we'll just have to make do with these blogs.....

    Commenter
    Bulgaris
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    July 21, 2011, 8:52AM
  • I love post earth hour parties- pizza, music, big movies on ya big screen, carbonated fizzy drink, ice cream, friends come over and then stay up all night playing settlers of catan.

    Commenter
    Alex
    Location
    Finley NSW
    Date and time
    July 21, 2011, 9:06AM
  • Earth hour makes a difference...to what?

    Commenter
    Boags
    Location
    Launceston
    Date and time
    July 21, 2011, 9:15AM
  • I've got a better idea.

    Australia should make hay while the sun shines and cash up as much as possible while China, et al, want our resources.

    At the same time we should develop renewable technologies (and encourage other countries to do the same).

    Then, when the time comes (10 or 20 years) we can either utilise our new technology on a large scale or import it with our large budget surplus.

    Let's NOT kill the golden goose just yet...

    Australia's contribution to CO2 levels is negligible.

    Commenter
    Occam's Razor
    Location
    Singleton
    Date and time
    July 21, 2011, 9:17AM

More comments

Comments are now closed