Climate Doom Continues

Australians have the benefit of the latest scientific and economic information about climate change, and our leadership has a mandate to act decisively on the issue. We already have a very high standard of living, and will continue to do so under any sort of carbon-related belt-tightening. Despite this, the prospects of drastic action are still pretty slight. What hope is there then for the rest of the world?

The Government have always said their climate change strategy would be guided by Ross Garnaut's report due in September, but he has released an interim report this week. In summary, Garnaut has said that things are the grim end of the rate of change; that Australia will suffer particularly badly from the effects; but that Australia is in a good position to do something about it. Basically, the situation is dire, and we will have to act quickly and firmly in order to have any hope of forestalling a major crisis. "Without action we are running towards dangerous points more quickly that a lot of the earlier analysis has suggested," he has said.

Response, sadly has been predictable. It's the usual slew of empty rhetoric and non-sequiturs. From the government, first the rhetoric:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has told Parliament it is vital the Government gets its climate change policies right.

"It's critical for the economy, critical for families, critical for the environment, critical for national security," he said.

"After 12 years of inaction on the whole question of climate change it's time that Australia led the international community on this question, it's time we had a government that led the national debate on this question.

"That's what needs to be done now, that's what this Government is now engaged in."

All well and good, but without actual policy and targets, it's not meaningful. So compare to this:

But she [Penny Wong] says Labor will not go past its election commitment of a 60 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

"Obviously unlike the previous government we have said we would be cognisant of the science," she said.

"But the Government's commitment is the one we made prior to the election and that we took to the Australian people, which is a reduction of 60 per cent by 2050.

"That is the approach the Government will take."

I really struggle to understand the mindset that says, "we are sticking to our arbitrary target, no matter what the science says." Leadership requires adapting to new information and circumstances. Surely the only sensible policy is one in line with the science - otherwise, why bother to become "cognisant" of it in the first place, except as an exercise in public relations?

Of course, the Rudd Government is still better than the alternative. An AAP article has some terrifyingly short-sighted remarks from the coalition:

Liberal MP Barry Haase says consumers will bear the brunt of costs if the federal government adopts the recommendations of report author, economist Professor Ross Garnaut... "(Prime Minister Kevin) Rudd's already gone too far on climate change," Mr Haase told reporters on Thursday.

...

Liberal MP Don Randall said the interim report would put the Rudd government under a fair bit of pressure... "The previous government was always concerned about these arbitrary figures that are going to cause a lot of pain to the rest of Australians."

...

Nationals MP Paul Neville said industry would suffer if the government set unrealistic targets that did not require the rest of the world to jump on board... "If we close down aluminum and coal in towns like that then we're exporting Australian jobs.

I'll keep saying it: If we need to experience pain, if we need to sacrifice jobs, if we need to set hard targets, then that's what we must do. The alternatives are decades of famines, wars and disasters. Anything is better than that. And if there is some uncertainty in the science, that doesn't change our responsible course of action - to prudently ensure that we minimise the risks in whichever way we can.

As I have written before, this short-sightedness is made all the more mystifying to me by my sense that the public would be onside with dramatic action. Imagine a worst-case scenario: "People of Australia, the scientists have spoken, and we cannot ignore their warning. The world is headed for disaster on an unprecedented scale. We're all going to have to pay six cents more per kilowatt-hour of electricity and 5 cents a litre for petrol, and work hard on conservation. Though this will be tough for many in the community, it's the only way we can reduce our emissions while funding development of renewable energy sources. We must act now or reap an uncertain and deadly harvest in decades to come." Would this lead to a revolt among the electorate? I honestly feel that people would suck it up if presented honestly and was backed by good science. Heaven knows my father's generation put up with a lot worse than expensive electricity during the depression and the war - fuel was actually rationed then! (I already pay a 5.5c premium on my electricity under the Green Power initiative.) Would such policies lead to an economic slowdown? Perhaps, but so what? What's to decide when the alternatives are minor economic slowdown and global catastrophe?

If Australia under Labor can't do it, very few countries will. I almost wish I suffered from the lack of imagination that plagues so much of the body politic and its remora fish the commentariat. Unfortunately, I can all to easily imagine what the world that awaits us might be like.