Go Greener, Australia

I’ve just watched a really good short film (11 minutes) online, that explains the concept of tipping points in relation to climate change. It’s called Wake Up, Freak Out, Then Get a Grip - the site has the film, references to the science that backs it up, and a statement from the film-maker about his goals.

It’s made by Leo Murray, with the support of the Royal College of Art in the UK. It first explains the tipping points in our climate, such as the albedo effect, increasingly acidic oceans, and melting permafrost. Then it shows what the consequences might be if any one of those tipping points pushes our only planet past the point of no return. Finally, just when you’re ready to freak out at this catastrophe, it reminds us that we already know the solutions to this problem: all we need to do is make sure we act before it’s too late.

If you like it, I hope you’ll share it with your family and friends. Or with anyone who is concerned about climate change, but thinks it’s a problem our children will have to deal with in some far-off future. Climate change is an urgent problem, and the sooner we make the necessary changes, the better.

Ok, so last week Professer Garnaut suggested that since the rest of the world wasn’t going to adopt tough emissions standards, neither should we. I’ve been pretty annoyed by this: I can’t stand apathy or the “can’t win, don’t try” attitude.

So here’s a list of the different campaigns I’ve found about climate change. I haven’t found any that are specifically related to Garnaut’s latest release of figures, probably because they’re too new yet for anyone to have responded. The ones listed here are more generally about getting the government to make large cuts to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

GetUp.org.au has several members who have started climate change campaigns. You can join in any or all of these:

• Donate to get a billboard outside Parliament, asking for 50% cuts by 2020.
• Write a letter to your newspaper - you might want to update the details now that Garnaut has released new info.
• Tell your friends about the Garnaut Report, again updating the details if necessary.
• Buy t-shirts, stickers, or placards you can display to show you want 50% cuts by 2020.

Oxfam Australia is also campaigning for tougher emissions restrictions with several actions. Currently there’s a petition, help with hosting your own event (with a dvd), and advice on how to write letters to politicians on the topic. Oxfam is particularly concerned about climate change because it will affect the poorest people in the world before it hits those of us living more comfortably in Australia. Their requested target is 30% reductions by 2020.

Climate Campaign has got suggestions for letters you can write, asking for tougher action on climate change. They recommend targets of 40% reductions by 2020. They have suggestions for writing letters on the issues of rising sea-levels having an impact on coastal towns, the solar-power rebates, and other related climate-change topics.

The Climate Action Network of Australia has actions for members, although I haven’t joined yet so I can’t tell you what they are. They have a handy state-by-state description of the impact of climate change on Australia which is very informative.

Friends of the Earth has a Climate Justice campaign. They recommend 50% cuts by 2020, and a moratorium on new coal plants.

If you know of any more groups encouraging activism for greater emissions cuts, please leave a comment with details so we can all join in together.

Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. The Business Council of Australia - who represent most of Australia’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters like Alcoa, Xstrata and ExxonMobil - has released a report saying that they won’t like it if the Rudd government makes them lower their emissions.

They paid researchers to write a report about the impact of an Emissions Trading Scheme on their businesses. The report claims that these emissions-intensive businesses won’t be able to pass on their increased costs to customers, that they won’t be able to reduce their emissions, and that if they’re forced to do so, they’ll take their business overseas.

It all seems like a temper tantrum to me. The increased costs of an ETS can be passed on to customers in the same way the increased costs of BAS statements were when the GST was introduced. And if they’re saying they can’t reduce their emissions, then they’re admitting they’re less innovative and hard-working than other polluters around the world who have already made cuts. Well, maybe that’s true, but it’s not something to be proud of.

As for taking their business overseas, most of these polluters are in the mining business: how are they going to dig up Australian resources if they go elsewhere? And do they really think that there are any countries who won’t have an ETS within the next decade? Anyone can tell you that this is junk economics. As Ross Gittens says in the Sydney Morning Herald, the BCA has just written a vote of no-confidence in itself.

All the players in the heavy-polluting industries saw the problems of climate-change coming years ago, and tried to confuse the issue with their own ‘research’ rather than deal with the situation. Like the cigarette companies in the 80s arguing that their products shouldn’t be subject to any regulation, the polluters now want to continue polluting with no consequences. They’ve seen that the Rudd government’s ETS is weak, and want to turn it into a joke that won’t solve the problem of GHG emissions at all. They smell the opportunity for even more loopholes and taxpayer-funded handouts to get themselves a free ride at the expense of smaller businesses and householders.

It’s pathetic, but it was also entirely predictable. Call me when one of the major polluters actually does something useful for a change…

So it’s been a week since Garnaut released the draft of his Climate Change Review, and nearly everyone has had their say on it now. You can get a copy of the report from the Garnaut Review website, or see his opening remarks on YouTube: part 1 and part 2.

Garnaut has recommended that in 2010 we start an Emissions Trading Scheme where businesses will have to buy emissions permits from the government. A restricted amount of permits will be sold, so that we limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions we create. Over time, the amount of permits sold would be reduced. They will be auctioned, which means that businesses will have to decide as a group how much they’re willing to pay for the privilege of creating emissions. The theory is that if a business cuts back on it’s emissions, it can either buy fewer permits, or sell their spares to other businesses who have caused more pollution than planned. The best explanation of emissions trading that I’ve seen is the Australian Conservation Foundation’s article What is an emissions trading scheme, check it out for more info.

Garnaut recommends that the revenue the government gets from selling these permits to businesses should be given back to the community: 50% going to households, with particular assistance for lower-income households; 30% going to “exposed” industries (this probably means either all of them, or just the ones that whinge the loudest); and 20% going to research and development into renewable energy technologies. Now the Treasury is doing some number-crunching for Garnaut, and the final report will be released in September.

I’m glad that Garnaut recommends selling all the permits - around the world industries have lobbied to receive permits for free, which defeats the purpose of putting a price on pollution in the first place! I’d have preferred a carbon tax, as a simpler solution, but as long as we don’t give out freebies I can get behind an ETS too. I’d also prefer to switch the 30% to industry to go towards renewables instead. On the other hand, if industry spending goes towards re-training people away from fossil fuels jobs and into green jobs, I’d be thrilled. Currently, some businesses are embracing the idea of an ETS, since it gives them solid numbers and costs to plan around, while others have a “Chicken Little” attitude that seems silly to me. We banned CFCs without causing an economic crash; we introduced a GST without too much fuss and confusion. Anyone who says that businesses can’t adapt to this kind of scheme must have a pretty low opinion of our skills and ability to innovate. ABC’s Late Night Live had a good discussion of the impacts of Garnaut’s plan with a few experts, which you can listen to on their site or download for later.

Greens Senator Christine Milne doesn’t think that Garnaut’s proposed cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are good enough: he wants 60% by 2050, and I have to say I agree that amount probably won’t be enough. The ACF thinks it’s a pretty conservative amount too. Also, there seems to be a huge emphasis on clean coal in the review, and you already know what I think about “clean” coal. Still, you’ve got to start somewhere, and I’d rather have a conservative plan that actually gets adopted by our politicians than a perfect plan that gets sunk by delayers and sceptics.

Speaking of politicians, Rudd has given his opinion on Garnaut’s draft and will be releasing his government’s Green Paper on the topic next week. He seems generally supportive, but non-committal on the details, so we’ll have to wait and see how much of Garnaut’s plan he takes on board. Meanwhile, the Opposition seems incredibly confused: some of them are repeating Howard’s 2006 position of “no point doing anything at all if China and India aren’t involved”, while others are going with Howard’s pre-election 2007 position of “we can have an ETS, but not until 2012″. I hope they get their act together soon, since it’s better to get bipartisan support for this kind of legislation. On the broader world stage, the G8 have committed to some weak targets - but it’s still more than they’ve managed to get the US and Russia to agree to before, so it’s progress of a sort.

What impressed me most, and I hope the general public will listen to, is the section of the report that details what the consequences are for Australia if we *don’t* do something about climate change. Garnaut listed the areas that are likely to be destroyed if we don’t get moving quickly: the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, the Murray-Darling river system (already in trouble from people’s poor planning), the South-West forests. Garnaut also emphasised that the longer we wait, the more jobs and income we will lose, and the more it will cost to do fix it, so it’s in our best interests to get a plan into place as soon as possible.

It seems to me that Garnaut’s draft of the Review has moved the debate forward, on the whole: instead of talking about whether the government should do something about climate change, we’re talking about what we should do, and how we should do it. And for that, I’m pretty grateful!