Go Greener, Australia

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.

Prof. Ross Garnaut has finally announced his recommendations for the amount of emissions Australia should cut over the next decade - and it’s pretty depressing stuff. He has recommended a target of 10% cuts by 2020, with deeper cuts to come later. Given that the IPCC and respected climate scientist James Hanson argue that we’ve got less than a decade to prevent the worst of climate change, this looks pathetic. It seems like he’s admitted that we’re going to suffer the effects of climate change anyway, and we’ll never get enough political action on the issue, so we might as well not put too much effort into making urgent reductions. I don’t think I have to tell you that I’m pretty angry about this.

The IPCC suggests that to stabilise our greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million, we would have to reduce our emissions by at least 25-40% by 2020. Setting an upper limit of 550ppm, as Garnaut proposes, means that carbon feedback cycles will have already kicked in and accelerated the rate of change well beyond what we can handle.

This really is a “business as usual” policy from Garnaut. It allows corporations to make a few changes and then carry on polluting as they always have. Combined with the free emissions-permits that will be handed out like lollies to the big polluters, I can’t see how this plan will make any difference at all. Australia will have no ability to convince other nations to do the right thing if we won’t put our money where our mouth is.

If this is the best the world can come up with, it will certainly lead to us losing the Greenland ice (I suspect we haven’t got much hope of stopping the Arctic ice from going now); sea level rises that will be terrible for neighbouring countries and a huge logistical problem for us; and a much increased rate of species extinction as the habitats plants and animals are used to are changed beyond recovery. I guess Garnaut’s completely given up on the Great Barrier Reef, the Murray-Darling Basin, the South-West region (a biodiversity hotspot), Kakadu, and countless other areas that aren’t famous, but are special all the same.

Garnaut states that if an international agreement is reached for higher cuts in our emissions, it will be worthwhile for us to make larger cuts too. This seems pretty weak considering that just a short time ago he was calling for us to lead by example and develop new technologies that would innovate our industries to create a low-carbon future. He says that there’s not much support for an international agreement that will allow the world to reach 450ppm of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, so we’ll have to plan for one that allows 550ppm instead. I say that just because something is difficult, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try anyway.

How can we make sure that the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme sets higher goals? I wish I had an answer. I’m off to buy a 50% by 2020 shirt from GetUp. I’m fed up: I want people to know my opinion and show that there’s public support for politicians to take the hard road instead of the easy one. I’m also going to do some research into ways that maybe we can get harder targets set - which politicians to bother, which groups are taking action. If you have any ideas, I’d love to hear them, so please leave a comment!

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!