Choose the lesser one between two devils: inaction for reducing emissions is wrong!

This is comments on Alan Moran’s “Emissions retreat just so Napoleon”, an article in The Australian, 6/05/2009 on http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25434632-7583,00.html.

While it is true that Rudd, Wong and the government have all shown poor leadership on the ETS issue in terms of making it right for Australia, practical and workable, it is another matter to seize on the government's change to its original proposal to discredit their efforts on climate change altogether and to confuse the public on the need to act on climate change. The public must be clear on this point and must not be confused by the author of the article. Further, the public must be very vigilant not to allow our efforts to be defeated by climate change deniers.

Yes, there will be inevitable costs to reduce carbon emissions. There is no question at all on that. If anyone thinks that the economy will be better off as a result of reducing emissions, he/she needs to think again and be realistic and not naïve. These economic costs will be real. But this is why real courage and leadership are needed on this issue. If there would be no economic costs, there would be no need for those scare-mongering people to engage in their scare tricks – they will be out of business in this particular area.

Bearing in mind the costs of climate change actions, one has to ask the question: why we do them? The reason is simple. If we don’t do it, the damages as a result of unmoderated climate changes, that is for it to continue its course due to ever increased concentration of global warming gases emitted by human beings, will post much greater cost to human beings all over the world. In a sense, we human beings are in a place between hard and rocks, that is to say, two devils.

No matter we act on climate changes or not, there will always be costs of our choices. The question then is: which is the lessor devil among the two – action to reduce emissions with economic costs, or inaction by staying put with greater damages as the global temperature rises to more dangerous levels, resulting in more extreme weathers – more frequent and more severe cyclones, floods and draughts, much higher sea levels that could put much more coastal areas, including some of our great cities on the earth, under water.

Now let’s focus on the main argument of the author based purely and squarely on narrow-minded self interest – a seemingly attractive argument aiming at both scaring and persuading/cheating the public that Australians’ welfare will be destroyed if we act on reducing carbon emissions. The following paragraphs from that article show that argument:

[Australia has an energy-intensive industry structure, a coal-based electricity generation industry and coal and gas as our export mainstays.

Capitalising on our natural advantages in fossil fuel energy has required forging supportive institutional structures, a process that has taken many decades. Our carefully developed political and administrative framework has allowed the creation of an energy supply industry that is the backbone of our present living standards. To become one of the world's lowest cost energy suppliers has entailed marrying our resource endowment with entrepreneurial and workforce skills. All this would have been jettisoned by a tax squarely aimed at destroying that productive efficiency fostered by low-cost energy.

Strongly performing industries will be at a premium in a world economy that's likely to be facing sluggish conditions for many more years. Even the most complacent optimists can no longer take as given the income derived from our present industry structure. Compounding the effects of the global economic meltdown's external assault on living standards with some purpose-made domestic measures is now revealed as a sledgehammer blow to the welfare of all Australians.]

Yes it is true and a matter of fact that Australia produces and exports a lot more energy-intensive products than most other countries. It is also true and a matter of fact that the share of coal-generated, especially using low-quality coal, power is higher in Australia than some other industrialised countries. These mean that there will be a real danger that Australia could incur higher costs than other industrialised countries, if we are not careful in our actions. No one should overlook this important point. But this does not mean we should not act and sit there to enjoy free lunch by the actions of other countries.

Global warming is a global issue and requires a global solution. While industrialised countries need to act earlier (and most did already) than their developing counterparts, eventually all nations – both industrialised and developing countries alike, especially big or globally significant emissions countries need to take part in global actions to achieve this global task. Also, there are reasons for differential targets under global actions, such as those shown in the Kyoto Protocol where Australia was given a much higher emissions target, in another word, a lower emissions reduction target.

That was a fairly equitable agreement from the Australian point of view. It was also a sensible approach. It should have been a step in the global efforts to deal with global warming. The trouble was the previous coalition government under Howard was so stupid that it did not rectify that agreement –only one of the two industrialised or OECD countries that did not do so, just in order to side with the US with the inexcusable excuse that big developing countries were not included with targets in that agreement. The other was the US under the right-wing Bush presidency in an attempt to protect its energy industry. The appalling policies and strategies by the Bush and Howard administrations undermined the global efforts and set the global climate change agenda back by a decade. What a waste! If there was a international humanitarian court, one might expect that both governments would have to be prosecuted for their enormous damages to the human beings.

Further Australia’s economic structure means we will need to rely more on technologies that will make the use of coal clean with no or little emissions. Australian government has appeared to take actions in this direction by investing in such developing technologies, although one may argue that other means than the government backed one should be investigated, and also international coordinated efforts should be made, rather than going it individually with potentially unnecessarily higher costs.

The world needs to move to the next step from the Kyoto. More urgent actions are badly needed. The economic crisis will slow the amount of emissions than otherwise the case. This would give us a bit more time and may allow us to make more considered decisions and better strategies to act. But the problem of emissions remains and does not diminish. Inaction is still not an option. On this point, the author is wrong in arguing for no action.

The mistakes by Wong, Rudd and the government are not excuses for us to abandon our efforts on climate change. On the contrary, they require us to do more and better as a nation. It also means the government should be held more accountable for its mistakes in order to avoid unnecessary and silly mistakes.