Much has changed since the Climate Change Conference in Bali last December with an increasing acceptance that the world's environment is in a state of emergency and that even a middle-ranking country like Australia can play a key role in leading action to reduce human stress on the natural world.
Australia played a key role in trying to take things forward, but did not agree to the scientific argument that there are specific cuts in greenhouse emissions at actual times to result in 60% cuts to emissions, such that global temperatures do not rise by 2 degrees.
The Federal government has argued that it is waiting for a report from mainstream economist Ross Garnaut in mid-2008 about how such proposals will affect Australia, but that overall our response will be guided by the science. However, the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change, the interim Garnaut report and a recent report by Friends of the Earth (FOE) Climate Change Red: the Case for a Sustainable Emergency says that the adherence to a 60% emissions cut will result in a 3 degrees increase by 2050.According to FOE, the 60% figure is based on United Nations research, which is 12 years out of date. Garnaut has stated that, as part of a gigantic global effort, Australia may need to cut global emissions by 90% to avoid the most disastrous effects of climate change.
Unfortunately, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong's reaction to the interim Garnaut Report can only be described as lukewarm, given Prime Minister's Rudd emphasis on it as a key factor in determining the government's response to Climate. One can only assume that Minister Wong was involved in a holding operation. The Federal government needs to be extremely careful to avoid undue influence from pressure groups, such as the Coal Industry lobby which will throw mass resources in an offensive to protect and extend its own interests.
Certainly, the Australian people are onside regarding major societal restructuring to combat global warming. Apart from evidence of this in the 2007 election result a survey conducted in April 2007 by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that out of 17 countries polled, Australians had the largest majority-92%- in favour of measures to combat global warning. And 69% favour taking measures now, even ones involving “significant costs”.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives represent large opportunities to create new jobs and export dollars in alternative technologies. Major incentives and subsidies for renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives rather than fossil fuels are called for, but challenges remain regarding the outcomes of a carbon trading scheme. Coal, a major Australian export represents a particular challenge. Is clean coal viable in the long term, given that at the moment, the technology is underdeveloped?
Should the government take the approach outlined by Greens leader Bob Brown during the recent election campaign, that plans be developed “to help coal communities move to sustainable industries as coal use and exports are phased out?” How does the Mining Division of the Construction Mining Forest and Energy Union react to such a proposal, if the payouts to miners are appropriate and serious alternative green industry plans and retraining are put in place? What forms of dialogue should take place between Union, Government and Environmental organizations to handle inevitable workplace and industry change?
Problems regarding Water, Rivers and Wetlands present similar issues to communities, based on agriculture along the Murray – Darling Basin, which includes Australia's food bowl. Can Australia afford to have a Cotton industry, even if water technology is improved? To save the ecology of the river system, including such iconic environmental spots, such as SA's the Coorong, will adequate compensation and retraining have to be paid to farmers there, if their water rights are bought out by government? What forms of dialogue take place her between Government, Environmental and Grower/ Regional organizations in this situation? In short, as our crisis unfolds it points to a powerful role for “interventionist government planning` to coordinate new industries, clean energy alternatives, and the types of training and new work to be provided to those displaced by massive change. (See Carla Lipsig- Mumme`, (“Let's start working on strategies for work in a warmer world”, The Age, Monday, 25/2, p11)
Furthermore, serious policy options need to be developed in population policy (see John Coulter's article), public ownership of water resources, green industry development (See Greg George and Chris Mardon's article re the Car industry in light of the Mitsubishi Adelaide plant closure), urban and regional development, public transport equity issues and climate change refugees. Hopefully, these areas will be dealt with at the Federal government's summit, Australia 2020 (April 19/20, 2008) as an urgent priority with a number of policy connections being made. After reading this issue, with its environmental focus, readers may consider that they or their relevant organizations may make a submission, which supports the central role of a sustainable environment in the future of Australia to Australia 2020.
Source: Australian Options, Issue 52, Autumn 2008, pp. 2-3.