Climate change, science, the media, and public opinion

Achieving sustainability requires a systematic evaluation and balancing of multiple and conflicting objectives – ecological, economic, social and cultural – in order to secure as much available value as possible for Government, industry and the community.

A sustainable solution does not place inordinate weight on one objective as does a Carbon Tax-ETS on economics.

The ETS had its origin in the northern hemisphere, in the early 1980s, to limit sulphur dioxide emissions which caused acid rain. Australia was only a small contributor to these emissions on a global scale and chose to limit emissions, nationally, by regulatory control - not an ETS! A national air quality standard for sulphur dioxide applies throughout Australia to limit emissions.

Following a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court in 2007, the Obama administration took steps in 2009 for the nation's 500 coal fired plants to become subject to regulatory control for global warming pollution, for the first time, at the Federal level. Regulatory control gives effect to the "polluter pay principle": the costs of pollution are borne by those responsible for it.

In December 2010, the United States EPA announced an agreement reached for developing cost-effective and protective national GHG standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries – industrial sources representing 40% of GHG pollution in the United States. Air quality standards will be proposed later this year followed by final standards in 2012. Regulatory control standards to decrease GHG emissions of Model Year 2012 through 2016 cars and light trucks were completed by the EPA in 2010.

"Known unknowns:Some things we do not know"

We do not know the reasons why, unlike the United States, Australia has never considered regulatory control and a national air quality standard for carbon dioxide as part of a mix of national measures under the Kyoto Protocol to limit emissions?

There has been little, if any, informed debate, systematic evaluation or media reporting on the option of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Australia, based on 'a mix of national measures' as set out in the Kyoto Protocol 'to promote sustainable development'.

It is unknown what time lines carbon capture and storage research requires before it becomes accepted as an environmentally sound technology to counter the risk of global warming and to become a national measure under the Kyoto Protocol.

We do not know if there are any "climate science" issues that AGW scientists and the so called "sceptics" share as common ground? We do not know the reasons why some issues remain in dispute?Information conflicts arise when scientists differ in how they interpret the same scientific database; or differ in their professional opinions on what information is relevant and reliable. Scientific uncertainty and lack of information creates further conflict.

It is unknown whether the action for climate change in Australia, based on a Carbon Tax-ETS and a LCE, is consistent with the guiding principles for sustainable development? Some possible adverse impacts arising from the Carbon Tax-ETS may include reductions in Australia's overseas mineral exports, significant increases in power costs for the manufacturing sector and the community, job losses and possible closure of mines, a restraint on strong, growing and diversified economies in regional Australia, through to social justice issues affecting the community.

The possibility for a Federal ETS in the United States has been described by one US commentator "as both fluid and frac­tured… cli­mate change re­form ap­pears to be some­where be­tween in­evitable and im­pos­si­ble".The passage of a number of climate ("ETS") Bills introduced to the US Congress since 2009 has stalled.