Climate: the problem that dare not speak its name

Whatever happened to climate change? It seems to have disappeared in a puff of smoke. From the outset it has been made clear by both major parties, that in this election, the war will be fought on the most minor fronts that can be constructed. The refugee problem, that is the political headache it engendered for the ALP, if compassion was allowed, has largely been taken off the agenda , at least until after the election. The refugees have been disposed of in godforsaken camps in Nauru and Manus Island. Big advertisements that forbid entry by boat to our golden land have sealed it off as an election problem

Now at last we can attend to the real and important issue of today, which is - The domestic Economy.

Only twelve per cent of Australians say that climate change is one of the most important issues for this election according to a Morgan Research poll . Sadly it seems that day to day expenditure trumps the fate of the world, in the famed 'kitchen table' politics of Australia.

The economy, has emerged in polls ,with demographic and voter variations, to be the most important issue identified by Australian voters. But even this issue has been cut down to size. It remains divorced from its determining global and environmental parameters, and shrunken to the size of the annual or rather the pre election domestic budget.

Psychologically the electorate seems to have retreated to the defence mechanisms of displacement and avoidance. Anxieties, fears, anger and disappointments are displaced for example ,onto refugees, who are depicted as invaders and costly threats to 'our way of life.' The political dialogue avoids discussion of the complex issues. By focusing on the small stuff, we avoid talking about the truly big stuff. But what is the real threat to our way of life?

Its climate change stupid.

So although it is early days in the long road of the election rhetoric, the die seems caste.

Few politicians seem prepared to mention the climate word.

The ABC program Sunday Extra asks the question. Whatever happened to climate change? Not the phenomenon. We know it hasn't gone away. In fact it's getting worse. But what happened to our concern and appropriate anxiety?

The first debate between Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott largely repeated the same mantras. Abbott vowed to stop the boats [in  case you hadn’t heard this] and to create jobs by scrapping the carbon price immediately. Kevin Rudd offered a positive economic vision that includes all in this fair land , except for Refugees unfortunately. He ended on another positive note with his vow to bring in a bill for same sex marriage rights in his first hundred days.

Despite being the most significant threat, to our existence now and in the not so distant future, rising emissions and rising global temperatures are featured in inverse proportion to their importance. Being the greatest threat to survival of human and non human living creatures, future generations, eco systems, food sources, water, oceans, cities, habitable land and indeed the viability of the planet and therefore of the economy of course ; it goes to the end of the voting ticket.

Politicians, no doubt advised by marketeers 'to stay positive' dare not speak its name.

So what are the policies for this enormous phenomenon that is being given such scant attention? Alex White in The Guardian points out that the economic costs of inaction far exceed the cost of effective action. He does however find that the ALP policy with an accelerated floating carbon price scheme, is far more effective than the vaguely enunciated Direct Action Plan of the Coalition. The Climate Institute has declared that the electoral policies of both parties leave Australia unprepared for the costly climate impact on health and the economy of two degrees of warming, which we are well on track to exceed.

In terms of star ratings out of five [for policy on climate] the Coalition reaches 1.5 the ALP 2.5 the Greens rate at 5. Katter's Party is left alone with an inglorious score of 0.

But the electioneering is focused on skirmishes, while not mentioning the war. Tony Abbott has declared that his first act, should he become Prime Minister, would be to dismantle thecarbon tax, which he asserts has been a terrible impost, on business and those on low incomes.

Probably in an attempt to out manoeuvre Abbott, just prior to announcing the election date, Rudd declared that he was terminating the carbon tax . He added [in a smaller voice ] that floating carbon price was being brought in earlier that had been planned. This was met with derision and scoffing by Abbott who referred to Rudd being the exaggerator and the fabricator; not the terminator.

Climate change or effective action on climate change did not get a mention.

Without discussing the problem, the proposed solution of pricing carbon was falsely relegated to the status of an 'unnecessary tax'.

Abbott has derided carbon trading as "a so called market in the non delivery of an invisible substance, to no-one." What he may have deemed to be a witty rejoinder, instead conveyed a lack of knowledge of the impact of unpriced CO2, and ignorance of market [that is] economic forces. He seems not to have heard of World Bank calls for carbon pricing and the disastrous economic outcomes of two to four degrees of warming.

There is a huge and accumulating volume of evidence that the earth is continuing to warm at an accelerating rate due to human production of green house emissions. Most of this warming has so far, been absorbed by oceans. Meanwhile Arctic Ice is melting at a ferocious rate.

Rudd urged us to celebrate that the move from the carbon tax to a floating ETS will save families from $380 to $430 a year. This amounts to one dollar a day! But is this of more importance for us and future generations than the global significance of a price on carbon? Should the pricing be judged on its cheapness for now or effectiveness into the future? A recent study reported in the Vancouver Sun indicates that governments need to be planning well into the future for infrastructure that will be impacted upon by a warming world, rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events. Meanwhile 2012 was one of the ten warmest years on record globally. The calls from experts [ninety-seven per cent of world scientists] have become more urgent.

Scientific American also reports the unprecedented speed of the changes that the planet has not seen in millions of years, saying 'humans have never seen anything like it'.

But while the ALP and the Greens remain at least plausible players on real action to mitigate and prepare for climate change they are not trumpeting this.

But how can we mitigate a problem, if we are in effect denying and avoiding it by ignoring it?

Abbott's party has justified non action by declaring that Australia is a small player with little power to influence. This is a nihilistic argument that ensures that we continue to contribute to and be the problem rather than to the solution. We also make it harder for ourselves by not building up coping and infrastructures for what is to come.

This is not how problems are solved or how wars are won. As leading environmental economist Mark Jaccard has pointed out that Canada [like Australia] played a small part in the victory of the allies in second world war, Yet no-one would describe this as an unimportant or insignificant. In the most significant threat of our times , how can we leave it to others alone ?