An ethical and sustainable Australia makes sound business sense

This however is not the limit. ST Microelectronics has committed to zero net carbon emissions by 2010 and over the last year the commitment has helped drive its business from the world’s 12th largest electronic chip maker to number 6. There are many other examples (such as those widely documented throughout The Natural Advantage of Nations, edited by Charlie Hargroves and Mike Smith) although there are also undeniable challenges that include verifying cuts made through schemes which aim to offset greenhouse pollution.

Governments are not waiting around either. In 2004 eight US states and New York City joined together to sue those they describe as “the five largest global warming polluters in the US”.

Australia’s future could be one where we profit from cutting our emissions. We undoubtedly have the skill base and resources to do so but have a critical lack of policy leadership from our government. So what is our position today?

While our Environment Minster admits he was sceptical about climate science, he is now saying that we need worldwide cuts of 50 to 60 per cent “within the next 50 years or so”. Just in case you think this will be easy for Australia, reflect that we have actually increased our emissions from sources like burning gas and coal, to make electricity and heat, by over 32 percent from 1990 to 2001.

Current Australian Government rhetoric however, defends a lack of reduction targets and mixes this position up by also arguing that it would be immoral to curtail worldwide growth in energy production. It is then argued people in developing countries could then not be lifted out of poverty.

If we were truly focused on lifting people out of poverty, we would act to remove the disparity of emissions that exists today. Especially since the consequences from climate change disproportionately affect poor people like, as Singer points out, those living on low-lying land in Bangladesh.

For a just and equitable solution to climate change Australia will have to make dramatic greenhouse gas cuts. This is where government policy leadership, including targets, is important.

For example, Australia’s Clean Energy Future Group reports that our “highly successful mandatory green energy scheme” will by 2010 deliver a 1 per cent increase in green energy use above the 1997 levels. Compare this with the UK, which has set a 10.4 per cent target by 2010. And in 2002, Denmark obtained 18 per cent or its electricity from wind, while California’s gigantic economy’s green target is 18 per cent by 2012.

As companies like Dupont and ST Microelectronics demonstrate, cutting emissions makes sound business sense. Marry this with the well documented impact of climate change on Australia and you have to wonder why we are so slow to act. Our schemes exist but we are clearly not yet doing enough, fast enough.

So, Australia’s climate change stance does not make sense, whether you are in business, looking to set future policy directions, or just want to live in a progressive society.

Can we hope to avoid dangerous climate change? The faster we take action, the better the odds. Moreover, sensible policy would mean that overall we lose nothing and have everything to gain.