The heroes and villains in the Great Climate Debate

More than any other documentary in the last decade, An Inconvenient Truth featuring Al Gore’s slide show purporting to put forward the unadulterated facts on climate change, has galvanised mainstream political interest. Actors, British moguls and undergraduates have all jumped on the bandwagon, with the most recent development being a court challenge to a Hunter Valley coal mine development by a Newcastle student.

The documentary highlights the problems that emerge when a scientific issue is hijacked by political interests. Increasingly high profile public figures are strongly weighing in and proposing purely political solutions with limited reference to the changing state of science. Public discussion of the science is critical if we are to formulate consensus and a national response to the issue. However it is important that the evidence is not presented in a distorted way.

In An Inconvenient Truth Gore consistently mixes up scientific evidence with a political speechmaker’s tactics. For example, he tells us of his son’s near death experience following a car accident in order to make a point about our lack of appreciation of the precious things in life until they are almost gone. Government attitudes to global warming are also likened to the League of Nations’ appeasement of Hitler prior to the outbreak of World War II.

This manner of argument is completely inappropriate in the presentation of a scientific issue. Using the same tactic, one might highlight the fact that well-spoken public figures with a compelling alarmist story to tell are also known for causing mindless havoc. The panic generated by Orson Welles’ infamous radio broadcast of War of the Worlds is a case in point. However analogy has no bearing on the science of climate change.

As an institute whose members are involved in minerals related activities, the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) sees the issues raised by the climate change debate as necessitating an informed public debate based on actual evidence rather than rhetoric. In particular, there are three key issues which could benefit from scientific and engineering expertise.

The first is the extent to which anthropogenically induced emissions of greenhouse gases can be linked to an increase in average global surface temperature. The second is the impact and reversibility of climate change. The third, and arguably most important issue, is how we can move forward with practical measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both nationally and internationally.

The first issue, namely whether there is a causal link between the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and average surface temperature, is easily the most controversial. Global coverage of temperature has only been available for the past hundred or so years; reconstructions from before that time are based on data sets derived from boreholes, glacier lengths, tree rings and so on. Different scientists from across a range of disciplines have drawn different conclusions on what the data indicates.

Taken from a geological point of view, it can be legitimately argued that the current increase in surface temperature is part of the Earth’s natural global warming and cooling process. That is, rather than being caused by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the warming phenomenon is the product of the same natural processes that led to a Medieval Warm Period from AD 900-1300 and a Little Ice Age which started in AD 1280.

It is important at this point to highlight that the opinions among our geologist members on greenhouse gases and climate change is widely divergent: there are some who are deeply committed to the anthropogenically induced theory of climate change, while others hold sceptical views. However all are keen to see the debate take place in an informed environment.

The second key issue, namely, the impact and reversibility of climate change, falls outside our members’ area of expertise. While lacking consensus on the extent and variability of climate change, in 2001 the International Panel on Climate Change considered that such an increase may result in unstable weather patterns, increased temperatures, more frequent droughts, sea level rise, more frequent extreme weather events, reduced marine biodiversity and the wider distribution of certain insect borne diseases.

The impacts under consideration are complex and multi-factorial, with a number of scientists constantly evolving our understanding. None of this complexity is acknowledged in Gore’s presentation as he “connects the dots” as he sees them, whitewashing all scientific qualifications. For example, his use of the receding glaciers in Kilimanjaro as evidence of global warming fails to mention that this phenomenon has in fact been occurring since 1880, long before the significant increase in greenhouse gases.

The third key issue, given that governments around the world have largely accepted that climate change may be caused by human activities and that the impacts may be adverse and irreversible, is how do countries practically reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

As experts and innovators involved in the production of energy commodities and energy intensive industry, this is the issue on which our members are most qualified to comment. Meanwhile, Al Gore does not really address this question in his documentary, perhaps because there are no simple solutions. Although he does urge his audience to use less hot water and install compact fluorescent light bulbs in the end credits.

The International Energy Agency has estimated that in 2030 the world’s energy needs will be almost 60 per cent higher than they are now, and that most of this will be met by fossil fuels. As a result, developing countries are expected to account for over 80 per cent of the growth in emissions.

These countries have indicated they are not willing to accept anything like a Kyoto-style binding target. Therefore major reductions will only be achieved if cost effective, low emissions energy technologies are deployed in developing countries, and more energy efficient processes of producing key commodities for them are brought online.

As a key exporter of energy resources and energy intensive products, Australia has recognised that we can play a lead role in contributing to a technological solution through collaborative international efforts. Consequently, we have become a leading partner in the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) which has as its objective the deployment and transfer of cleaner and more efficient technologies. However in order to be successful at the international level we will require carefully crafted public policies at home, aimed at reinvigorating collaboration and private and public spending on R&D.

Government-industry collaboration has already made significant progress in areas such as clean coal through the development of carbon geosequestration technologies. Briefly endorsed - but not explained - by Al Gore in his documentary, carbon geosequestration basically involves the capture and storage of CO2 from electricity generation in deep geological reservoirs. This is already being done in the oil industry as a means of enhancing the recovery from oil fields and disposing of CO2. The first geosequestration trial in Australia will commence this year in the Otway Basin.

In the documentary, Al Gore does not mention the existence of nuclear power, presumably preferring not to muddy the waters of his “moral argument”. Capable of providing base load power for developed economies with negligible emissions, one would have thought that discussion on the role of nuclear energy would be indispensable. It is reassuring that the Federal Government at least has decided that the issues raised by our participation in the nuclear fuel cycle should be publicly considered, with the comprehensive Uranium Mineral Processing and Energy Review currently underway.

As well as focusing research across all possible energy technologies - from clean coal to photovoltaics - we need to look at improving energy efficiency for existing industries.

Manufacturing and mining are the largest energy users, accounting for 49 per cent and 11 per cent stationary energy usage, which in turn is the largest single contributor to CO2 emissions.

Al Gore does not really say much about the energy efficiency in his documentary, although he takes the opportunity to make a few digs at industry. However for those of us who have moved beyond a simplistic conception of heroes and villains, finding ways to leverage industry investment into designing commercially viable energy efficient processes is a critical part of the puzzle.

Take for example Rio Tinto’s HIsmelt process for steelmaking. Currently being tested at commercial scale in Kwinana, Western Australia, the HIsmelt process uses 20 per cent less energy than traditional processes. It has been estimated that, owing to the ramp up in demand from China, iron and steel will contribute about 50 per cent of Australia’s projected emissions by 2010. So widespread deployment of the HIsmelt process has the potential to make a significant contribution to greenhouse gas abatement in Australia and overseas.

The sunk costs and long plant life of heavy industries means that there are significant risks associated with moving to the demonstration plant stage of a step change technology. Development costs for the HIsmelt process ran in to about half a billion dollars with a gestation period of about two decades.

In order for industry to continue to be willing to make important investments in these technologies, market incentives which ameliorate the risk will need to be put in place. It is disturbing that in a recent submission Rio Tinto indicated that a critical factor in its decision to proceed with commercialisation was the 150 per cent tax concession on R&D, yet this concession has recently been cut to 125 per cent.

The Federal Government currently has a number of policies aimed at securing investment in low emissions technology on the table, such as the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Development Fund, the CRCs and CSIRO’s Energy Transformed Flagship, but they merely represent a starting point.

Significant greenhouse gas emission reductions will not take place unless Australia makes long term strategic commitment to market incentives aimed at leveraging R&D that will make the difference. This requires an overarching vision and must be co-ordinated at the national level. Policies aimed at long-term technology development may lack the simplistic appeal of hastily implemented carbon taxes, however at present they are the only real means of achieving long-term abatement.

This is not to say that policy measures that incorporate a carbon price signal will never be appropriate. However they can only be effective where they are implemented as part of an holistic solution, where the primary goal is stimulating investment by business in low emissions technology through positive incentives. Carbon price signals can then fulfill a secondary goal of sending the message to business that taking the opportunity to invest in low emissions technologies will positively affect their bottom line in the future. They can also encourage low emissions technology uptake where it is commercial.

Ultimately, carbon price signals are only justifiable if they form part of an overarching national vision for a technology based way forward. The current States’ Based Emissions Trading proposal fails this test, constituting an imperative to reduce emissions without any reference to current policies at both state and federal level aimed at stimulating low emissions technology R&D. The result may well be alienation of business and a loss of opportunity to discover ways to work co-operatively.

The same can be said of the Kyoto Protocol. A high watermark in diplomacy, and held up by Gore as a shining example, this measure will deliver no more than one per cent of global abatement worldwide. It is ironic that many of the Kyoto signatories are likely to fall short of their targets, but have still not revived their energy R&D spending to the peak levels in the 1970s following the OPEC oil crisis.

Global leaders need to display a willingness to constantly visit and revisit the key scientific and technological issues if we are to meet this global challenge. Currently the political will to action appears to be overriding the political will to learn.