Nation in neutral

Being carbon-neutral does not require a country to have no greenhouse gas emissions. What it does require is that each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted by the country in question is offset by a tonne not produced elsewhere in the world. Of course, Norway will need to deal with greenhouse gas emissions at home, but first things first.

As Norway emits 54 million tonnes of carbon annually, there will be a high cost to purchase the equivalent quantity on the international market. This is where we learn another thing from Norway, which has positioned itself very well to pay for the permits. Norway has accumulated savings from oil and gas sales to the tune of $US300 billion, accumulated from oil rents and royalties and saved or invested in industries likely to earn similar profits to the oil industry.

Given the income, and extremely good profits, we are making from our coal, gas and mineral sales we should have a nice little nest egg, part of which could be used in the same way. However, we don't have anything equivalent.

Mining royalties are not a special type of income. But they are: you only earn the income once from a mine, not like earnings from a farm or a factory which continue as long as the assets are maintained.

While we have enormous reserves of coal, natural gas, iron ore, oil and uranium, extraction becomes dearer and dearer until one day it costs more than a litre of oil to extract a litre of oil. In economic terms, that's depletion. That day is a long way into the future for coal, but not necessarily for the others.

It would be economic dereliction to not have used mineral royalties to achieve a sustainable future. We should buy carbon on the international market and develop fuels of the future. This should be the focus of our politicians in this election year.

And Australian politicians should agree to a bipartisan climate change policy. Nations facing serious threats, such as war, find the only sensible solution is to unite and work to a common goal.

Is this too much to ask?