In the end, climate is not an economic question

Some will argue that the cost will be even lower, as the recent McKinsey & Company climate report on Australia suggested; however, that calculation was based on emissions cuts of 60 per cent by 2050. The climate emergency, and the scientific imperatives, require a much steeper and more rapid emissions-reduction curve, along with cooling mechanisms, and assistance to other countries that are less responsible for the predicament that the world faces, and less able to respond; so what needs to be done will cost more.

One objection to this vision of a rapid transition to a post-carbon economy would be that some power-generating companies may go out of business, undermining one of the great institutions of modern life: shareholder value. I suspect that most citizens would think the greatest “value” would be a viable future for our planet, our lives, and our children; in other words, that they would welcome an end to the fossil fuel industries and, in their place, the development of sustainable industries.

Really, our main problem is political inertia, not cost to the economy. It will cost an estimated US$130 billion to ensure that all Indian households enjoy access to electricity by 2030. Let us say that the cost would be double if it came from renewable sources. That would be $20 billion a year for 15 years, or about 3 per cent of the total US military and intelligence budget (including Iraq and Afghanistan), which was US$700 billion in 2007. Just two years of US spending in Iraq and Afghanistan would more than pay the whole bill. So it is not a question of having the money; rather, it is a matter of the choice that we, and our governments, make about where to spend it.

Wherever you look, the story is the same. It is estimated that it might cost an additional US$30 billion per annum to put in place safe-climate power supplies in countries outside the OECD. That would amount to less than 0.1 per cent of the total annual production within OECD countries. Compare that to a world war, during which antagonists devote a third of their economy, or more, to military spending.

Yet, while every nation on earth is threatened by catastrophic global warming, most governments are still refusing to act with sufficient speed or financial commitment, exhibiting little courage, foresight or capacity.

Many of us - in business and at work, in climate action groups, in the not-for-profit sector, and in political parties - know in our hearts that in relation to tackling climate change, these governments are showing poor leadership, and the solutions that currently dominate national and global forums are inadequate. Sometimes, though, we dare to imagine that there could be a great national and international mobilisation that would see a very rapid transition to a safe-climate, post-fossil fuel, sustainable way of living.

We now need to think the unthinkable, because a sustainability emergency is not a radical idea - rather, it has become a necessary mode of action.