Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

In the end, climate is not an economic question

By David Spratt - posted Tuesday, 8 July 2008


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.

Advertisement

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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

19 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Spratt is the co-author of Climate Code Red: the case for emergency action published by Scribe in July 2008, and shortlisted for the 2009 Victorian Premier’s Literary Awards. He is a researcher for CarbonEquity, an activist network advocating carbon rationing and personal carbon allowances as a fair and effective response to global warming. Recent CarbonEquity reports include Avoiding catastrophe: recent science and new data on global warming and The two degree target: how far should carbon emissions be cut?.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Spratt

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 19 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy