Appealing to science in the AGW debate is delusional

There is at least one very good reason why it is in our own self interest to switch to a low carbon or zero carbon economy even if there was no threat of AGW. Consider the world’s largest economies: China, the USA, and the EU. What all of these have in common is that they need to import their energy. A form of global carbon rationing is attractive to these economies for it will mean that they can switch to a low carbon economy without losing ground to those economies like Russia and the Middle East which have access to the bulk of available fossil fuels.

Second, as long as global economic growth is fuelled by the consumption of non-renewable resources we will find that the mathematics of exponential growth will eventually find us out; indicators are that we have already reached peak oil and that other materials on which we are relying for our 21st century prosperity are not far behind.

(There have been some studies that suggest we do not have to worry about global warming because we will run out of stuff to burn before we can do too much damage. A tempting thought but I would rather not test that hypothesis.)

Therefore one can argue for a shift to a low or zero carbon economy on the grounds of maintaining control of our economic future. For even if we have sufficient in the way of natural resources to maintain a carbon economy for another 100 years there is no guarantee that we will be able to remain part of the global economy. (There is a WTO ruling in place which allows countries to prohibit imports on environmental grounds.)

The upshot of all of this is that we have moved beyond the scientific arguments. We are now at a stage where we have to consider the appropriate policy directions that we should be taking. Such policy directions need to take on board the fact there is global consensus that CO2 emissions need to be reduced. The discussion at the global level has moved beyond the scientific argument to the more complex political argument as to how this reduction is to be achieved.

Domestically the business sector needs a clear signal from the government. The government’s proposed emission trading scheme is an example of trying to have your cake and eat it. The ambivalence inherent in the scheme is that it makes it extremely difficult for businesses to be certain that they can use it as a template for planning. Certainly the way the solar rebate was mismanaged does not give any business hope that they can plan with confidence.

So what to do? It is far better that we bite the bullet and introduce a carbon rationing scheme. Such a scheme should apply across the board. Businesses should be able to be confident that they know what their carbon entitlements are for at least the next five years. Thus if the aim is to reduce our emissions to 10 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050 we should be able to work out by how much we would have to reduce our ration on annual basis. (An annual reduction of 10 per cent would mean we would need about 20 years to get to 10 per cent of 1990 levels) Ideally there would be bipartisan support for whatever scheme is introduced. Under such rationing there should be provision to acknowledge the reality that here in Australia people living in regional Australia will tend to have a larger carbon footprint then the majority of urban Australians. People who do not need all of their entitlements can sell those of to those who struggle to cope with the reduction in their entitlement.

Rationing will do little to reduce global warming, indeed anything that Australia does will have little impact on the rate of global climate change. However, they can position Australia to become a net exporter of energy - our deserts and our coast line provide valuable sources of solar, tidal and wind energy - energy that can be captured and exported to countries without these natural advantages. We can either shy away from this opportunity and timorously cling to outmoded technology or stride forwards to embrace the brave new world of renewable and sustainable energy.