The politics of climate change

Now that the world’s politicians have decided that they can save the planet by taxing carbon, it’s time to ask ourselves what they are really up to. Why are they so po-faced and pompous about a doubtful proposition that, even if it is correct, will not be solved by the solutions they are proposing? The answer is simple: this is an ideal political issue; it offers everything politicians desire to justify their own existence. It has little or nothing to do with climate change.

For some it may mean saving their country, for most it’s about saving themselves. It doesn’t take much questioning to see that it has nothing to do with saving the planet.

The French will predictably be among the noisiest. They want the whole world to go nuclear, and a tax on carbon emissions will provide them with a significant economic advantage. As the head of Electricite de France, Laurent Striker observed: “France chose nuclear because we have no oil, gas or coal resources.” As they say in France, “No oil, no gas, no coal, no choice”.

France has problems with their very noisy and active farmers. That’s why President Sarkozy has welcomed the chance to threaten world political leaders with new tariffs against nations that refuse to tackle climate change. It’s another form of protectionism - very popular with the farmers.

France is the world’s largest net exporter of electric power, and one of the leading exporters of nuclear technology. For the French, emission trading schemes will be a godsend.

It’s a little more complicated in Germany. In 2000, the Greens, in coalition, gained power, and Jurgen Trittin became Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. The government then reached agreement with energy companies to gradually shut down all of the country’s nuclear plants by 2020. The Nuclear Exit Law they introduced is still official policy.

In 2005 the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) won the elections, under Chancellor Angela Merkel. Since 2008 the CDU has openly opposed the phase-out, and Chancellor Merkel has just been returned for another four-year term, with a definite swing to the right.

Germany has a few problems. The International Monetary Fund has predicted unemployment of almost 11 per cent next year; annual budget deficits of more than $200 billion are predicted after the economy has taken a 5 per cent dive this year. At the moment, electricity consumption is gradually falling, and production is predicted to rise slightly - until next year. In 2010, 126,036 gigawatt hours of production is scheduled to disappear, and Germany will be in deep trouble.

“For the foreseeable future,” according to the CDU, “the contribution of nuclear energy to the production of electricity in Germany is irreplaceable”.

Merkel doesn’t have much choice. Electric power in Germany already costs twice as much as in the USA. Price rises will certainly adversely affect trade. They currently plan to open 26 new coal-fired plants, but this will increase prices and increase carbon emissions. They will probably also need to import natural gas from Russia, not a popular option.

Emissions trading schemes are just the excuse Merkel needs to abandon the phase-out and turn back to nuclear.

The USA has 104 nuclear power reactors which generate about 20 per cent of their electrical energy: 49 per cent comes from coal-fired plant, 22 per cent from gas, 6 per cent from hydro and the rest comes from other means. About half of US generating capacity is over 30-years-old. According to the World Nuclear Association “Today the importance of nuclear power in USA is geopolitical as much as economic, reducing dependency on imported oil and gas. The operational cost of nuclear power - 1.87 ¢/kWh in 2008 - is 68 per cent of electricity cost from coal and a quarter of that from gas.”

Since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, there has been considerable opposition to nuclear power in America, and obviously the coal mining industry is of great importance. No doubt Mr Obama is aware of these facts, and his plans for emissions trading will be interesting as he juggles the votes involved. No doubt he would like to have his hand forced.

China's President Hu Jintao told the recent UN summit that his country will "vigorously" develop renewable energy and do more to conserve energy. By how much? Well, "We will endeavour to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level," Mr Hu said. Per unit of GDP? That’s interesting.

China currently has 11 operational nuclear reactors, with at least five under construction and 25 planned.

India plans to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 4.2 per cent to 9 per cent within 25 years. Their High Commission in Sydney says: “India’s energy security, at its broadest level, has to do with meeting the lifeline energy needs of its population.

“Per capita energy consumption in India is only one-fifth of that in OECD countries. For electricity, the proportion is skewed even further, with per capita consumption being only one-twentieth of the OECD figures. The realization of India’s development goals cannot be possible without a significant increase in energy consumption. While India is committed to the path of sustainable development and follows environment friendly policies in its own interest, it cannot accept any commitment that limits the growth of its energy consumption or to any particular pattern of energy use.”

India’s attitude to ETS proposals is clearly stated and well justified. They currently have 17 nuclear reactors, with more than 20 planned.

Most studies predict that the world will double its consumption of energy by 2050. Both India and China, where a considerable amount of this increase will occur, are major emitters of carbon, have every intention of increasing these emissions, and together will make any efforts at climate control through reduction of emissions clearly impractical. Between them, these two countries are currently building some 650 coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emissions of these new plants is five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords.

The main effect of all this will be a significant increase in the use of nuclear power, with ETS providing the political justification. No form of renewable energy, no matter how promising, can provide the world demands for energy in the short to medium term.

What of our own Prime Minister? Australia has a major economic advantage in cheap and reliable power. However, if the rest of the world agrees on emissions trading schemes with economic penalties, Australia will have to follow suit. But do we need to so eagerly promote schemes which will effectively tax our natural advantages? Surely not. Why shouldn’t we at least wait until we know what the nations that can actually make a difference plan to do?

Perhaps Mr Rudd has wider ambitions, and believes that his new found beliefs in economics and the science of climate change will lead to the recognition of his abilities on the international stage. I, for one, do not want to see Australia fall on its own sword to further these ambitions.

And I’m a little surprised that someone who claims to be opposed to nuclear power can be so enthusiastic in taking a position which will clearly increase its use.

Perhaps his hidden plan is to increase exports of uranium, in which Australia has a clear competitive advantage. All it will require is for Peter Garrett to roll over - again.