When the truth bows to the national interest ...

The planet can access only a sliver of national income - the growth bit. The theoretical justifications are left implicit in Garnaut’s Review. But let’s have quick look at where this growth-income strategy can take us: suppose the adverse impacts of climate change slow economic growth to zero or, even take it into negative territory - then the sliver has gone. Garnaut says we can no longer afford to protect the planet at that point: i.e. as its needs for protection become more substantial. It’s fatuous nonsense.

That said, the Review is also the work of his disciplinary tools. However, Garnaut’s success also depended on his urbane and charming manner. Like Danny Oceans of the famous movie series, he was the kind of guy you would help if you found him robbing your safe. Resisting him, accusing him of wrong doing was out of the question. I am sure that many scientists still think of him as a nice guy. Four Corners virtually made him a saint.

The bearing of the Review

The Review sets out to save the planet but, then, diverts. At that point, Garnaut begins to tell us what he thinks Australians are able or willing to pay for a damaged planet. And that’s a completely different question, nothing holds those two inquiries together. If you can’t see this, ask a poor person receiving dental treatment (ask me) to explain the difference between what you need and what you can afford.

As it turns out, we don’t even hear directly from Australians on this question -what they can afford. We only get to hear what Garnaut thinks they can afford. That’s another huge leap, and there’s room here for whole lot more error and distortion. Not only have we stumbled into a human-centred world when we should be in a planet-centred one, we are provided with ugly but demonstrably false accounts of those who occupy this world.

Straight from the horse’s mouth

Garnaut’s human economy possesses a familiar architecture. He confidently tells what most Australians willing to pay to protect the planet How does he know? Was there a survey or even reference to one? No and no. We will see in a moment, but there’s not even a momentary concession to the demands of evidence-based argument. We are dealing with fantasy and ideology.

Garnaut’s Australians are willing to pay what self-interested consumers everywhere pay for anything: as little as possible. Why would we behave like that? Because that’s what we are on the understanding of economic liberalism: acquisitive, possessive, self-interested and shortsighted.

But are we not also, sometimes, generous neighbours, caring friends, selfless teammates, anxious or loving parents and so a long list might go on. And might we not pay for the planet acting in these capacities? A simple change in perspective here would mean the difference between future treaties that saved the planet and current ones that look like failing. But economic liberalism has no place for such moral complexity or depth. Garnaut’s Climate Change Review is actually a dangerous and dystopian fairy tale.

(This is not wishful thinking. It is a case of recognising, perhaps talking up, but not of inventing human moral resources than don’t exist. Then it’s a case of harnessing them for the purposes of wider governance. Not governing as if we were all sociopaths - and then insisting that this is best possible of all worlds.)

The Review’s introduction provides more than just important clues. “Global and national mitigation”, Garnaut says:

… are only going to be successful if reductions in emissions can be made and demonstrated to be consistent with continued economic growth and rising living standards. (p.xxvii)

There you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth: “What does the planet need?” does not even register as a question. It’s all down to: “What can our economy afford or what are we willing to pay?” Given that the selfish and acquisitive will tolerate no reduction in anything, that growth must continue unabated, we are down to that thin sliver again.

Conclusion

Science was pivotal in the 500-year long journey that has taken us from mercantile to industrial capitalism and from absolute monarchy to liberal democratic state. Its endeavours underpinned both the secular freedom and material abundance of this state.

To be sure, the emphasis on material abundance was overdone in recent times. But now that the message of science is increasingly one of caution and limits, it is cast aside by compromised politicians and by corporate business leaders who are encouraged to believe that they are above science and the laws of nature when they are driving economic growth and capital accumulation. They are apparently willing to place the human future in the hands of post-industrial and we can also say, post-modern, magical thinking. This will end in tears - and lots of them.