15000 delegates are currently sitting in Copenhagen and thrashing out some sort of agreement on how humanity might be saved from the effects of climate change. That’s a mighty big committee. Let’s hope all the hot air that will be exhaled over the next fortnight is being captured and put to good use.
I must say I’m pessimistic. There may be an agreement, but with that many vested interests involved, the result can only be an Elephant Man of a document that will lead to little in the way of meaningful change.
Meanwhile, there has been some much needed straight talk in the last couple of days about what we need to do to respond to the climate challenge. Two significant contributions have come from unlikely sources.
Influential comment on climate change falls into three main categories.
There is the denial/sceptism camp which picks away at any loose thread in the fabric of climate science. We’ll include amongst this lot those who claim they believe but are too short-sighted to consider any action that might threaten short-term economic growth. This includes Tony Abbott and his new denial all-star shadow cabinet. (Reinforcing my pessimism is the news that one of the local champions of this camp, one Steve Fielding, is heading to Copenhagen. Look out delegates – you’re about to be swept off your padded seats by one of the world’s great brains.)
There is the “we believe and are (talking about) acting (but self-interest is paramount)” group which includes most of the world’s political leaders. Most of the Copenhagen crowd would fall into this category, including Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. There are two sub-groups, best described by NASA climate scientist James Hansen: “Developed countries [want an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)] so they can continue business as usual … [and] developing countries, [which are] happy to go along with that if the developed countries give them some money”. Carbon offsets, an essential component of an ETS, work for both these sub-groups, enabling them to look as though they are acting while in fact having little or no impact on either economies or carbon emissions.
The third group of prominent climate change commenters is very, very small. These are the people in the public eye who see things as they are and are willing to say so, without added colours or flavours. While most in this group are from green groups, including green political parties, there are refreshing exceptions.
Take this, from freshly despatch Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull on his blog yesterday:
“Let’s get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money … Somebody has to pay”
This is the first time I remember any politician saying that responding to climate change won’t come for free. Mr Rudd has studiously avoided making any such statement unequivocally. But it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No matter how thick the layer of bureaucratic custard on the trifle of climate change response, we – all of us – are going to have to pay for the jelly and sponge cake at some stage. If we don’t pay for it now, future generations will pay much more in mitigation costs down the track.
And then there was serial rabble-rouser, Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan, speaking to Phillip Adams last week. Heffernan is someone I would previously have backed as a Sceptic with a capital ‘S’. But I forgot one thing: he is a farmer. And as such, he sees simple truths more clearly than many: just as too many sheep in a paddock will lead to hungry animals, too many people on the planet will lead to a hungry population. This is exacerbated when arable land becomes desert as a result of climate change.
The great tragedy is that this sort of straight talk is sure to be missing from Copenhagen or, if it does find a way through the bluster, it will be studiously placed into the basket of inconvenient truths.
Print This Post
I've been work- ing in business, one way or another, for the last 20 years, and writing for the last ten. My main interest now is to get messages across - yours and mine - in a readable and approachable fashion. 
