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

Coal mining will outlast green hysterics

By Jeremy Gilling, John Muscat and Rolly Smallacombe - posted Tuesday, 29 May 2007


“Not all jobs are good”, says former Liberal Party leader John Hewson.

That assertion, odd for an economist, fell from Hewson’s recent Australian Financial Review column lashing the Government and Labor for appeasing the coal industry over climate change. Neither, he says, will confront the “necessary transition” to an economy without coal mining. “Some of those jobs, indeed some of those industries”, writes Hewson, “may not be able to be protected, nor should they be”.

More than anything, Hewson’s column encapsulates an important truth about our climate change debates - there is no absolute response; rather, it depends on your socio-economic standpoint.

Advertisement

Over recent decades university graduates engaged in professional or quasi-professional “knowledge work” have grown from a small fraction to over 30 per cent of the workforce. Since this echelon controls the channels of ideas and information, it is hardly surprising that we are bombarded with policy prescriptions that promote, or protect, their interests at the expense of other socio-economic strata.

The gentrification of social policy is a prominent feature of contemporary politics. John Howard, “the battler’s friend” is not immune to it. The trend is apparent on issues like “work-life balance”, “diversity”, urban development, higher education and, last but not least, the environment, especially climate change.

When Hewson says some jobs aren’t good, he’s not thinking of his own. And nor does the whole herd of alarmists bellowing for an end to coal mining.

It’s fashionable to assert that “transition” to a decarbonised economy will be relatively painless. Those peddling this myth tend to draw on a series of undigested, and often misunderstood, research papers and reports, starting with last year’s Allen Consulting effort (PDF 2.09MB)for the Business Council’s Roundtable on Climate Change.

According to the report, greenhouse gas emissions cuts of 60 per cent from year 2000 levels by 2050 would only reduce GDP by 6 per cent less than otherwise. Then came the famous - or infamous, depending on your perspective - Stern Review estimate that “the expected annual cost of emissions reductions consistent with a trajectory leading to stabilisation … is likely to be around 1 per cent of GDP by 2050”.

The figure of 1 per cent was widely described as a cinch. Now, the third instalment of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, released at the recent Bangkok conference, follows in a similar vein, stating that reducing emissions to acceptable levels will cost no more than 3 per cent of global GDP by 2030.

Advertisement

(The IPCC report brought on the inevitable Sydney Morning Herald headline: “It won’t cost the earth to save the planet”.)

Such pronouncements are commonly used to dismiss the understandable fears of energy sector investors and unions. One egregious case is the AFR’s Brian Toohey, who claims “Australian households and businesses will barely notice the cost of achieving deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions by 2050”, and adds “we could adopt the 80 per cent target set by California’s Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and still find it a breeze to achieve”.

A breeze to achieve? Toohey writes from his own secure perspective. What for him is a breeze, may well be a tornado for thousands of blue-collar families. While progressives call for drastic measures to save our common inheritance, there won’t be common consequences - some will win, others will lose.

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

First published in The New City in May 2007.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

25 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 Authors

Jeremy Gilling is a co-editor, along with John Muscat, of The New City, a web journal of urban and political affairs.

John Muscat is a co-editor, along with Jeremy Gilling, of The New City, a web journal of urban and political affairs.

Rolly Smallacombe is a co-editor, along with Jeremy Gilling and John Muscat, of The New City, a web journal of urban and political affairs.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Jeremy Gilling
All articles by John Muscat
All articles by Rolly Smallacombe

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

Article Tools
Comment 25 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy