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

An ethical and sustainable Australia makes sound business sense

By Simon Divecha - posted Thursday, 29 December 2005


Almost ten thousand people attended Montreal for the United Nations climate change conference in Canada. The conference occurred as carbon dioxide, the principle climate change culprit, is the highest it has ever been over the 650,000 years of history we can measure.

Australia was there, with Environment Minister Ian Campbell present for the high-level negotiations. He has been saying that humans are undeniably changing the world’s climate but is still not committing this country to greenhouse gas reduction targets.

So is Australia’s current climate change stance reasonable? Can we hope to avoid dangerous world changes? Is the alternative really, as a recent On Line Opinion Forum post suggested, going “back to sitting in dark, cold caves growling over raw meat”?

Advertisement

I would like to offer you three pointers to find your way through this climate morass. They are an ethical base for climate decisions, a real world check, and a greenhouse gas emissions position decoder.

So what is a fair and just approach to climate change?

Ethicist Peter Singer has pointed out it is very hard to think of a fair way under which nations produce greenhouse gas without the starting point being that everyone in the world is entitled to the same amount.

For example, Singer uses the Kyoto Agreement, the next stage of which was discussed in Montreal, as a notional acceptable output for greenhouse gases. He then divides this by the population of the world and finds developing countries like China are not yet using their per person share. China is in fact using 75 per cent of its per person share, while the United States, on the other hand, is using 500 per cent.

And Australia? The Australia Institute revealed last year that we produce 27 per cent more greenhouse gas per capita than people in the US. This makes us the highest emitter among all the world’s industrialised countries. Even looked at in absolute terms Australia’s total emissions exceed France and Italy, each with about three times Australia’s population.

If we are in support of a fair world, we would therefore be committed to massively cutting Australia’s emissions. But do such cuts mean we will be eating raw food and have no power?

Advertisement

This is where the real world comes in. There has been substantial action across the world from business, governments and the public. For example, 155 institutional investors, representing more than US$21 trillion in assets, have joined together as the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) to call for action.

With such financial clout behind it over 70 per cent of the US FT500 companies are now responding to the CDP. This includes Australian companies like BHP Billiton, Telstra and Westpac.

And major companies like Dupont are also achieving real change. Dupont has cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 55 per cent, and saved US$2 billion through using energy more efficiently.

This however is not the limit. ST Microelectronics has committed to zero net carbon emissions by 2010 and over the last year the commitment has helped drive its business from the world’s 12th largest electronic chip maker to number 6. There are many other examples (such as those widely documented throughout The Natural Advantage of Nations, edited by Charlie Hargroves and Mike Smith) although there are also undeniable challenges that include verifying cuts made through schemes which aim to offset greenhouse pollution.

Governments are not waiting around either. In 2004 eight US states and New York City joined together to sue those they describe as “the five largest global warming polluters in the US”.

Australia’s future could be one where we profit from cutting our emissions. We undoubtedly have the skill base and resources to do so but have a critical lack of policy leadership from our government. So what is our position today?

While our Environment Minster admits he was sceptical about climate science, he is now saying that we need worldwide cuts of 50 to 60 per cent “within the next 50 years or so”. Just in case you think this will be easy for Australia, reflect that we have actually increased our emissions from sources like burning gas and coal, to make electricity and heat, by over 32 percent from 1990 to 2001.

Current Australian Government rhetoric however, defends a lack of reduction targets and mixes this position up by also arguing that it would be immoral to curtail worldwide growth in energy production. It is then argued people in developing countries could then not be lifted out of poverty.

If we were truly focused on lifting people out of poverty, we would act to remove the disparity of emissions that exists today. Especially since the consequences from climate change disproportionately affect poor people like, as Singer points out, those living on low-lying land in Bangladesh.

For a just and equitable solution to climate change Australia will have to make dramatic greenhouse gas cuts. This is where government policy leadership, including targets, is important.

For example, Australia’s Clean Energy Future Group reports that our “highly successful mandatory green energy scheme” will by 2010 deliver a 1 per cent increase in green energy use above the 1997 levels. Compare this with the UK, which has set a 10.4 per cent target by 2010. And in 2002, Denmark obtained 18 per cent or its electricity from wind, while California’s gigantic economy’s green target is 18 per cent by 2012.

As companies like Dupont and ST Microelectronics demonstrate, cutting emissions makes sound business sense. Marry this with the well documented impact of climate change on Australia and you have to wonder why we are so slow to act. Our schemes exist but we are clearly not yet doing enough, fast enough.

So, Australia’s climate change stance does not make sense, whether you are in business, looking to set future policy directions, or just want to live in a progressive society.

Can we hope to avoid dangerous climate change? The faster we take action, the better the odds. Moreover, sensible policy would mean that overall we lose nothing and have everything to gain.

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

Article edited by Rebecca Mann.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

44 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 Author

Simon Divecha has two decades of experience creating environmental change and leading programs which today create the conditions for the growth of sustainable societies. He is a director of Green Matters Group, which focuses on environment work with businesses and governments. Formerly the CEO of the Conservation Council of South Australia, Simon has worked extensively across environmental and social issues, internationally, as well as at national and local grassroots level. This includes leading programs across Asia Pacific region with Greenpeace and the Mineral Policy Institute.

Related Links
The Australia Institute
The Climate Group
The Natural Advantage

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

Photo of Simon Divecha
Article Tools
Comment 44 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy