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

Hot air rises in greenhouse

By Mark S. Lawson - posted Thursday, 10 May 2007


For the problem Australia’s very active environmental campaigners face is that they are mostly in the wrong country. If we did do something about Australia’s mostly coal fired electricity generating network - the main reason for this country to be one of the biggest per-capital polluters - any of our savings would be completely overshadowed by additional emissions from China.

Last year China added 112 gigawatts of electrical generation capacity (according to the Australian Financial Review), which is more than three time Australia’s present total capacity, and the bulk of the Chinese capacity is coal fired. Ordinary pollution, including poison in rivers and particulate air pollution (smog) in cities is colossal.

These are the problems that deterred the Howard Government from signing the Kyoto protocol - there was never any point to the protocol, despite the rage generated by the Government’s refusal to sign - and those problems have not gone away. In fact they have become worse, with neither China nor India, which is also striving to develop, showing much interest in limiting emissions. Both countries were exempted from Kyoto and both have pointed out they are being asked to bear an extra burden because of problems originally caused by developed countries.

Advertisement

But getting China, in particular, to agree to limit emissions would be only a part of the battle. The central government has trouble collecting taxes and has its hands full fighting endemic corruption. Any effort to enforce emission controls would be seen by Chinese officials as a Western-inspired eccentricity which should not be taken seriously and, much more importantly, as another source of payoffs. Businesses that refuse to pay up would promptly be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, with the resulting conviction publicised as strong Chinese efforts to enforce controls.

Don’t believe this? Read Mr China by Tim Clissold (Random House, 2004), China and the West in the 21st Century by Will Hutton (Little Brown, 2006), The Asian Insider by Michael Backman (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), or One Billion Customers by James McGregor (Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2005). Anyone who still needs convincing should read recent news items about illegal coal mines in China. To operate a coal mine in Australia without the right approvals is asking for trouble. In China it’s simply a matter of paying off officials.

Western countries, at least, could be induced to sign a new-Kyoto and for the likes of England and France, it may only mean building a few more nuclear reactors.

Australia has yet to take the nuclear option but it is difficult to see how emissions can be limited significantly in any other way. However, even if Australia pulls out all stops to limit emissions in order to, say, show “moral leadership", it is unlikely the Chinese will be impressed, or even notice.

Add to those problems the fact that the scientific case for reducing emissions is feeble and controversial, and that the emissions reduction target will be almost picked at random, and it is apparent that the whole issue is an absurd, pointless farce. Reducing emissions is always a good idea but if you really believe that temperatures in Australia will increase by 3C in 100 years, or whatever, due to carbon dioxide emissions, then encourage your grandchildren to stock up on sun screen.

A current list of prominent scientists who have publically disagreed with the IPCC approach and findings is available from mlawson@afr.com.au.

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


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

19 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

Mark Lawson is a senior journalist at the Australian Financial Review. He has written The Zen of Being Grumpy (Connor Court).

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark S. Lawson

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

Photo of Mark S. Lawson
Article Tools
Comment 19 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy