Carbon futures

Last week, leading climate scientists met in Melbourne to present the latest data and their projections for the effect on Australia if greenhouse emissions continue at the current rate. Their calculations project that by 2100, unless emissions are reduced, average temperatures will rise between three and six degrees, rainfall in southern Australia will cut by half, and the seas will rise by over a metre, the first of an inexorable increase in the level of the oceans by more than seven metres, with or without further global warming.

Days before, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced details of the carbon tax, sparking fierce debate on the Government’s prescription to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions. As if in pre-election mode, the Government and Opposition hit the campaign trail across the nation. But, as Australians try to make sense of the scientific evidence and the intervention needed to tackle humanity’s most pressing environmental threat, is there more heat than light on offer in the carbon tax debate?

Neos Kosmos questions two opposing commentators in the increasingly polarised debate.

Nick Dallas (PhD Chem), author of Climate Change Basics: 24 Lessons and climate change observer.

NK: How do you view the Government’s announcement last weekend?

ND: “It’s a compromised start. Ideally an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would have been preferable but it would have required more time to launch. The carbon tax will eventually fold up into an ETS a few years down the track. I would have liked to have seen a price of $30+ as it would have brought about behavioural change and innovation much quicker.”

NK: When the Coalition argues that emissions can be reduced and targets met without a carbon tax, what’s your reaction?

ND: “The Coalition’s policy (one feature of it being abating carbon dioxide through soil carbon sequestration) hasn’t received a good rap by either scientists or economists. You need a policy where the carbon price will ultimately really affect high polluters (i.e. those in power generation and other coal/oil-dependent industries). The Government’s policy of a carbon tax will compel these industries to adjust much faster as the carbon tax will impact them sooner.”

NK: To what extent can Australia affect global climate change on its own?

ND: “It’s not about what you can do on your own, it’s about pulling your weight and showing leadership. Per capita Australia is the world’s greatest polluter, due to the nature of its industries, geography and standard of living. However it is also affluent enough to take action. Action is being taken on a world scale. Europe already has an ETS, the US realises the necessity of action but debate is being stalled by vested interests, while both China and India are looking at introducing such schemes. Don’t be concerned about China, they are investing heavily in CO2 reducing and renewable technology. They have to, due to physical necessity; the pollution from rapid industrialisation is having a massive impact, even before climate change seriously kicks in. It’s also advantageous being an early mover/adaptor as it gives you an opportunity to leverage your experience to others but also to develop a technological lead and competitive advantage in tackling climate change. Australia and Australians have nothing to fear, it should be seen as an exciting opportunity.”

Sophie Mirabella, Shadow Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science.

NK: The Coalition is being described as cynical in its response to the carbon tax. Don’t the far-reaching consequences of climate change demand that Australia gets away from party politics on this subject and that some consensus is achieved?

SM: “This government is monumentally incompetent. We wouldn’t have this tax if the Greens hadn’t demanded it of the Prime Minister. Our job is to make sure there’s the best possible policy and future for this country. We want to reduce emissions the same as the Government, with the same 5 per cent target by 2020, but we don’t believe taxing people and then giving handouts to industry is the best way of doing it. The mechanisms we’re proposing is about providing incentives instead of tax. A lot of Australian industry is far more efficient, and causes fewer emissions compared to their foreign equivalents. By going it alone Australia is penalising good, efficient industry practice.

NK: Why do you believe Australians should be concerned about the imposition of the carbon tax, given the major compensation program and exemptions that the Government has announced ?

SM: “It’s a cynical attempt to lull people into a false sense of security. Costs will go up and won’t be fully compensated. On the government’s own figures, a household with an income of $65,000 and one child under five will be worse off; a self-funded retiree on $51,000 will be worse off. The tax will go up and up. That’s what it’s projected to do. I bet my bottom dollar that the compensation won’t go up and up. When it comes to industry, there’s no compensation for losing your job. Who really believes that the exemption for petrol is anything more than a PR exercise by a desperate government to blunt the ever growing public opposition? The irony is that exempting petrol makes a mockery of the need for a carbon tax at all. If Labor is fair dinkum that a carbon tax is vital to help cut emissions, why exempt petrol when cars and light commercial vehicles are responsible for around 12.6 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions?”

NK: What areas of industry are you concerned for in particular, and why?