Change of climate in Canberra

GREENS have played both ends of this debate and lost.

FOR a carbon-based life form the Australian Greens have demonstrated an unfathomable level of vanity, inanity and hypocrisy in roughly equal measure. Those who have followed this political movement closely might not have been surprised by its antics, but it has been remarkable to see Labor suckered in to the political black hole of imposing a carbon tax. Now, despite intransigence from the Greens and Labor, the will of the people has finally won out and the tax is gone.

The Greens’ hypocrisy is laid bare when we measure their tears now against their tactics with the Coalition in 2009 and 2010 to repeatedly block Kevin Rudd’s carbon pollution reduction scheme. Without their resistance, an internationally linked emissions trading scheme would have been well established by now, with companies paying between about $6 and $8 a tonne in line with the European scheme. This would have inflicted only a fraction of the burden we have seen the carbon tax impose on the aluminium industry, vehicle- manufacturing sector and household budgets.

The inanity of the Greens is evident because they could not grasp all this and bank an emissions trading scheme when they could. Instead, they later convinced Julia Gillard to break her promise not to impose a carbon tax. The Greens’ silliness shows no sign of letting up as they pledge to oppose the Coalition’s “direct action” plans which — while less than ideal and more expensive than necessary — still see real money spent on carbon abatement. The Greens, again, are set to turn their back on the good in pursuit of what they perceive to be the perfect. Still, we would be foolish to expect any better from a party that exaggerates the global warming threat while campaigning against the currently viable low-emissions solutions of natural gas, hydro and nuclear power. And the vanity, the sheer vanity, to suggest that any carbon-reduction activity in a nation that produces less than 1.4 per cent of the world’s human-generated greenhouse gases will change the global climate. Science tells us Australia’s contribution can only be marginal, so any expectations of “saving the planet” must rest on this nation leading an international change of heart. If Christine Milne thinks she can turn the trend of massive investment in new coal-fired power generation in China and India or convince the US to impose the carbon price it has resisted over the past decade, she really ought to get cracking. The rest of us are constrained to dealing with the real world.

In that real world, China’s emissions have doubled over the past decade while hundreds of millions of people have been lifted from poverty. In India, the same process is under way a decade or two behind. While emissions rise, the scientific evidence suggests a degree or two of warming will occur this century, despite the pause thus far. Any realistic assessment will weigh the costs of more severe droughts and rising sea levels against the benefits of higher agricultural yields and fewer deadly cold snaps.

The abolition of the carbon tax removes an act of economic self-harm and political skulduggery. It will make no difference to the global climate or talks on global policy; especially if Australia meets its 5 per cent emissions reduction target through direct action. It is time for a serious, realistic and multidimensional climate debate.