We're bit players in a global drama

kudelka 24 may

THE problem with climate change has always been that it's a global issue that can be fixed only with a global solution.

This is made clear in Will Steffen's climate change report, which many will see as what Julia Gillard ordered in her quest to put a tax on carbon emissions.

On one analysis, Steffen said all the right things: that climate change is real; that Australia's environment and future generations are heavily exposed; that the need to do something about it is urgent.

But the bottom line in Steffen's review of the climate science is that carbon emissions must be restricted to not more than one trillion tonnes of CO2 between 2000 and 2050 to have a 75 per cent chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 2C or less.

As Steffen notes, while the overall global budget or amount of carbon emissions can be related to the science, deciding who cuts emissions and by how much relies on politics.

In short, however sound the science may be, the efficacy of the response will be dictated by the worldwide political will.

The stark reality is that Australia emits about 550 million tonnes of CO2 a year, making us a bit player in having the ability to turn things around.

The opportunity for a low-emitting country such as Australia to punch above its weight comes with its technological breakthroughs and, as the Gillard government's chief climate advised, Ross Garnaut, has argued, its show of moral support.

Given these limitations, Steffen has nonetheless provided a useful analysis.

The detail in his report is compelling, and his personal declaration that sea levels will rise by between 50cm and 1m in the next century puts him well below some of the extreme forecasts.

Steffen takes the trouble to rebut some of the theories of climate change sceptics, including whether the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a warmer period from about 1000 to 1250, proves modern global warming to be natural variable.

He concludes the MCA may have been a northern hemisphere phenomenon and is different in magnitude and extent from contemporary warming.

In keeping with current climate change discussion, Steffen admits that some uncertainties remain and will continue to do so, given the complexity of the climate system and the impossibility of knowing the future of political, social and technological change.

But he cannot resist making disparaging comments about the contrasting views put by non-scientific observers and what he calls the noisy and confusing "debate" in the media.

He complains that the science is being attacked by many who do not have any credentials in the field.

This, more than anything else, shows Steffen has a lot to learn when it comes to understanding the difference between science and politics.