Nourishing the environmental debate

A Future 62-Year Old’s Views on the Economy & the Climate

I’m the youngest blogger here – I recently turned 25. But I’ve been campaigning on environmental issues for the past 11 years, so I reckon I can give Ross Garnaut, a relative newcomer to climate politics, a run for his money when it comes to the amount of time I’ve spent thinking about climate change and the transition to a sustainable Australia.

Right now Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong & the rest of the government are paying close attention to Garnaut, a 62-year old economist. When climate change starts to hit Australia really hard, Ross Garnaut will be very old. I, on the other hand, will be halfway through my life. So, as a future 62-year old, I’d like them to listen to me too.

Since this is my first post, I’ll be brief. I don’t want to use up all my puns and clever lines at once, and I want to start off on a solid foundation. So I’ll turn to the serious business of the economy, building on Sophie Black’s post yesterday.

Right now, the global renewable energy market is worth around US$100 billion annually (UNEP, 2007). This is predicted to rise to US $750 billion in just ten years (Ernst & Young, 2007). Hmmm… 750 billion. That number is greater than the proposed bail-out cash for Wall St. So, since there will be all this money circulating around looking for investments in renewable energy and clean tech, maybe it’s a good idea for Australia to make the structural economic changes now to enable us to seize these opportunities and be proactive in building a new economy on a solid basis of clean energy and green jobs.

It’s clear that a new global economy is being shaped by the current nosedives and turns in the financial markets. It’s also clear that there will be winners and losers in this new economy. The winners will be the countries that invest now in the big economic opportunities of this century – renewable energy, clean technology, energy efficiency, and other ways of reducing emissions so our economies are no longer reliant on expensive and climate-destroying fossil-fuel energy like oil and coal.

It’s time for Kevin Rudd to guarantee our future prosperity by delivering carbon pollution reduction targets to drive our new economy. Garnaut’s targets are in the range of 10-25%. That’s clearly not enough – my fellow bloggers have outlined why.

I believe that Australia must reduce our emissions at least 50% by 2020 from 1990 levels to send a strong signal to the rest of the world that we will lead. Really, we need to reduce them as far and as fast as possible – a response commensurate to the scale of the problem – and aim to stabilise carbon concentrations between 300 – 350 ppm, as James Hansen stated earlier this year.

Australia is one of the richest, sunniest, windiest and most creative countries in the world. There is simply no excuse for us to remain an international laggard; and we will get laughed (or, more likely, booed) out of the UN Climate negotiations in Poznan this year if Penny Wong comes to the negotiating table with anything less than a 25% cut.

Building a new renewable energy economy is like taking out an insurance policy for our kids and grandkids, an insurance policy we need in tough economic times.

It’s interesting that so much attention is going to the bail out package right now. Wouldn’t it have been better to put regulations in place before the crisis, to stop it getting to this point in the first place? I’d like to think governments can learn a lesson from this situation by drawing the obvious analogy.

We have an opportunity right now to regulate our economy to reduce emissions to prevent future catastrophe and at the same time build an innovative green economy. And if we don’t do this now, not only will we be clear economic losers in a few short years, as what’s left of our renewable energy industry continues the drift to places with better incentives like China and California, there will be no-one there to bail us out when the climate crashes, and our economy along with it.

So bring the future forward, I say. Future 62-year olds of Australia, unite to demand a 50% by 2020 target. It’s time the government started listening to the future; not the past, and planning with us in mind.

Ps – If you’re a young person reading this and want to get involved with the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, my Co-Director Amanda and I would love to have your help! You can email us at info@youthclimatecoalition.org.

4 Comments

  1. 1
    Chris Sanderson
    Posted October 1, 2008 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Hi, Well I’m at the opposite end of the age spectrum, even older than Garnaut, but I’ve had the time over the last few years to study the subject. I monitor the blogs and put out a local newsletter on Climate change. Also run http://www.plug-inAustralia.org

    Great to see this new part of Crikey devoted to Climate Change – and I hope Energy, ‘cos they’re so closely intertwined.

    I’m trying to put a table together that links ppm to resulting average tempertures and equivalent % of emission reductions. Maybe you can help? This is as far as I’ve got. I’m sure about the ppm’s, fairly sure about the resulting avg temps, but looking for the equivalent ‘% reduction by 2020′ Do you have those?

    Jim Hansen (NASA Climate): 350ppm equates to a strong probability of less than 2 degrees average global warming – as long as we start now = % reduction by 2020?

    Rudd/Wong: 450ppm: equates to 2-3 degrees average warming = % reduction by 2020?

    Garnaut: 550ppm – equates to 3-5 degrees average warming = % reduction by 2020?

    If you’ve read Mark Lynas new book, ‘Six Degrees’, you’ll know that under 2 degrees average warming and the human race survives, although many other species will not.

    The higher we go above 2 degrees increases the risk of positive feedback loops occurring, which will eventually, if we continue ‘business as usual’, take the planet past the ‘point of no return’.

    The recent acceleration of Arctic and Antarctic ice melt suggests that such a tipping point is likely to be crossed if all nations were to continue ‘business as usual’ for more than the next year or two and that we will start to experience the consequences within the next 50 years. Is that you’re understanding as well?

    ……../Chris

  2. 2
    Posted October 1, 2008 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Hi Anna,
    A great piece – I am a fellow future 62-year old.
    I’ll send you an email :-)
    Angela

  3. 3
    Mitchell Porter
    Posted October 1, 2008 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    Chris – there are two complicating factors in figuring out the % reduction by 2020 necessary for a long-range target concentration.

    First: for a given target, the cumulative global emissions over many years are what matters. The rate of reduction might start steeply and then become shallower, or vice versa; either way is possible so long as the cumulative threshold isn’t exceeded.

    Second: even given a global emissions trajectory, there are different ways to divide up emissions rights among nations. “Contraction and convergence” is a popular idea: in the long run, every individual has the same right to emit, so national quotas will be proportional to population. However, since we are starting from the present-day world in which per capita emissions vary greatly among nations, convergence may take a long time, and so again, the national reduction mandated by, say, 2020, will depend on the particular scenario.

    Nonetheless, I share your interest in having concrete numbers for the various targets, and will post them here when I have some, if someone else doesn’t beat me to it.

  4. 4
    Posted October 7, 2008 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    “Australia is one of the richest, sunniest, windiest and most creative countries in the world.”
    I would agree with most of that except for the creative part. Unfortunately Australia is usually embarrassingly last to take up most new things.
    Recently in Europe I was amazed to drive across spain and see what looked to be about a 1000 wind turbines, it took 3 hrs of driving at 100kph to pass them. In Austria I saw probably 1 in 10 houses with solar panels on the roof. At the time of Australia’s “ethanol debate” where the community was debating whether to use 5 or 10% ethanol in fuel, 90% of all new cars sold in Brazil had “switch engines” which can run on 100% ethanol or 100% petrol or any blend in between.
    Just as the previous government ignored Kyoto we see a history of Australians pleading ignorance so they can selfishly protect their own interests.
    Clean coal technology anyone?

    http:www.dreamtimestudio.com

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.