Global Warming – The tipping point is now

John Kaye

The concept of “tipping point” aptly describes three key aspects of global warming. The mechanisms that control the earth’s climate, community attitudes to global warming and the response of the leaders of  Australia’s large political parties are all either nudging up against a point of rapid change or well into the

Developing an analysis of the mechanisms driving these tipping points is key to refocusing the debate away from the self interest of the coal and nuclear industries and back onto the fulfilment of a vision for a jobs rich, clean energy future. The environment movement, activists and progressive political parties like The Greens will be using the lead up to the 2007 NSW state and federal elections to place solutions to climate change on the public agenda.

Each year, human activity is responsible for about 8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere along with 600 million tonnes of methane and various amounts of other greenhouse gases. Many of the mechanisms that control the earth’s climate are being pushed towards triggering self-feeding runaway phenomena with potentially disastrous consequences for the planet and its occupants.  The melting of the Western Siberian permafrost, for example, would release massive amounts of trapped methane which is a highly potent greenhouse gas. The hotter the earth’s temperature, the more rapidly the permafrost will melt, thus feeding further global warming. It is estimated that there are 70 billion tonnes of methane stored under the Western Siberian tundra alone. If all of this is released, it would have the same global warming impact as 2,500 years of Australia’s current emissions.

The good news is that if global emissions are halved by mid-century, there is a reasonable chance that the climate will stabilise on the safe side of most of the tipping points. To achieve this, profound and sustained economic and social transformations will be required.

The second tipping point is the transition of community attitudes towards climate change. Two years ago, most major newspapers in Australia were devoting more column-centimetres to the fashion industry than to global warming. Fortunately this situation is now reversed throughout the media with a regular supply of information and debate on climate change. Unfortunately, the subsequent impact on community attitudes appears to have been a rapid transition from ignorance and disinterest towards a sense of fatalism, disempowerment and helplessness.

This is a direct challenge to those of us who care for the environment and for grass roots politics. Our task is to reinstate optimism that solutions exist and will work to save the climate, and that they will deliver more and higher quality jobs, a healthier economy and a more vibrant democracy. Our task is also to rebuild faith that change can be achieved by a community that is focused on protecting the public interest.

The sociological tipping point has been mirrored by a similarly rapid transition in the attitudes of the leadership of the large political parties. Until they became evangelists for so-called clean coal and nuclear power, the Howard government’s policy was characterised by denial and greenhouse scepticism, driven by the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, the representative body of the big polluters. When the pressure of overwhelming scientific consensus became politically irresistible, the Howard government finally confessed that human activity might be affecting the climate. They promptly adopted the “clean coal” mantra and a re-kindled enthusiasm for nuclear power. Simultaneously they deserted renewable energy by refusing to extend the national target to a meaningful level. Of course, the Howard government continues to maintain a stable of house-trained sceptics, like Industry Minister Ian McFarlane.

The federal Labor leadership is considerably more sophisticated in its conversion to greenhouse concern, with a strong commitment to renewable energy. However they have signed onto the clean coal bandwagon with an enthusiasm that matches the Coalition. They are currently debating the nuclear issue, with significant elements of the leadership pushing for the opening of more uranium mines. Labor also has its front-line sceptics, including NSW Treasurer Michael Costa.

The tipping of political attitudes creates a potentially damaging delay in the urgent task of reducing emissions.

Clean coal is based on the capture and storage of carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal. It remains unproven in commercial-scale application and thus no one can say with certainty that it will work or be affordable. Cost estimates vary widely, from $10 to bury a tonne of CO2 to $140/tonne, the latter representing a massive increase in the price of electricity. Further, suitable geological sites for burial are severely limited and the risk of leakage of buried carbon dioxide could result in an environmental disaster.  

Al Gore refers to climate change as an “Inconvenient Truth”. The idea that so-called clean coal technologies are an appropriate mitigation response could be called a “Convenient Untruth”.  By creating the impression that coal can be environmentally friendly, the proponents are taking the heat out of the political pressure to reduce coal combustion. It is significant that the low cost estimates are coming from people with direct connections to the coal industry that stands to continue to make huge profits while Australia fails to reduce its dependency on coal.

 

Australia’s born-again nuclear power debate is similarly a distraction from the main task of reducing emissions. There are good and well rehearsed arguments for rejecting nuclear power, including: the intractable and long-lived health impacts and costs of storing nuclear waste, the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation, accidents, costs, delays and the severely limited contribution that current generation nuclear technologies could make to reducing greenhouse emissions.

None of these has deterred Canberra’s nuclear devotees. The Prime Ministerial Taskforce into Australia’s nuclear future is more like a show trial than an open and honest investigation. Australia’s nuclear debate has become an opportunity for the uranium mining industry, the Dr Strangelove advocates of a nuclear weapons program and the coal industry to rescue their own interests.

Meanwhile the vision of a jobs-rich, clean energy future is being frustrated and undermined.

The next six months will be crucial to avoiding these tipping points. The place to start is fostering the sense that the community can and should demand better from their politicians. They can because it is not too late to stabilise the climate and they should because by working collectively Australia can lead the way in greenhouse solutions.

Based on a speech given at Politics in the Pub, Gaelic Club, Sydney, 18 August 2006

7 September 2006