<- Back

 Who says we can't solve climate change now?

by Julia Maurus | 14-Dec-2009 | Comments (1) Tags: environment, Climate change  11 ratings. Please log in to rate and comment

Who says we can’t solve climate change now?

Depending on December’s Copenhagen Conference to solve climate change through a global carbon emissions reduction scheme ignores the fact that states are already capable of unilaterally implementing solutions. Commitments contingent upon international consensus at the Copenhagen Conference demonstrate a lack of political will and leadership. While Australia doesn’t change, it only continues to contribute to the problem.

There is currently much misconstruction of and distraction from the key issue inherent in climate change: the issue of survival. Skepticism and scientific uncertainty distract from the fundamental need for sustainability. As Derrick Jensen explains, ‘For an action to be sustainable, you must be able to perform it indefinitely.’ Sustainability is imperative because many of our natural resources are finite and there is no miracle cure for greenhouse emissions.

The global financial crisis can be treated as a distraction or a catalyst for change. In Australia, it resulted in a focus on a huge economic stimulus package and pushing back the date of introduction for a carbon reduction scheme. The Rudd Government’s spending on economic stimulus package hand-outs would have been more wisely spent on ‘greening’ (read: overhauling) the economy than encouraging unsustainable consumerist behaviour.

Similarly, the response to rises in foreign oil and petrol prices can be either offset by compensating ‘trade-exposed and emissions-intensive industries’ like the automotive industry, or by investing in research to develop environmentally friendly alternatives and reduce national dependence on oil.

Although there is increasing recognition of the need to ‘green’ economies, the environmental policies of the two major Australian political parties are secondary always to economic considerations. This is evidence that the Australian public prioritises economic stability (conservatism) over intergenerational equity (a sustainable living standard to pass on to future generations).

The natural environment and its resources underpin the economy. Governments must learn that environmentally friendly decisions repay their cost, whereas unsustainable practices (on which the global economy is currently based) only drive populations into ill health and economies towards inevitable debt and collapse. Like giving up smoking, reducing the major causes of pollution soon makes an appreciable difference to environmental and human health.

The practical solution is for government policy to engage in the empirical subtraction of unsustainable consumption practices and replace them with domestic infrastructure overhaul and ecologically qualified international trade relationships. The next step (if the market fails to act independently) would be to export green investment to irresponsible states and developing countries, lending money to implement green measures in local economies involving local populations.

In Australia, we must start by deleting unnecessary emissions in key sectors in order to isolate current necessary (unavoidable) emissions, such as long-distance transport.

In the transport sector, this means banning private car travel in Central Business Districts, increasing car registration fees to discourage car use, and enforcing fuel-efficiency standards. Consequently, less money will be needed for road construction, and money saved can be invested in public transport until the system reaches maximum efficiency. Contemporary social dependence on cars is unsustainable and unhealthy, so investment must focus on bike paths and public transport infrastructure. The price of public transport trips should be frozen.

The energy and construction sectors need epic government investment in renewables. Current incentives and rebates must continue. ‘Closing the loop’ between waste and input requires investment in every possible mode of recycling to optimise environmental health and land use, and create zero-waste communities. There are countless business opportunities in eco-industry (such as reforestation) which can help in stabilising the employment market.

Urban design and building standards must import the sustainability imperative. Governments can support eco-housing by guaranteeing low-cost loans for people who want to build or upgrade to a ‘passive house’. Developments in the eco-tourism industry must be capped and managed to preserve biodiversity.

The food sector is also relevant. The meat industry is one of the most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, locally and globally. By applying a tax on meat, setting more environmentally friendly ‘livestock production’ standards, and promoting vegetarianism, methane emissions will drop. Urgent, stronger action on the exploitation of fisheries is needed to prevent species being lost entirely.

We need a hardline approach to ethical and fair-trade production. Psychologically, when faced with more options, a person consumes more. In a contracted food market, people would consume less, which means obesity and related disease levels fall, health increases and the state saves significant amounts previously poured into health care. Revenue saved could be redirected into greening the economy.

In industrial sectors, governments must encourage their richest companies and tycoons to overhaul their portfolios and invest in the environment. Instead of promoting shopping and focusing on GDP, they should encourage citizens to ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’. We need strict manufacturing, packaging, eco-labelling and recycling standards, mandatory trade-in schemes and a ban on outsourcing of landfill. Patent and design application and approval frameworks can be altered to incorporate an environmental certification threshold.

Multilateral efforts to mitigate climate change must, of course, continue. A commitment to eradicate global poverty (a major cause of unsustainable practices) is also crucial, because developing countries are driving global emissions trends.

Arresting climate change requires a change in lifestyle and culture for just about every community on the planet. Upper-tier governments must encourage local government institutions to implement environmental solutions independently. Recognition of the power of local action can generate significant change and minimise bureaucratic delay.

I am not arguing that carbon trading systems are a useless environmental regulatory tool. After all, the ultimate goal is to equate economic efficiency with ecological sustainability. However, a market-based cap is not comprehensive, and by depending on it we will take longer to achieve sustainability.

Surviving climate change involves economic risks, but it is our choice whether to treat it as an opportunity or a burden. The incentive to get this system right is the guarantee that global sustainable economies limit environmental refugees, they stabilise resources for the future and consequently they address the causes of the problem rather than its symptoms.

Things to Do

 More Entries

 17 ratings.

 8 ratings.

 16 ratings.