To go with the photos of stranded polar bears on icebergs and computer-generated images of Australia's coastal cities inundated by tidal waves, we now have the Stern report.
While a picture of doomsday will always beat data, Nicholas Stern's facts and figures are nevertheless pretty impressive.
He predicts that global gross domestic product could be cut by 20 per cent if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced. And his demand that ultimately the world cut its emissions by 80 per cent is nothing if not ambitious.
The reaction in Britain and Australia to the review is a testament to the fevered state of the debate. Stern might have a "Sir" in front of his name, and might once have worked at the World Bank, but his views are those of a single economist.
The report hit the front pages and continues to dominate ABC television and radio. In comparison, the results of last year's House of Lords inquiry into the economic consequences of climate change were all but ignored.
That inquiry concluded that most of the risks of climate change have been overstated, and claims about the costs of remedial action understated.
People, whether they are journalists, politicians, or (even) economists hear what they want to hear. If something accords with their world view, or their commercial interest, they pay attention to it. If not it is dismissed. So too with the Stern report.
Nonetheless this report in particular, and climate change in general, does present some political headaches for the Howard government. The Prime Minister's situation isn't helped by the fact that a sizeable proportion of the electorate probably think that global warming has caused the current drought. Climate change, drought and water are firmly in the category of political issues labelled "environment". And according to the wisdom that has prevailed since at least 1990, the environment is a "winner" for the ALP. In that year a famous preference swap between Labor and the Greens, engineered by Graham Richardson, delivered Bob Hawke's election victory.
So the Stern report should be a boon for Labor and Kim Beazley. A few days ago the Labor leader announced: "I am absolutely fair dinkum about dealing with the consequences of climate change. When we are elected to office, we will fix this".
There's only one fly in the ointment. No one knows exactly what would be required to "fix" climate change. Signing the Kyoto Protocol won't "fix" anything. There would be nice symbolism in it, and Australia would at least be removed from the list of international pariahs, but the practical difference achieved would be negligible.
The reality is that climate-change politics could cause as much trouble for Labor as for the coalition.
At the moment the coalition is being accused of only feigning an interest in climate change. This is a charge not entirely without foundation. If they were being candid, most coalition MPs would admit to, if not scepticism about climate change, then a degree of agnosticism. On this basis, the tentative nature of the government's response is explicable. At this stage there's no one in the coalition's ranks who believes in devastating the country's economy to accommodate a unquantifiable risk. The government's stance might be difficult to explain publicly, but at least it is a position sincerely held.
On climate change, Labor doesn't have the luxury of honesty.
If Beazley really was "fair dinkum" about "fixing" climate change he could start by banning coal exports to China. Given that China is the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and is predicted to be the biggest within the next half-century such a ban would go a long way to "fixing" the problem.
Of course Beazley won't be advocating anything like this, and nor should he. He has to balance his commitment to fixing climate change with his desire to have thousands of coalminers in Labor-held seats vote for him. As much as some Labor MPs might entertain fantasies like the elimination of coal exports, policymaking in the real world depends on combining competing economic, social, and environmental interests.
For all of their faults the Greens are honest enough to admit that they care only about the environment.
No one -- least of all the electorate -- likes to be told that policy is complicated. So far only John Howard has acknowledged this obvious truth. His difficulty in relation to climate change is that telling the truth doesn't necessarily sway public opinion.
Nor does it necessarily win elections.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment