I’m sure you would agree that good discussions are stimulating, perhaps even as stimulating as caffeine.  And this time, we changed topics as many times as we took large sips from our coffee mugs. And then all of a sudden, my neighbour said something that made me sit back in my seat.

“I’m not sure if using solar power is the best thing we can do to alleviate climate change.

“I’m not even sure the science is all that accurate,” he said with a great look of certainty.

I rapidly reminded him that I’ve lived off the grid with solar power for the past seven years. It works well too. I’m not saying it’s the single solution to climate change, but it certainly makes sense in a sunny country with rising electricity prices. I haven’t seen an electricity bill for many years now.

The recent years of rain and cloudy summers means I have to monitor the system more, it also means I have to burn through the odd 20 litre can of petrol to power the back-up generator.  Petrol prices rise so I’m careful about my energy use. Living with solar power is really no different to living with tank water. You know you have a limit so you adjust your usage accordingly.

There are no power lines on my property, no clearing was needed to run overhead or underground cables to my house and my lights remain on even when the rest of the street is suffering a summer blackout. Virtually every hour of every day is a ‘switch your lights off earth hour moment’.

What’s more, I told him, I really do think there is a benefit to not being yet another consumer contributing to the burning of coal to power the massive generators housed conveniently out of sight, and miles away. I was about to say that 97 per cent of climate scientists have shown … and then I could see his attention drift off. I’d lost him and there was no point trying to convince him any further. We both awkwardly took a hurried sip of coffee.

So where does my neighbour get his information to help him form his opinion? How many people think the same as he does? The media, and quite a few, as it turns out.

Balanced reporting is the mantra of the journalist. Provide both sides of the argument. Keep the balance and let the reader decide.

As Ross Garnaut recently pointed out in an article for the new online start-up, The Conversation, the balance can become a little puzzling to find when it comes to climate change.

“Mainstream media has often sought to provide balance between people who base their views on the mainstream science and people who don’t – if you like, between scientific authority, and unscientific opinion. That is a very strange sort of balance.

“It is a balance of numbers of words and not a balance of scientific authority,” he wrote.

ABC’s head of policy for news, Alan Sunderland was reported in an article written by Margaret Simons for Crikey as saying if the majority of credible evidence supports human-induced climate change then the resulting media coverage should reflect this.

“It is one of the most common and inaccurate myths about balance on this or any other topic that it requires all sides to be given equal time and equal weight. It does not. It never has and it never will. Our editorial policies make it quite clear that ‘it is not essential to give all sides equal time’. Another better way to express and understand this is to understand that the kind of balance we aim to achieve in our news coverage is balance that follows the weight of evidence.”

Unfortunately the mainstream media, including journalists whose opinions are often expressed as fact, such as Andrew Bolt, help promote to the public that there is a 50/50 split within the scientific community about climate change.

My neighbour, along with 40 per cent of Australians, according to a recent CSIRO report, now believe the growing count of words which help create doubt about the science.

The Baseline survey of Australian attitudes to climate change report conducted an online survey of 5000 people during the last federal election campaign. Half of those surveyed believe we are the cause of climate change, while slightly less believe it is a natural fluctuation in temperature. An even smaller amount simply don’t believe it at all.

Interestingly, university scientists were considered the most trusted sources of information. While environmental organisations came in a close second for those who believe in human-induced climate change, with the second most believable source for those who consider climate change a natural temperature fluctuation, being family and friends. Governments ranked alongside, car companies and oil companies as the least trustworthy.

One of the most interesting findings was the level of confusion amongst those who don’t believe humans are responsible.

“As a group these people still viewed countries, governments and global organisations as at least partly responsible for causing climate change,” according to the report.

This confusion, or inconstancy, may in part be related to media coverage. It may also be displayed in a recent Queensland Household Energy Survey.

The survey of 3500 homes found 75 per cent of Queenslanders believe it is important to reduce their energy consumption, yet three out of four now own one of the most energy intensive appliances — the air-conditioner. When climate scientists tell us coal-powered electricity generation is an important contributor to climate change, this is a worrying set of figures.

The current Queensland Minister for Energy Stephen Robertson, said we are “increasingly energy hungry”.

Now, before you shout out ‘it’s population’, energy use has increased by more than double the population growth in Queensland in recent years.

So, we’re more confused, we’re split about the cause of climate change, we like using energy, yet we want to use less.

When small sound bites and headlines are all we have the time to listen to and read, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and ironically, switch off. Perhaps we have too much information, too many opinions and not enough simple and concise facts explaining exactly what each of us can reasonably do.

Maybe most of us are too busy earning a living to have the time to understand what’s going on — to understand that the reasonably priced air-conditioner we just bought to cool the family next summer is going to continue to cost us every quarter, every year. Perhaps even cost us in ways that we find hard to imagine.

I leaned forward in my seat again, placing the coffee mug down on the table.  I know we all have different opinions and at the same time I realise neighbourly friendships are important to maintain. If friendships are a one of the trusted sources of information about climate change then perhaps next Sunday we should continue our discussion. Perhaps in a small way, coffee will help bridge the gap too. At the very least, our conversations will make us both think more about this important issue.

Fact Box

CSIRO report – General attitudes towards climate change. January 2011.

How we think about climate change

50.4 per cent think that climate change is happening and that humans are largely responsible

40.2 per cent think that climate change is happening but it’s just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s temperatures

5.6 per cent don’t think that climate change is happening

3.8 per cent have no idea whether climate change is happening or not

Trust

For those who believe humans are responsible for climate change. The most trusted sources of information are: university scientists, environmental organisations, environmental group scientists and government scientists

For those who believe climate change is natural. The most trusted sources of information are: university scientists, friends and family, doctors, people from your community and government scientists

Who is responsible?

Big polluting countries, multinational corporations, wealthy countries and the federal government

Major environmental actions taken by survey respondents to engage in climate change relevant behaviours

Recycling household waste, reducing water use, using environmentally friendly products and switching lights off around the house

Don Henry is the Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). Henry has led the ACF since 1998, helping it to become a strong advocate for the environment by promoting solutions through research, consultation, education and partnerships. In 2008, Henry won the Equity Trustees Not For Profit CEO of the Year award. In 1991 Henry was awarded a Global 500 Environment Award from the United Nations Environment Program in recognition of outstanding practical achievements in the protection of the environment. (source: wikipedia)

Don Henry, Executive Director, Australian Conservation Foundation

ECO: Why is it important in your opinion to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies?

HENRY: Recent analysis by the Australian Conservation Foundation shows the federal government spends $12 billion each year on subsidies that encourage greenhouse pollution, but only $1 billion on programs to tackle climate change.  The $12 billion of fossil fuel subsidies are a dead weight on the economy, the budget and the environment.  Not only do they encourage pollution, they also discourage industries from becoming more efficient, because they are getting paid from the public purse to keep on doing things the old, dirty way.

ECO: In September 2009 in a Communiqué from Pittsburgh, the G20 nations committed to “rationalise and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption”.   As a member of the G20 has Australia done anything to phase out any subsidies?

HENRY: A Freedom of Information request by Greenpeace has uncovered documents that show bureaucrats last year identified billions of dollars of fossil fuel subsidies that should be cut for Australia to honour the G20 commitment.  Yet the government told the international forum no such subsidies existed.  It’s important our government comes clean about taxpayer-funded support for fossil fuel industries – and got on with the job of reforming those subsidies and putting us on the path to a clean energy economy.

ECO: Which subsidies should be targeted initially?

HENRY: The fringe benefits tax (FBT) concession for private use of company cars is projected to cost Australian taxpayers more than $1.2 billion dollars per year by 2012-13.  What possible justification is there for an investment of our nation’s wealth in tax concessions that mean that if you drive a company car, the benefits increase the more you drive it and the more you pollute the atmosphere?  Researchers at Latrobe University found 20 per cent of the beneficiaries of this FBT concession drive more than they otherwise would have in order to secure the increased tax benefits.  The FBT concession for company cars should be restructured to create positive incentives for efficient vehicles, to remove perverse incentives to drive more and to complement efforts to re-tool the Australian car industry for cleaner car production.

By far the largest fossil fuel subsidy, the fuel tax credits scheme, costs Australian taxpayers around $5 billion a year.  Most of this goes to subsidise the diesel fuel use of large mining, forestry and transport companies.  Let’s be clear about what the fuel tax credits scheme means.  It means if you are a commuter in Sydney’s western suburbs or Melbourne’s south-eastern growth corridor or outer Brisbane, with little or no access to reliable public transport, you pay 38 cents per litre in tax on the petrol you need to get to work.  But if you are the world’s wealthiest mining company, making record $10 billion half-year profits, you pay not a single cent in tax for the diesel you use for your off-road mining operations.  This is unfair and it’s bad for the environment.  It must be changed.

ECO: Do you think there would be political fall out from their removal?

HENRY: It’s time for the government to stand up to the big polluters and say enough is enough.  Australia cannot afford, environmentally or in terms of sound and responsible fiscal policy, to continue these subsidies.  We need to stop putting taxpayers’ money into pollution promotion and start investing in clean energy, like wind and solar, and in cleaner fuels and cleaner transport.

ECO: What should the government do with the money the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies will bring?

HENRY: The money saved by restructuring fossil fuel subsidies should be put towards a range of programs to tackle climate change and shore up our natural environment against the threats it faces.  Australia’s ecosystems are our silent life support systems. We need to invest in keeping them healthy and functioning. A new Climate Change & Ecosystem Protection Fund should be set up and resourced with at least $1 billion per year.  This would be put towards ending land clearing and forestry operations in high conservation value native forests, protecting wetlands in the Murray-Darling Basin, establishing a network of marine sanctuaries and National Heritage listing for the Kimberley.

Campaigning against climate change and encouraging a whole multitude of women to join her unique action group must be a natural therapy for mother of four, Natalie Isaacs. The former natural cosmetics  business woman is simply glowing and full of energy as she strives for a target of one million female supporters to each commit to reducing CO2 pollution by one tonne per year.

Appearing at the GREENhouse: The Big Target – 2pm, Saturday, Jan 1, 2011

Natalie Isaacs remembers the time when as a young girl she and her family lost everything in the 1974 Brisbane floods.

“Water went 10 feet over the roof of our home in Fairfield,” she said. “It was devastating.”

Natalie, who since that time has travelled the world, had four children and run her own natural therapies business, is hoping that kind of disaster won’t happen again as a result of climate change.

In fact, she is presently hoping for another kind of deluge – a deluge of support for her inspirational and unique climate change campaign that has a target of mobilising one million Australian women to cut greenhouse gas pollution through individual action.

The campaign, born out of frustration at feeling detached at dinner party discussions with environmental experts, a desire to make a difference, and the urging of a close friend, is simply called ‘1million women’ .

Natalie Isaacs

It is run under the banner of Climate Coolers, a not-for-profit, non-partisan women’s action group that she co-founded with friend Michelle Grosvenor, a woman with an impressive history in environmental activism.

Natalie, using her talent as a business woman, networker and communicator, is urging women all over Australia to sign up and each commit to cutting per year one tonne of CO2 pollution, the main greenhouse gas pollutant causing global warming. It means everyone from mums, daughters, sisters and grandmothers all taking action in a small way to make a big impact together. But it’s not a strictly feminist movement and even blokes are allowed to sign up, says Natalie.

However, she does believe that women have innate skills in networking, spreading a message and have strong community and family influence.

Natalie’s ‘green awakening’ was a gradual process, in many ways influenced by her husband Murray Hogarth, a former environment editor at the Sydney Morning Herald and now an author and business environmentalist/adviser. But it wasn’t until late 2006 that she was stirred to action.

“We were surrounded by people who talked about green things,” she said.

“But I was personally detached. I could sit at a dinner table with them and discuss and debate and I could understand that the planet was in a dire situation. However, I didn’t totally engage – for me it was because of fear of appearing silly among a group of people that was so involved and knew so much.”

However, three things sparked Natalie into action. One was the media.

“From the middle to late 2006 there was a huge shift in public awareness of climate change – you couldn’t open a magazine, a newspaper, listen to the radio or watch television without there being something on climate change. It was building, building, building and right in your face,” she said.

“At the same time my husband and his business friends were putting low energy light bulbs in people’s houses. One night there was a celebration after they had replaced a million light bulbs in NSW – there were a couple of hundred people at this celebration, mostly uni students and ordinary people.

“I was the only person in that room that was doing nothing. I also realised that you didn’t have to be a climate scientist to make a contribution.

“You can make all kinds of excuses in deciding NOT to do something – for instance, Who am I? – just one person; too busy; I’m overwhelmed; It’s not my problem; what about China?, what’s the point, shouldn’t governments put in the policies; and so on.

At that time Murray was writing a book, The Third Degree, and asked Natalie to help edit and proof read.

“He wanted to see if it made sense to me and I had to be interactive,” she said.

Those were the three elements that changed Natalie.

“I literally had an epiphany. I woke up one morning and said to myself, ‘Right. It’s time to change’,” she said.

“So I got my head around the issues and started to focus on them,”

Driven to action, Natalie made some immediate differences in her own home. She did the light bulbs change and with being more vigilant on electricity use she managed to soon cut her power bill by 10 per cent. So she also saved money in the process of personally reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Those actions empowered me and gave me the confidence to go to the next step,” she said.

The fired-up Natalie then thought “What can I do? I don’t know anything about this – I have never been an activist, but I am a passionate person and I have confidence.”

She then considered what else, in a practical sense, she could offer.

“I guess my 25 years in the cosmetics industry had given me people skills. Not everyone is going to get the point on climate change then start a campaign – that’s what I can do,” she told herself.

Then her close friend Michelle said ‘let’s start an organisation’. So they did and it had a big vision from the outset.

“We wanted it to be a women’s movement because we felt there was so much out there already catering to everybody. We asked ourselves ‘what’s missing?’ – where is there a niche where we could really communicate?’,” said Natalie.

“For me it was women. Women are powerful natural networkers. They constitute more than 51 per cent of the Australian electorate. They make 70 per cent of the consumer decisions affecting the household carbon footprint. They have powerful influences in the consumer marketplace in this country.

“It is a very powerful thing when women join forces to fight causes. Women are also better listeners and research, amazingly, shows that women want action more than men. Women also approach such matters from an incredibly emotional and passionate perspective.

“While the campaign is not to the exclusion of blokes, it is mainly harnessing the natural strengths of women – such as networking and ability to share. Women have an enormous part to play in this critical issue.”

Natalie believes in the principle that one million women will tell a million more and that you just can’t leave these issues to politicians to take action on.

“It’s easy to say ‘governments  need to put in the policies’; it’s easy to say ‘big business needs to get its act together’; it’s easy to have all these reasons why we as a community do not get involved. It needs the collective power of everyone – all need to take ownership of this problem for people to find their voices,” she said.

“Governments eventually respond to the power of the people.”

Natalie has set up a campaign website where browsers can find an ‘activities’ section which shows 55 different ways to cut pollution and each activity has an ascribed carbon value. You can build your own carbon profile and track your pollution cutting progress.

“Each small outcome builds your confidence and takes you along a road of empowerment,” she said.

Natalie says her campaign is not so much a message; the essence of it is action.

“It doesn’t matter if action comes before total awareness. Just start taking a little action in your daily life because action leads to confidence and power and finding your own voice,” she said.

“You can start saying NO when you’re out there in the consumer marketplace – for instance, ‘I am not going to buy over-packaged goods, I’ll leave them on the shelf to gather dust.’

“When you start taking action you’ll find you can change behaviour in absolutely every aspect of your life. I have done that right through from the politicians I now vote for to what brands I support and buy.”

The campaign, which was launched in mid-2009 after a two-year planning period and has set a three-year challenge of enlisting one million women,  has already drawn in some high profile people as ambassadors – even some unlikely ones with not the most glowing climate change credentials. At this stage the total is quickly approaching 35,000, still a long way from the ultimate target, but Natalie believes it is achievable as the women’s network ramps up into overdrive.

The campaign train will be hitting the Woodford Folk Festival where Natalie hopes to bring on board another couple of thousand.

“I think we have had a fantastic start,” she said.

“We are trying to attract women from all walks of life in Australia. This apolitical campaign is not about ticking a box and you are done; it’s not about sending a letter to a politician and you’ve had your say. You have to do something and keep at it.

“We are not a green group or environmental organisation – it’s a big group of women getting active in creating a new sustainable way of life.”

But it hasn’t been easy for Natalie as a campaign leader and under the spotlight. She has had to adapt and abandon former habits – in the way she shops, in the way she travels, in the way her home is run.

“But climate change is real and transforming the way we live is essential. We all have a big challenge,” she said.

Book Review – Factor Five
Transforming the Global Economy through 80% improvements in Resource Productivity
Ernst Von Weizsacker; Karlson “Charlie” Hargroves;  Michael H. Smith; Cheryl Desha;  Peter Stasinopoulos
Publisher: Earthscan 2009   ISBN 978-1-84407-591-1

Factor five

Whilst climate change is “the moral challenge of our time”  — it is in reality a symptom of our current unsustainable economy.  The current economy of the Western world  which is rapidly being deployed through developing countries continues to  use resources at a greater rate than can be replenished and producing waste at a rate greater than nature can deal with it.  Therefore it is essential that we reduce the consumption of all our resources and reduce the production of waste if we are to have a sustainable future.

The earth is a closed system to matter — the resources that we have are all that we have and there is no throwing our waste away. Whilst humans have created wealth and material prosperity exponentially since the beginning of the Industrial revolution, the pressure of the natural systems on which we rely has been immense. We must now use vast  our knowledge to “dramatically reduce our pressure on the environment” (p. 2) .

Factor Five is a must read for all those seeking opportunity to  do things differently. Factor Five recognises the need to “implement a range of solutions across the world in a way that enables the global economy to grow out of  current economic crisis whilst creating a strong and sustainable economic platform for the future” (p.23).

This book is a sequel to the 1997 Factor Four which was written to uncover case studies which illustrated significant reductions in the consumption of energy and water could be profitably achieved across our society, hence reducing  environmental pressures.  Factor Four was a major influence on a number of the authors of Factor Five to form The Natural Edge Project.   The Natural Edge Project (TNEP) is a collaborative partnership for education, research and policy development on innovation for sustainable development.

The underlying theme of Factor Five is to identify whole of society approaches which will lead to 80 per cent or fivefold improvements in resource productivity.   This book considers the technological solutions  necessary for a five fold improvement in efficiency as well as the  policy and governance structures which will be required to enable the take up and commercial viability of these technical solutions.

Factor Five deliberately focuses on sectors  that are responsible for most of the global energy, water and materials usage and greenhouse gas emissions. The book is divided into two parts – Part 1 Sector Studies  provide a guide to technically achieve significant resource productivity improvements cost effectively within buildings; steel & cement; agriculture; agriculture, and transport.

Part 11 discusses  the necessary structures to ‘making it happen’ such as regulations, use of economic instruments and long term ecological tax reform. The book emphasises “systems thinking and asks the fundamental question of “what is the required service or product and how else can this service or product be provided with less environmental impact?”

Whilst this book is packed full of interesting facts and figures within each of the case studies  which the sector specialist or engineer will devour with relish – this is a book which makes one think of the possibilities of different approaches.  It is certainly not prescriptive but provide a framework for innovative and creative thinking processes.

In Part 1 Each chapter is logically set out with clear summary tables for each chapter which contain opportunities for achieving factor five resource productivity in each of the sectors.

Similarly Part 11 provides a comprehensive analysis of the structural initiatives undertaken to enable significant strides in resource efficiency as well of the significant attributes in a summary table.

When so often the magnitude of the task ahead seems overwhelming, Factor Five is a book full of hope and opportunity yet firmly grounded in reality.   It is a book which should be read by anyone interested in achieving sustainability in practical terms.  Whilst this book recognises the challenges ahead, it provides a definite path forward by asking the right questions in the first place instead of assuming the answers based on the past.

Ian Christesen puts some questions to Professor Tim Smith PhD who is the Director of the Sustainability Research Centre at University of the Sunshine Coast (USC). Prior to his appointment with USC, Dr Smith was a senior research scientist with the Resource Futures Program of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.  He works on a number of projects around climate change adaptation and the issues around coastal community vulnerability. The Sustainability Research Centre also has prepared a set of sustainability indicators for the Sunshine Coast Regional Council.

Professor Tim Smith

What role to you see the University playing to assist the Sunshine Coast diversify its economy away from retail, construction and tourism? Firstly as an employer and more generally as an education provider?

The University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) is Australia’s fastest growing university, now with over 7,000 students and almost 600 staff (including over 200 academics).USC continues to develop new teaching and research programs to help diversify the Sunshine Coast economy. It is also the only university in the world that I know of that has a mission statement revolving around both sustainability and regional engagement. This places USC at the forefront of both developing and enhancing a sustainable knowledge economy for the Sunshine Coast, which is focused on sustainable outcomes through attracting and retaining highly qualified staff, contributing to sustainability industries through research and development, and training the next generation of sustainably-minded individuals (e.g. there were 150 students who enrolled in our 1st year “Foundations of Sustainability” course this year, and our enrolments in our major in sustainability and our post-graduate programs continue to grow). USC is also committed to a business incubator on campus (the Innovation Centre), which houses a large number of sustainability-related business such as Auzion who deals with solar and sustainable energy solutions.

What do you consider to be the greatest challenges we face in creating a more sustainable economy on the Sunshine Coast?

This question requires many PhD theses in order to properly respond … however, in a nut-shell the diverse communities of the Sunshine Coast need to collectively believe that we can create a more sustainable economy and take affirmative steps towards making it a reality. The problems of addiction to growth and short-term economic rationalism too often supersede any meaningful focus on quality of life—we have numerous measures of economic performance but no commitment to measuring our quality of life, hence our policy decisions and investments by government are dominated by improving the performance of the things we measure (and this unfortunately does not include quality of life).

What would be your top 3- 5 actions government and or business need to take into building a truly sustainable region and economy?

My personal view on the top 3 actions needed to build a truly sustainable region and economy consist of:

1. Measuring quality of life and focusing on improving these indicators instead of a focus on improving short-term measures of economic activity;
2. Establishing a line management structure whereby Treasury (at all tiers of government) reports to departments that deal with sustainability (in an integrated way) and not vice versa; and
3. Formation of consortiums between businesses, universities and communities to collectively lobby for greater support from communities and governments to build a sustainable region and economy—with the dominance of SMEs on the Sunshine Coast, we run a risk of not being seen as having a major influence on decision makers.

Do you think that the Coast can use its natural environment and lifestyle as attractants?

Of course— I moved here! The Sustainability Research Centre recently received funding to be part of a national project on coastal management with 7 partner universities. When we advertised for PhD students, USC received more than twice the number of applicants than any other university. It is not only the natural environment and lifestyle but the quality of our businesses, university and communities that attract people to our region. If we build on our combined strengths we can’t go wrong.

What strategies should be put in place to attract the new industries with the new jobs?  For example should we just agree that development and the construction industries will just continue as always with high levels of population growth and therefore we need to be working to make sure this industry cleans up its act and approaches it differently more sustainably?

People have both rights and responsibilities—we often forget about the latter. We all need to take a proactive approach to building the future we want on the Sunshine Coast. Make your voice heard and do something about it! There are so many examples of good work going on that inspire me on the Sunshine Coast and we need to support those who are doing it. Even in the construction industry there are examples of a genuine commitment to sustainability such as Adam Dew EcoBuild.

Any other comments you would like to make?

The Sunshine Coast is reaching a critical tipping point, there are multiple pressures from issues like population growth and climate change. We need both strong leadership combined with collective action to achieve a sustainable future for the Sunshine Coast.

Dr Ben McNeil

The passion is palpable, so is the sense of frustration and underlying anger. Yet like a seam of silver there’s healthy gleam of humour occasionally exposed.

To assay Dr Ben McNeil is an interesting task. He’s in the stop strata of the academic rocks of intelligence that deal with climate change research and he has an urgent job at hand.

But Ben is different from most of his research colleagues. He doesn’t shun the limelight and shut himself away in the halls and laboratories of academia. He has a message to spread and he gets it out there whether through writing a book or speaking at community forums.

His message, while targeted at anyone who wants to listen, is essentially a come-on to politicians and business people to understand that in his view building environmental sustainability promotes economic prosperity at the same time. He writes in depth about it in his acclaimed book Clean Industrial Revolution.

“I can’t just be an academic. I have to be on the ground with it to do things.” Ben confesses as we meet at his mum’s place on the Gold Coast.

For him, it’s one of his visits back from his work as a Senior Fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. It’s back briefly to his old stamping ground, having grown up in Southport and been a student at the highly-regarded The Southport School.

While it was seen as a very conservative school, Ben says he was one of the rebels, and it was there that he became inspired and motivated by his geography teacher who was ‘of the environmental world’. Ben became known as ‘The Greenie’.

He even formed a group to push for cleaning agents that the school cleaners used to be replaced with more biodegradable and less harmful ones. “We got things done at that school,” said Ben.

It was while he was in Year 9 that the Exxon Valdez oil spill catastrophe took place off Alaska’s coastline. It was a moment in history that affected Ben and spurred him to take a greater interest in environmental matters.

“I saw how human action – inappropriate action could severely damage ecosystems through pollution or wasteful use of resources,” he said.

“It encouraged my belief in why it’s important for us to conserve the environment generally and resources for future generations.”

And so Ben put his head down studying, even though he loved sport and had heaps of friends to distract him, and won a place at Griffith University to do an environmental engineering degree. His qualification eventually led him to Hobart to work with the CSIRO at the University of Tasmania. He was there for four years doing oceanography research, particularly looking at ‘greenhouse cycling’ in the ocean.

His broad base of friends meant that many of them did not share his core environmental beliefs. Indeed, his best man, a solid Liberal voter, became a derivatives trader in the City of London.

“I am always trying to persuade people, but I think having such friends gives you a better perspective on how others think,” he said. “You can talk about an issue like the environment in ways in which they can respond to.”

Ben said that there’s a host of opportunities for businesses to make a buck in investing in or providing innovative technologies and environmental solutions. “I call these people accidental environmentalists,” he said.

“They may not have the environmental ethos or upbringing or thinking that I had. It’s not necessarily their core thinking, but they make some money and it’s not in conflict with ensuring a good environment.

“I don’t like the old thinking of left, right and environment versus economy. It’s nonsense and gets nowhere.” Ben’s life alternates between hope and despair, but hope is gaining ground.

“Even though we can be pessimistic about our federal leaders and politicians, there’s a lot of stuff happening that hives me optimism,” he said.

Ben and his wife Nathalie have a young family of littlies – two sons and a daughter. It means he has had to reduce his profile on the ‘climate change’ speaking circuit for a while, but he is now gearing up for another educational onslaught and perhaps to convert a few more sceptics.

However, he finds it too tough a battle with hardcore denialists.
“You can’t reason with them. It’s like Bin Laden. You can’t argue with Bin Laden that there are some good things about Australia. He thinks we’re all infidels all should die. It’s a similar thing with these sceptics – you can’t argue with a closed mind,” he said.

Once Ben is in full flow, you know he’s one of the people who can make a difference. He knows his subject intimately and is able to identify some real solutions to get the planet back on track. He also has a wealth of energy and commitment His book also brilliantly puts the argument on how to make a huge positive out of perceived negatives.

But he can get wound up when some people try to take a poke at the climate science community.

“There’s this nonsense being promoted out there that there’s some grand conspiracy among thousands of scientists to dupe the world. It’s all been politicised. It’s frustrating – their type of thinking is like that of the Flat Earth society, or else they just don’t want to believe things,” said Ben.

He is not happy with much of the mainstream media either, including some TV channels, which give air time and space to sceptics under the pretence of an evenly-balanced debate.

“When you have some non-scientists coming on talking about climate change, for example, and how it’s somehow wrong. That is an affront to every element of reason. It’s like your plumber coming to diagnose your brain tumour,” he said.

“The mainstream media are just like politicians. They thrive on sensationalism. The media also don’t want to be viewed as one-sided.

“Even the ABC doesn’t want to be seen as one-eyed, even though the science is compelling and all evidence-based and reasoned. But the other side – the denialists, non science, non climate science voices — want to have a voice. So the upper two echelons of the ABC think ‘isn’t there a debate about this?’

“Well, actually there’s not in the climate change community. There’s just a debate on the magnitude – whether the temperatures will rise 2 degrees, 4 degrees or 7 degrees and how soon. On the fundamentals there is no debate.

“Also, on the policy side there is debate – is it better to go for a carbon tax or the ETS? How do we best achieve the best outcomes of reducing emissions? That’s a valid debate.”

But back to the media. Ben says the way much of television and radio reduces everything, including the complexity of the climate change issue, down to sound bites, short timeframes and within media cycles, makes getting the truth out really difficult.

He also refers to the time earlier this year when, at the last minute, Channel 7’s Sunrise breakfast program brought him face to face with one of Britain’s leading sceptics, Lord Monckton, in what they labeled a ‘debate’. It was a mistake, Ben having been persuaded to fill in for Penny Wong.

“It was a lose situation, because people expected a debate. And there wasn’t a debate. There was no perspective of the intricacies — it was simplicity versus complexity and it was in the wrong format,” said Ben.

“To discuss such a subject you would need six hours – even Ian Plimer could do a spiel of nonsense for six hours. Apart from that, all of my senior colleagues would never have tried to debate some non-climate scientist.

“I had already taken the view that I was not going to talk about my research or any of the science.”

Ben had reasoned that if he went into detail, it would go over most viewers’ heads, especially at that time of morning when people were getting ready for work. Also a ‘snapshot of palatable nonsense’ was hardly going to be meaningful. It wasn’t the forum to talk about something so serious.

“All you could say was ‘No, the science has not changed, but the evidence has got worse’,” said Ben.

Ben says that it’s the older generation people who are sceptics and are more fearful of social change in bringing solutions to the climate problem. Most are white males. However, Ben does draw comfort from the younger generation especially school students, a group where environmentalism is not on the fringe as it was when he was growing up.

“It’s actually part of their core belief, so it’s not something that is seen to be weird. It means that with social awareness issues and social changes issues, the baseline change will be generational,” he said.
In other words, better things to come.

But Ben’s message is primarily aimed at the ‘swingers’. He says preaching to the converted is fine to create enthusiasm, it’s virtually a waste of effort talking to the unreasoning ultra sceptics, but climate change campaigners can have a reasoned dialogue with the swingers, the people who are still thinking ‘what’s the truth?’.

The most difficult argument concerns perceived loss in the standard of living.

“That’s the biggest change inhibitor,” said Ben. “It’s a perception that is nonsense.”

His argument is that when tariffs on manufacturing and textiles were reduced in the 1980s, there was a growth in other sectors of the economy. He said that people thought the industry was going to die and there would be fewer jobs in the Australian economy. However, other sectors grew and provided even more jobs.?“It’s the same argument now in the carbon-intensive part of the economy which will decline if we put a value on carbon. Other sectors will grow at a greater rate – whether it will be energy efficiency, water conservation or renewable energies,” is Ben’s assertion. So what’s on Ben’s agenda now?

“I wrote Clean Industrial Revolution to really try to promote what’s been happening around the world in terms of clean energy, environmental products and services and the boom in the low carbon economy that’s happening now. There are a lot of figures in it,” said Ben.

“We highlight the fact that while Barack Obama has set aside $60 billion to promote low carbon energy solutions and the Chinese invested $90 billion to shake off their coal dependency, Australia is still firmly sticking to coal, a carbon intense commodity.

“It’s like us producing a lot of VHS cassettes and trying to export them to a world that is moving to iPods. It’s a stupid strategy.” Ben’s aspirations are to keep promoting the argument ‘what’s good for the environment is good for the economy’.

“If we keep making that argument over the coming 10 years we’re going to be in a place that’s very different to where we are today,” he said.

Looks like Christmas is coming early this year. (illustration: Alex Mankiewicz)

We finally got a government after the most protracted post-election negotiations in my lifetime.

While the process was not edifying, I think the result is as good as we could have hoped for. It is a lot better than the only two outcomes that looked possible during the election campaign: either the return of the Gillard government, or an Abbott-led Coalition taking power. While Julia Gillard is still Prime Minister, she needs the support of the Green MP for Melbourne and three Independents, all of whom have strong views on the need to respond to climate change. We will also have nine Green Senators holding the balance of power from next July. With the Gillard government needing the support of either the Greens or a pathologically obstructive Coalition to pass laws through the Senate, the path of least resistance will be negotiating with Bob Brown. So we can expect most new laws passed from July 2011 to be given a greenish tinge in the drafting.

The most important outcome is that there is real pressure on the government for a concerted response to climate change. This is new territory for Julia Gillard. The word from Canberra was that she and Wayne Swan pushed for the Rudd government’s retreat from its half-baked ETS, then took over when Rudd’s support subsequently collapsed. Her election campaign promised only a citizens’ assembly, not a bad thing if proposed ten years ago when there was some community uncertainty about climate change, but a waste of time now that poll after poll shows overwhelming public support for action. So there would have been little prospect of concerted action from a Gillard majority government. The influence of the Independents and Adam Bandt has changed the political landscape. The agreement with the Greens includes a multi-party Climate Change Committee to draw up the plan for action. We should now be pushing strongly for a serious response, including a price on greenhouse pollution, a more ambitious renewable energy target, a real commitment to efficiency improvements and major investments in active transport.

While environmental issues did not have a high profile during the election campaign, there were some significant commitments. Julia Gillard stated that “no new dirty coal-fired power stations” will be built in Australia. ACF is urging the PM to implement this pledge by imposing an immediate moratorium on new coal-fired power stations, including those currently being considered. We should be setting serious pollution standards for new generating capacity, such as less than 0.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. The proposed National Green Corridors Plan should be implemented to help build resilience and assist natural systems to cope with climate change. The process outlined in the Carbon Farming policy is also a step forward. There is a prospect of including reforestation and similar activities in future carbon markets, creating real economic incentives to repair damaged landscapes, restore native vegetation and develop connected corridors of habitat.

Julia Gillard also promised during the election campaign to provide the resources needed to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s plan. This will involve buying back the water needed to restore the ecological systems of the river basin, based on the Authority’s science-based assessment. The government undertook to incorporate the Indigenous lands of Koongarra into Kakadu National Park, ending the decades-long threat of uranium mining in that area. It also agreed to ban the import of timber products from illegal logging. The discussions going on in Tasmania now offer a real prospect of ending decades of conflict with an agreement to stop logging native forests and move the timber industry onto a plantation basis. There was also a commitment during the campaign to develop a comprehensive system of marine national parks and provide the resources needed for their effective management. Again, this will be a major step forward.

Some broader issues were raised during the election, so we should be pushing them in the new political environment. The PM spoke in Brisbane of the need for a sustainable population policy. While the initial discussions have largely been based on an assumption that growth is inevitable and we can only influence where the extra millions go, there is a real opportunity to press serious consideration of the whole population issue. It is obvious that a sustainable future will involve stabilising the population and consumption at levels that can be supported without degrading natural systems. The issue is now out in the open, instead of being cloaked in simplistic assumptions about the alleged economic benefits of growth. The election campaign also included a commitment to introduce sustainability impact assessments into the Cabinet process. If taken seriously, this will have a major impact. It is hard to see, for example, how proposals to expand coal exports could pass even the most superficial sustainability assessment. We should be working now to ensure that the process for assessing new proposals is rigorous and robust. The ALP does have a platform commitment to establish a Sustainability Commission. That would be an appropriate basis for serious assessments.

It might be an appropriate time to remind the new government of some other issues. For example, the Rudd government agreed with other G20 nations that we should phase out subsidies of fossil fuel supply and use, recognising that these public handouts “encourage wasteful consumption, distort markets, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with climate change”. Various estimates put the public subsidy of fossil fuels between 6 and 9 billion dollars a year. In other words, each Australian household spends hundreds each year helping the big polluters and encouraging them not to clean up their act. This is a great time to pressure the government to end these ridiculous practices.

Every problem is also an opportunity. The Prime Minister’s political problem represents a great opportunity for environmental organisations to promote the case for a sustainable future. We should seize that opportunity.

About the Author: Ian Lowe is president of the Australian Conservation Foundation and a Sunshine Coast resident.

Greens Senator-elect Larrisa Waters

Queensland’s first Greens senator Larissa Waters, while all fired up after her recent election success, now has to be patient as she faces a long wait before she can take her Senate seat in Canberra.

While she can’t take office until the new Senate term starts next July, senator-elect Larissa will be keeping busy by going back to her old job part-time as an environmental lawyer in Brisbane.

She’s jubilant at the Greens great results after a campaign that won her party 14 per cent of the vote, increased the number of Green senators to nine and introduced the first Green member to the lower house.

It’s a result that essentially, from next July, tips the balance of legislative power to Bob Brown’s Green team. As part of that team, Larissa is now making preparations. It’s not as hectic as full-on campaigning, but the passion and optimism is still there.

“It’s still sinking in,” said Larissa who has won a Senate seat at her second attempt, having narrowly missed out in 2007. For now she will be dovetailing her work with the Environmental Defenders Office with some unpaid senator-elect tasks.

“Unfortunately, being the Greens, we don’t have as much in resources as the major parties. So I don’t have a wage or any staff until next July and my ability to do parliamentary work is pretty constrained until then,” she said.

“As an environmental lawyer I can still be helping the community. However, in terms of my senator-elect work I’ll be doing a little media work and the occasional public speech and trying to help with people’s inquiries.

“The enormity of the task ahead is sinking in; the responsibility of being the only Green elected in Queensland – the first and certainly not the last. We’ll be working hard for that.”

In the weeks and months ahead Larissa will be having many meetings with her fellow senators and senators-elect to establish portfolio agreements and establish how they will work together now that the team has doubled in size.?”It’s looking really positive – having to adjust my frame of reference and preparing myself for six years of hard slog,” she said.

“A lot of it is mental preparation. But my work as an environmental lawyer is similar to the work that I’ll be doing in the actual parliament itself. It will be a natural progression.

“The preparation will include finding some good staff and having my ear to the ground for Queenslanders and what their issues are. I obviously have a good idea of that already, but there’s a need to set up those mechanisms to ensure that I am still finding out about new issues.”

But Larissa already has a busy agenda and policy list. Her campaign literature says she will push for new jobs in renewable energy, affordable housing, action on climate change, protect food growing land from coal mining and gas fields, high quality public health and education, a fair go for indigenous communities and new Australians.

As an environmental lawyer says she has been close to people who have been disadvantage because some community and property rights and environmental protection has been lacking.

“I asked myself ‘how can you change that?’ The answer was ‘you need to be in parliament making those laws,” she said.

“I think the system’s rules need to change and I hope to have the opportunity to do that once I take office in July.”

Larissa says it’s a vital time for the Greens because it’s a vital time for the planet. She hopes she and her colleagues can take advantage of the political momentum to get action taken on climate change sooner than later.

“The science now says we have less than a decade to turn around our greenhouse emissions. If the Greens can be part of that through our role in the balance of power then it would be such a great honour to be part of that,” she said.

For the moment, she said, senators-elect don’t have a formal role to play.

“But we will be involved behind the scenes. We will be performing our roles within our home states. As senator-elect for Queensland, I’ve still got a lot of responsibilities here that I will continue to discharge.”

Professor Roger Kitching reminds us of the real and present threats and that the diversity of Australian wildlife will be the first to suffer.

A biodiverse Australia is under threat. Image:greghardwick.com.au

Biodiversity! – kangaroos, kookaburras, possums, willie wagtails, bluetongues – perhaps even birdwing butterflies and funnel-web spiders – all things we might associate with this (relatively) new word.

But what about a couple of other lists -  ‘Aberdeen Angus, Ayrshire, Santa Gertrudis,  Friesian, Jersey and Charolais’ – or  ‘rainforests, grasslands, deserts, tundra, coral reefs and eucalypt woodlands’ – these, too capture something essential about this thing we call ‘biodiversity’.

Biodiversity is nothing more nor less than the entire diversity of life – within a species, species themselves, and sets of species.  Let’s put this another way, the essential diversity of life on Earth includes genetic diversity within species – all those and many other races of cattle, for instance; species themselves – the familiar original list and many million more; and, ecosystem diversity – the list of ecosystems  mentioned and many more made up of repeatable sets of species on the landscape.

The modern conservation movement was triggered in the late 1960s by Rachel Carson’s epic book ‘Silent Spring’.

Carson focused popular attention on a trend which biologists had been aware of over century – first, in fact, given voice by Darwin’s prescient, polymath co-worker, Alfred Russell Wallace – that the number of species on Earth was gradually diminishing – not by the slow inexorable processes of extinction on a geological time-scale, but through the landscape changes imposed by human ‘development’ – by clearing, agricultural chemicals and housing developments as well as the more direct impacts of hunting and gathering to satisfy an exponentially growing human population.

Rachel Carson’s agenda focussed on the species and the consequences of the outcry that followed publication of her book took the form of ‘red lists’ of threatened and endangered species around the world and tentative legislation to prevent their slide into oblivion.

At the time of publication of Carson’s book the global estimate of species diversity on Earth was about 3 to 3.5 million.  This tally was confidently made up of about 10,000 species of birds and 5000 species of mammals (mostly rats, mice and very small bats).
The remaining 3 million or so were principally insects and their relatives.  So I was taught as a university student in the early sixties.  In 1982 Terry Erwin from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington introduced rainforests, canopies and the tropics into the equation.

Based on some rather preliminary estimates of the number of different beetle species in the canopies of one species of tree in Panama he made the outrageous extrapolation that there were probably 30 million species of insects and their relatives in the tropical rainforests of the world.

We now know that this was indeed an overestimate – the ‘true’ figure may be nearer 7 to 10 million – although the jury is still out on the actual number.  Nevertheless Erwin’s huge estimate, its association with rainforests and the observation that rainforest were being cleared faster than ever before, led to the biodiversity crisis of the 1980s and 1990s.

Indeed it was in that welter of concern that the organiser of a 1988 symposium on diversity and conservation coined the term ‘biodiversity’ – contrary to popular belief this was not the famous American biologist E. O. Wilson, although he edited the book in which the term first saw the light of day.

Indeed, Wilson assured me he opposed the coining of such a gauche neologism – but subsequently regretted not having coined the term, which subsequently took off in the public and political imagination.

Bringing the many, many species of invertebrates (which includes the insects) into the picture gave the whole biodiversity ‘movement’ a huge boost – its promoters were able to talk loosely but portentously of how many species were being lost in a day, a week, a year and so on – usually estimated in terms of the number of ‘football fields’ of rainforest being cleared.  But this boost contained the seeds of its own demise.  Very soon sceptics began to ask, for example, why some tiny, recently discovered soil mite was to be given the same weight as the mighty tiger, rhinoceros or giant panda – legally if not in the wider public mind.  Lists of threatened and endangered insects have been drawn up and given legal protection.  Do you know for example, that in Western Australia a whole raft of tiny Crustacea found nowhere else but in water-filled crevices deep in the Earth are not only protected under legislation but have caused vast mining projects to be relocated or delayed at costs which make the proposed resource tax seem like peanuts?

The real value of the invertebrates and indeed the even smaller and less well-understood micro-organisms, is not as ikons of the magnificent or the soon to be lost – these are not thylacines or paradise parrots – but as tiny cogs in the maintenance of the life-support systems on which they, and us, depend totally.  In the late 1990’s the biodiversity emphasis rightly changed to a focus not on each individual species but onto the idea of ecosystems and ‘ecosystem services’.  In a nutshell these are the many benefits we get from functioning ecosystems which, were they not there, we might have to pay for (or try to pay for, assuming there was an appropriate service provider).  These services include nutrient storage and movement, soil building, water purifying, the maintenance of local climate, the natural control of potential pests, pollination, waste recycling, pharmaceutical products, even the fine forests, reefs and rivers that feed our tourism industry.  It is hard to estimate the dollar value of these ‘services’ simply because we are not accustomed to having to pay for them but such estimates as have been attempted fall consistently into the many billions or even trillions of dollars.  The problem with these estimates, as I said before, is that they carry the implicit assumption that were these ecosystem services to be destroyed then we, somehow, could buy replacements – this is not the case!  Humanity at large depends intimately on being surrounded by functional ecosystems.

Professor Roger Kitching from the Griffith School of the Environment, Griffith University.

You could be forgiven for thinking that these are simply the burblings of academics or other stirrers who have been out of the ‘real world’ for too long.  Yet contemplate the slow death of the River Murray that we are currently watching.  Think about the dieback affecting our Tablelands and its consequences on local soil conservation, fertility and micro-climate.  Observe the gradual encroachment of agricultural lands by desert.  Peer in horror at the leprous landscape of ex-irrigation lands scarred probably for ever by salting.  Watch the bleaching of coral reefs to unattractive ghosts of their past glories.  These are not intellectual maunderings but real disasters – human made and not readily ‘fixable’.  

So much of human history has taken place in a world where there was always more – more lands to conquer, more forest to clear, more seas to fish.  Our increasingly sophisticated technology allowed us to do this.  Once the forests of Western Europe were cleared we could send our fleets to find forests elsewhere – and there always was an elsewhere – from the point of view of tropical hardwoods this is currently Papua New Guinea.  But there are almost no frontiers left: we have not learnt the lesson of sustainability – all political rhetoric notwithstanding.  Why are we in Australia having a debate about whether or not to control our population size, on the one hand, while advocating ‘sustainabilty’ on the other.  Population growth and sustainability are oxymoronic concepts.

So in this Year of Biodiversity 2010 what are the greatest threats to the biodiversity on which our future depends.   In Australia three pervasive inter-related threats promise to wipe out great chunks of the very special biodiversity with which this once-isolated continent is endowed: land clearing, invasive species and climate change.  Mixed up with these three are drivers such as inappropriate fire regimes, pervasive agricultural chemicals and lack of connectivity across the landscape.  Anyone of these ideas deserves a whole book not just a short article.  Let me dwell finally then on the most all-pervasive of them, climate change.  

All the predictions of climate models show Australia as a whole becoming warmer and drier with a shift in patterns of rainfall away from the south-east, and an increase in the number of extreme events such as cyclones and droughts.  Predictions of how serious these changes will be vary from model to model.  One thing is certain though, without prompt urgent mitigation we are heading for the worst of any range of modelled scenarios.  Recent global data collected since the famous set of IPCC Predictions were made, show us tracking at or above the most extreme of the predictions whether we are talking about temperature or sea-level.  Some of the first impacts we will see – indeed are seeing already – will be upon biodiversity.  Mountaintop ecosystems will be the first to go – in Australia the unique faunas of our subtropical Antarctic Beech forests and the endemic marsupials and birds of our tropical mountains will likely not withstand the most mild of heating trends.  And all this will impact on us through an undermining of the ecosystem services provided by this biodiversity.  

The recently published book on Australia’s biodiversity and climate change of which I was one of eight authors (Steffen et al. ‘Australia’s Biodiversity and Climate Change’, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, 2009) makes many suggestions as how we might cope with these predicted changes.  I close with just two of these.  First we need to start thinking about and managing biodiversity as whole inter-connected sets of species driving complex ecosystem-level processes – retaining our species-centricity for the ikonic symbols of conservation – the striped bandicoots, hairy-nosed wombats and bilbies. Second, we know that ecosystems and the organisms that comprise them have some capability of adapting – not without change and loss of species – but possibly sufficiently to keep the essential services going.  For this ‘resilience’ to be maximised we need to minimise other stressors imposed on biodiversity.  We need to keep our National Reserve System in good order, indeed keep expanding it – it will be more vital than ever under climate change.  We must restore our landscape to put connectivity back into the environment so that natural species have some hope of re-sorting themselves into new ecosystems as the climate vice tightens.  The control of environmental pests and the strict quarantine that minimises their occurrence must be maintained – even in the face of probably unwinnable wars against, for example, invasive ants.  Precious water must be partitioned to allow due amounts to the natural environment itself – this is not water ‘wasted’ but water expended on our own well-being through the services provided by healthy ecosystems.  The list goes on.  Most important of all we need to keep educating people to realise this threat is real and action is essential.

The science is incontrovertible and the few highly vocal nay-sayers deserve no more than pity.  Every month delayed through the playground fights in Canberra or the bully-boy tactics of special interest groups, makes the task of recovery that much harder.

A recent opinion poll commissioned by WWF of 4000 residents showed that 79 per cent of respondents believe Australia should either begin reducing carbon pollution before other countries, or start reducing regardless of when other countries choose to act.

Rudd has duped the electors by refusing to take action on climate change despite exit polls at the last election showing climate change was a major issue in electors dumping the coalition. It appears that Rudd and Abbott have come to a silent agreement to take climate change off the agenda for the upcoming election.

This is despite the science continuing to mount of the need to take urgent action and that the world needs a stabilisation by 2015 followed by significant reductions. Economic research has also continually shown that the longer we forgo action the greater will be the detrimental impacts on our economy.

“Australia’s carbon pollution keeps going up and up. The longer we delay setting a price on carbon, the more it is going to cost Australian households and Australian businesses,” said Mr Bourne, CEO of WWF.

The Australia government continues to ignore the wealth and job creation opportunities of embracing the “clean industrial revolution” in favour of opening up more coal mines and becoming increasingly more economically dependent on a risky carbon pollution based economy.

“Since October last year more than 150 new measures have been announced globally to reduce climate pollution and 32 countries now have emissions trading schemes. Around US$200 billion is expected to be invested in clean energy solutions, in 2010.” Mr Bourne said.

Barack Obama, said in his State of the Nation address: “Providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future, because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”

The way government policy is going it is certainly not going to be Australia.

Even proposals to promote major energy efficiency initiatives also appear to be rejected by the Rudd government.

Greens Senator Christine Milne said: “Minister Ferguson and his government have rejected Greens’ proposals for mandatory efficiency programs for large energy users, and recommended that the Senate oppose the Greens’ bill for energy efficiency in office blocks, shopping centres, schools and hospitals.”

So what are some opportunities for a way forward?

Abbott and the coalition have successfully sidelined themselves from any credible solutions to the climate change debate.
This leaves the Greens trying to convince the government to support Professor Garnaut’s option of an interim fixed carbon price. The proposal would see a carbon levy of $20 a tonne growing at CPI plus 4 per cent each year. The levy would raise $10 billion annual revenue to support household, commercial, industrial and transport emissions reductions.

This is similar to another proposal by James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute for a flat fee collected from fossil fuel companies at their mines or wellheads. Obviously fossil fuel based energy costs would rise but householders would be compensated from the fund for those increases.

The issue has to be addressed now and with some goodwill and longer term vision solutions can be found to have climate policy aligned with the science and the economic opportunities that can be created.

Ian Christesen is Climate Change Policy Officer, Sunshine Coast Environment Council