Climate change (italics, denoting, ‘in whispered tones’).
Climate change (denoting, speaking in usual tone). There, I’ve said it.
It’s a topic that seems to generate a suite of emotions, depending on the people in whose presence you mention it. Anger seems to be the most common emotion: either because the prevailing government is not doing enough (or anything) to address it, or because it is some made-up concept used by sections of the population to lecture, or worse still, to direct other sections to change the way they have been doing things for decades (or centuries). Fear and resignation might take up the minor placings.
Australia, like many other nations, seems riven by the debate over climate change: whether it exists, whether it’s a problem and what we should do about it. Disappointingly, the debate in Australia strays away, all too quickly, from substance into petty name-calling and labelling, and to prophesising of various forms of doom should the country either fail to enough to address climate change, or to do too much (or anything) to address climate change.
My gut feel (acknowledging a complete lack of any statistical or scientific method in getting there) is the most Australians accept the planet’s climate – and, in particular, the climate in Australia – has changed, and is continuing to change, at a marked rate. Where our viewpoints fracture is on the question of whether doing anything will make a difference, and, if it will, how far should we go.
I am not here to critique either the substance of the science underlying the climate change debate, or any particular response to it – other than perhaps the view that we cannot, or should not, do anything, or should do relatively little. However, if you are of a mind to dismiss either climate change, or the kind of action and response that we as a nation, and by extension, planet should be taking, I would ask you to consider some or all the following.
Opportunity cost
In case you have not done high school, or first-year university, economics, the concept ‘opportunity cost’ refers to the ‘cost’ of taking a particular course of action, decision, or a failure to do either. In simple terms, if I am faced with a decision whether to eat an apple or banana, and I eat the apple, then the opportunity cost of eating the apple is the missed enjoyment and nutritional value of eating the banana.
On a slightly more complex level, if there are two courses of action, one with a more immediate benefit, but a potentially greater adverse consequence in the future, and the other with a more immediate adverse consequence now, but a potentially greater and more enduring benefit in the future, then the choice of going with the first option is the greater adverse consequences in the future, and the loss of those future benefits (or at least the loss of the opportunity to pursue them). Applied to a rational decision-making process, the idea is that the person deciding weighs up the benefits of each course of action and asks: ‘are those benefits sufficient to justify not only the costs (now and in the future), but also the benefits foregone (now and in the future) that result from that course of action.
In the climate change debate, it appears that the notion of opportunity cost gets lost. Currently, the junior partner in the coalition that governs Australia federally resists the view that meaningful action be taken in response to climate change asserting that taking such action will jeopardise industries (and the jobs that go with them) and increase costs in the regions that are its constituency. But in doing so, that junior partner ignores not only the likelihood of other increased future costs that will inevitably arise when the weather is hotter and drier, and the ongoing pollution and damage caused by continuing industries that contribute to climate change but also, perhaps most disappointingly, the potentially endless opportunities for regions to start new industries that facilitate a low-emission future, or which will actually be more profitable due to the changed climate.
In fairness, the debate and position of the climate change zealots isn’t any better. Their advocacy for urgent climate action tends to gloss over the immediate impact of taking that action, and in so doing, fail to reflect (and, more importantly, provide strategies to address) those impacts. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the electoral support of people who will bear the immediate burden of action to address climate change cleaves toward the climate change action deniers and resisters.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Climate change, and the action that is required to enable the planet to live with it, comes with both benefits and costs, and any debate we have about whether we act, and what action we take, must factor in both. To pretend otherwise, is to live in a weird denial-fantasy land.
We are entitled to interrogate the deniers and resisters, ask them what the costs and lost benefits will be from doing little (or nothing) and to dismiss them and their views if they either fail to acknowledge those costs and lost benefits, or if the immediate benefits or savings they assert will accrue from doing little or nothing are worth the cost. Similarly, the ‘action’ advocates must explain to the people who will end up bearing, proportionately, the greater or greatest costs of acting how those people will be cared for, and what benefits might come their way if exercise a bit of faith in the benefits of climate change action.
Follow the money!
It’s a familiar refrain in movies about corruption and dodgy financial practices: our heroes catch the baddies, not by focusing on who did what, but on who is benefitting.
In the real (non-movie) world, bearing in mind that the people who have the money want to make more of it and to avoid losing it, following the money tends to reveal two things: an assessment in a ‘revenue v cost (including opportunity cost, don’t forget)’ of what activities are going to be more profitable, and an assessment of the risk associated with particular activities.
The climate action deniers and resisters may sneer and grumble, but it seems to me that judgment on climate change action is already in, and the flow of funds away from high-emission industries and countries is becoming a flood. The financial pointy heads have crunched the numbers and have determined that the returns from putting money into high-emission industries and ventures/projects in high-emission countries, whether through direct investment, loan financing or insurance and underwriting are not sufficient to offset the increasing costs and risks of such industries or countries not doing enough or anything to address climate change.
Despite what many in our conservative government (particularly its aforementioned junior coalition partner) might have you think, those financial pointy-heads are political agnostics; there are no secret greenie operatives planted as deep double agents in our banks, superannuation funds and insurers. It might be good political fodder for conservative politicians to beat their chests and argue against action on climate change on the grounds that it will ‘cost jobs’ or ‘increase the price of living’, but decisions to continue or close down high-emissions enterprises won’t be made by those politicians, and those politicians will not bear the direct cost of those decisions either. Instead, those decisions will be made by the financial whiz-kids, who control funds the size of which would equate to the budget of many governments and may well be in a country far away from Australia. They’re not going to give a damn about what a politician, from what is (on the global stage) a relatively minor country, thinks or says about their decision.
Sure, it may well be that there is an element of ‘herd mentality’ in the financial markets, but if the herd is big enough your choice is pretty stark: jump on board or get trampled.
It’s the (global) economy, stupid
While Australia and Australians are always looking to show the rest of the world that we punch above our weight, the reality is that (perhaps aside from our wealth of minerals, notably iron ore), Australia needs the world far more than the world needs us.
One feature of Australia’s economic history is its reliance both on being able to sell its goods and services overseas, and the extent to which it relies on other countries to provide it raw and manufactured materials. Australian politicians are fond making brave statements of their independence, with claims like ‘we decide what is in the best interests of Australia’, but they’re not fooling anyone (at least, not me).
The fact is that other countries have both acknowledged the immediate effect of climate change, the need to do something about it and the short to intermediate costs of doing something about. Looking to their own self-interests, those other countries are not going reward a country like Australia that offers cost-savings because it is not adopting the same standards or measures to combat climate change. Whether it is done through a tax, quota restriction or an embargo, Australia is going to find out very quickly that, if it won’t act against climate change, the perceived benefits of its failure will be offset by measures implemented by its customer countries to ‘even the playing field’ and/or shift the burden of failure to act right back on us.
Again, the climate action naysayers may stick their bottom lips out and cry foul and claim that it is anti-competitive. Apart from the hypocrisy in this stance (Australian governments have for years given their imprimatur to monopolies and other anti-competitive activities), this sulking will be greeted with a wan, ‘take-or-leave-it’ smile from our trading partners. It might be that all this ‘climate change nonsense’ is a big con, but if all our trading partners are either in on the con, or fooled by it, the naysayers will still be wrong even if they’re right. ‘Door-to-door’ salesmen often find themselves having to go that extra yard to land a sale, well so will we, even if we don’t like what that yard entails.
Tribal politics
Earlier I mentioned that debate about climate change action veers away from substance far too quickly. Increasingly, my sense is that, as with many other issues with which the community grapples, the sides of the debate are becoming increasingly tribal, and amongst the outcomes of this is that each ‘side’ to the debate becomes more fixated in its view, more inclined to reject those who may support the other side, and less inclined to listen to (or indeed to even engage with) those who may challenge its view.
This leads to scientists being torn down for making comments or even publishing research that supports the view of one of the tribes. It also leads to the curious outcome of one of the tribes disowning, impugning, or ignoring people or institutions that might otherwise be expected to support their view. Thus, we see trade unionists and Labor politicians being attacked simply for advocating for their members or constituents that are likely to be adversely impacted by action on climate change, and we see the conservatives turning their back on farmer advocacy groups, industry groups and major companies simply because they recognise the reality of not taking any action on climate change.
That shows me that the tribes would rather throw allegations than debate and come to a workable plan; in Australia, our federal government cannot even formulate a plan. There’s a certain irony that governments in Australia that, irrespective of their political label, accept the virtues and benefits of the market economy, happily ignore those markets if doing so will advance their political end games. The thing is, we don’t have the luxury of allowing the tribes to continue their battle to the end.
In conclusion….
I am not telling anyone that climate change is real and that they must do something about it. I don’t need to. Whether or not you believe the science and the need to act is irrelevant. Decisions about climate change action are going to be made anyway; you can deal yourself in, by engaging in a debate about what action must be taken and how quickly, or it will be done without you.
The people that tell you either that climate change is a hoax, or that we shouldn’t have to do anything, aren’t serving you. It’s time we demanded that our politicians stop playing their games and started accepting the reality that if we don’t take the reins on this issue – and come up with an ‘Australian’ response, then the world will do it for us. If that happens, we may not like what we get.
