Thoughts - Dealing with the Problem of AGW

Whether its Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anti-Global Warming (although, I mean the former), there's a lot currently riding on solutions resulting in turmoil within the Libs (horray) but other issues as well.

Personally, I'm uncertain about a CPRS or the ETS being a solution to AGW. Why? Because we still lack true leadership on the issue. You see, AGW (and its solution) are going to be long-term - we're talking 20, 50, 100 year timeframes. We really aren't going to see the long-term impact of AGW for many years to come. Remember, we're talking global climate - this is a massive beast with its own momentum - it heats slowly and, thus, will take equally long to cool. But it's that slow increase in temperature that's going to do us in - problem is, it's unlikely that many from this generation will wear the consequence of it - my daughter's generation probably will and certainly her children - but I suspect mine and those before me never really will. Yes, we'll have the occasional freakish event (e.g. Bushfires, Droughts, etc), but they will continue to ebb and flow as they have done for millenia. What seems irriffutable, however, is that warming IS occuring and at a rate much faster than normal. Yes, we're seeing the occasional variation - but only before people remain focused on the short-term.

And this comes to the crux of the problem. Like the current arguments (and both camps are equally guilty of this) of focusing on short-term events (like over attributing a bushfire to AGW or showing that for a couple of years, temps have been lower) - the approach remains coupled to the political cycle. There is NO long-term vision in ANY of this stuff (well, except, I'd argue, from Climate Scientists who, if I've listened correctly, continually pour water over short-term events).

So my concern for the ETS are as follows:

Firstly, as each year brings little change (the old frog being boiled), punters will increasingly grow to HATE the ETS - "nothing is changing - why are we having to pay?". So through each political cycle, there will be an increasingly beligerent move against such systems.

Secondly, I don't think people's behavour will change. Polluters will continue to pollute as consumers continue to drive their cars, build and live in crap houses and we'll buy all that crap we don't need. Yes, we'll pay more for it, but like all things - people adjust.

Another concern is that, as demand for pollutants (like coal) go down thanks to the ETS, it will continue to drive up its affordability as a source of energy - so the market ends up acting against itself.

However, I suspect my biggest concern is that business LOVES the ETS - they are rabid for it and they want it (or some do at least). Carbon is set to become the new CDO of the next decade - and likely lead us into another boom/bust cycle.

What we have here is a classic "let the markets fix the problem" solution - and the problem with this is that Greed tends to overcome Good.

But what of solutions?

For mind, the solution has just past us by - we missed it (ok, Howard missed it). The last decade saw immense wealth created - particularly in public circles. And what did we do with it? We blew it on wars, media, pop tarts, subsidising baby production and waste. At a time when we could've seen massive public expenditure on solar/wind/geothermal/tidal energy systems - we pissed it up against the wall (or saved it so we could bounce ourselves out of the GFC).

And this is our problem - we blew that once in a lifetime opportunity and it may never come again (or at least, not in time). So instead, we're forced to tax ourselves in an attempt to create an artifical market for alternatives. Of couse, all that really means is building Nuclear Plants (as business refuses to touch renewables (how on earth do they make money out of nothing?)) and leading us into the abyss that is nuclear proliferation.

Leadership

For me, this has been a classic failure of leadership - not just currently, but for decades - and on BOTH sides of government. Because this issue will outlive ANY government, it's solution MUST be bipartisan and reaffirmed in the public's mind. It's no good Turnbull et al now backing solutions when they failed to speak out under Howard - they look like they'd jumping the fence and acting out of character. This sudden awakening (even though we now know it isn't) only confirms fears in punters that this is a political issue, not a people issue - and they're untrusting as a result.

Turnbull and Hockey (and those who believe) should've been out trumpetting AGW years ago - even under Howard - and selling it positively like they've done with the Republic. But we haven't seen that so we're now screwed.