Climate Policy is a Fiendish Problem for Governments( continued)
ARTICLES
Climate Policy is a Fiendish Problem for Governments( continued)
and the United States – although some US states, particularly California are moving aggressively to develop alternative energy sources.
The latter is true for much of Western Europe, while China and South Korea are committed both to phasing out coal and to leading the world in wind and solar power technology. In collaboration with the US giant General Electric, South Korean and Japanese companies are working to develop prefabricated( and hopefully foolproof) small nuclear reactors called SMRs.
At this stage, China( currently the world’ s biggest greenhouse gas emitter) is humanity’ s best hope – if it indeed holds to its stated resolve.
Political Paralysis
Politically, with a substantial economic position in fossil fuel extraction and export, Australia’ s Federal government seems paralysed when it comes to taking meaningful climate action. We signed on to the Paris Agreement but, even if we meet the agreed reductions in emissions, precious little consideration is given to the fossil fuels that we export for others to burn. And while much of the financial sector now accepts that any new investments in coalmines will ultimately become“ stranded assets”, some politicians nevertheless continue to pledge tax dollars to fund such projects.
What can be done? Clearly, because meaningful action is likely to impact both on jobs and export income, this is an impossible equation for Australia’ s elected representatives. Might it help to give them a“ backbone” in the form of a fully independent, scientifically and economically informed statutory authority, endowed with real powers? Would such an initiative even be possible under Australian law?
Realising that reasoned scientific and moral arguments for meaningful action on climate change are going nowhere fast, some 41 Australian environmental organisations sought the help of the Australian Panel of Experts on Environmental Law( APEEL) to develop the case for a powerful, independent Commonwealth Environmental Commission( CEC) linked to a National Environmental Protection Agency( NEPA).
Last March in Canberra, at the culmination of a two-year process, environmental groups presented their conclusions, preceded by a more mechanistic analysis from the lawyers. In very broad terms, the new agencies would do for environmental policy what the Reserve Bank currently does for economic decisions, that is, they would have the power to make calls on crucial issues( whether they be interest rates or air pollution limits) that cannot be vetoed by the government. Of course, that would require a government that is willing to imbue them with such power in the first place.
While it’ s a good bet that developing such a major national initiative will, at best, be a long, slow and arduous process, it is true that( to quote Laozi):“ A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”.
What is also clear is that“ business as usual” is not a viable option for the future economy, defence and health of Australia.
Peter C. Doherty is a Laureate Professor at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity.
Disclosure Statement: Peter C. Doherty is currently funded as a chief investigator on an NHMRC Program Grant focused on immunity to the influenza A viruses. He is a member of the scientific committee for Doctors for the Environment, Australia and the advisory committee for the Melbourne Sustainability Society Institute.
This article was first published in‘ The Conversation’ on 27th March, 2018. SEN and the Science Teachers’ Association of NSW are most grateful to‘ The Conversation’ for its generous policy of en-couraging the republishing of its many fine articles. We also thank the author, Dr Peter Doherty, for supplying this article, thereby supporting this policy.
26 SCIENCE EDUCATIONAL NEWS VOL 67 NO 3