By Peter Colley
Australia faces an immense challenge in addressing the greenhouse issue as part of the global community. The core of the challenge will be how to respond constructively in a manner that not only preserves jobs and living standards, but increases them whilst imposing less of a burden on our ecosystems. There is a major risk that the simplistic solutions being proposed for greenhouse may bankrupt the Australian economy without actually resolving the potential global problem.
Australia is a high contributor to global greenhouse emissions on a per person basis — we're about the fifth highest emitter in the world. But that figure is meaningless; what matters to the planet is the actual quantum of emissions, and in that regard we are one of the smaller emitters.
Australia's share of human emissions from all sources (which includes cattle, rice paddies and waste dumps) amount to less than 2% of global emissions. The emissions from Australia's coal-fired power stations amount to about 0.2%.
This helps put a perspective on the effectiveness of response strategies: if we stopped all electricity use tomorrow, it would register as a minor statistical blip in the global growth curve. No emission reduction strategy will make an iota of difference unless there is a commitment by all nations. That includes large emitters such as the USA, China and the Commonwealth of Independent States, and developing countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico. Without their cooperation, our actions are meaningless.
We have to recognise too that there are massive uncertainties in our understanding of greenhouse. Close examination of what the CSIRO and other scientific institutions say (as opposed to melodramatic summaries in the media) reveal that the only thing which is known with certainty is that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing and that this will lead to temperature rises. The rate at which temperatures will rise is much more uncertain, and the likely impacts even more uncertain.
We do well to remember that the main source of predictions of greenhouse are computerised models of the earth's climate, not field research. Basing real world policies on computer models is a dubious exercise at best, and one for which Canberra econocrats are continually criticised.
It is worth noting too the way in which extreme predictions of global warming have tumbled in the last few years. At the time of the 1988 Toronto conference, sea level rises of up to 1.5 metres by 2050 were being talked about. By the time of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, the high predictions had fallen to 1 metre by 2100. The latest estimates from the British Meteorological Office, one of the key researchers for the IPCC, is for 0.6 metres by the end of next century — a small fraction of the earlier speculation. Dr Jeremy Leggett of Greenpeace admitted to British media that some of their more extreme scenarios were not meant as a serious prediction.
What this means is that we should recognise there is a problem and work towards solving it. There are numerous options which put us on a path to an energy-efficient future that are either low-cost or have net benefits.
Promoting the use of best available technology in the home, offices and factories, and rejigging financing arrangements to make them more affordable, are obvious measures that will reap rewards quickly by reducing energy use for any given activity. Developing energy-use rating systems for all buildings (including homes), appliances and equipment will create an awareness in people of energy use and its costs.
Encouraging cogeneration in large industrial plants where they can sell excess electricity back into the main grid will also save money and emissions.
Using renewable energy technologies where they are competitive with conventional technologies also makes good sense (e.g. it is foolish to spend tens of thousands connecting remote households to the main grid when wind and solar power can provide a cheaper alternative).
Further down the path, transferring a larger part of the transport task from road to rail, and encouraging better use of current space in our cities through denser housing, will reduce use of energy and other natural resources whilst lowering the cost of providing those essential services.
Many of these new technologies and ways of working have the capacity to increase employment and improve living standards. But it will not be easy, and there are major risks. For example, it is clearly the case that transferring goods and people from road to rail will cut employment in the transport industry overall. The hope is that increased efficiency in that area will reduce the costs of other activities and thereby enable increased wealth creation and employment.
The situation is even more hazardous with regard to the coal industry, power generation and energy-intensive industries such as iron and steel and aluminium smelting. The
Australian coal industry directly employs 30,000 people — a significant number of people but a relatively small proportion of the work force. But it is the mainstay of a number of regions and the key generator of demand for many other goods and services. It is not hard to recognise that at least half of the 500,000 people in the Hunter valley alone are directly or indirectly dependent on the coal industry.
The problem does not stop there. The coal industry is Australia's largest export industry, more than double the size of its nearest competitors of iron ore, gold and agricultural products. Under so-called "business-as-usual" projections, the industry is forecast to grow by over 50% in the next decade and thereby help pay for the large quantities of imports which we are either unable or unwilling to make ourselves. To put it simply, at the moment the world wants our coal a great deal more than it wants our solar hot water heaters (an often cited renewable energy technology industry with demonstrated export potential).
Australia simply cannot afford to impose penalties on its most successful export industries until it has developed the capacity to shift to other industries which will generate the wealth and provide the jobs of the next century. To do so is in effect to commit suicide for no real purpose; the pain endured would not actually solve the potential greenhouse problem.
The task of transforming Australia cannot be underestimated. Trying to develop high-skill, high-wage industries in high-
technology areas is a field where other nations, particularly Japan, the members of the European Community and the newly industrialising countries already have a competitive advantage. We face the prospect of losing the basis of our standard of living without being able to replace it easily.
In these circumstances, a staged response to greenhouse makes sense in terms of environmental, economic and social policy. We should implement low-cost options now, and begin development of major alternative options should the science of greenhouse and the global community determine that further major action is necessary.
Throwing energy-intensive jobs and industries on the scrap heap now would be a high-cost and illogical strategy that would have superficial environmental benefits. It could not be done by any government that hopes to win an election, and should not be advocated by anyone who considers social justice and equity to be one of the goals of sustainable development.
[Peter Colley is a national research officer with the United Mineworkers, a division of the new Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.]