The Rudd government announced recently that it was aiming for a whopping 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, and 15% if other nations agree. My first reaction is “what the hell is that about”? Who cares whether other nations agree? Then I started to ponder the actual target. Which is what this post is about.
Most of the response to the announcement seems to have been very critical. Pretty much everyone with an opinion is saying the government has not gone far enough and that the target needs to be at least 20%, even as high as 40%. Anything less won’t be enough to reverse the effects of global warming, and as a consequence the Great Barrier Reef will continue to die, along with all kinds of other terrible stuff. Regardless of whether these dire predictions are accurate (and there is definitely room for doubt), it seems to me that Mr Rudd has reneged on his election promises. Which is disappointing at best, and possibly catastrophic at worst.
Or not.
The whole global warming issue/debate centres around two hypotheses:
- The world is getting warmer
- This warming is caused by human activity
For a long time I have believed the scientific consensus that the world is getting warmer, and that the cause of that warming is anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans). Consequently, I have long been a strong advocate of decisive action on climate change. That belief is one of the reasons I voted for the Rudd government at the last Federal election – Kevin Rudd promised strong action on climate change: ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, an emissions trading scheme, significant targets for reductions in carbon emissions, rebates for investing in energy saving technology (eg: solar water heating, hybrid cars), etc.
Let’s assume that the first hypothesis is true – global warming is real. The important question is what is the cause? If it is anthropogenic, it is probably fair to say that a 5% reduction in emissions is a waste of everyone’s time and effort (and money). But what if global warming is not being caused by human activity? What if something else is causing it? That would suggest that reducing carbon emissions will not have any effect, regardless of how big the target is. We could stop all carbon emissions right now, and still not make any difference to global warming.
Which presents us with a big dilemma. Reducing carbon emissions by a significant amount is expensive. So if you didn’t have to do it, why would you? There is an argument that humans are stewards of the earth, and that we have an obligation to pass it on to our children in a decent state – at least as good as it was when it was entrusted to us by our parents (which wasn’t actually that great). Personally I subscribe to that view. I want my children to be able to enjoy real rain forests and coral reefs and rivers and beaches; I want them to be able to experience the amazing array of life that our planet supports, and not just in zoos or documentaries; I don’t want to see our rivers and oceans ruined by dumping toxic waste; I don’t want the great forests of the world to be levelled just so we can run a few more cattle. So for that reason I believe we should be careful about how we live our lives. But that has nothing to do with global warming.
I mentioned above the scientific consensus regarding global warming and its causes. But just exactly how reliable is “scientific consensus”? I recently read the transcripts of a couple of speeches by Michael Crichton (the well known author) where he is VERY critical about the global warming “movement”. He is especially critical of this notion of “scientific consensus”. His speeches are here:
Aliens Cause Global Warming
Our Environmental Future
Part of me says – “Mr Rudd, grow some balls and set some proper targets”. But part of me is wondering “what if Michael Crichton is right”? What if the world is not on the brink of disaster? Or what if it is on the brink of disaster, but we can’t avert it by reducing carbon emissions? There probably isn’t any reliable way to know for sure if global warming is real or not. Or if it is real, whether it is caused by human activity. So, in the absence of real knowing, what should we do?
