Climate Action

This Saturday at 11am there is a Getup! organised rally in Melbourne to support government legislative action on Climate Change. It is in response to an anti 'Carbon Tax' rally organised by conservative tools.

You should go. If you are unconvinced please read on, and hopefully my writings actually persuade you to go.

Worth Getting Wrong

"In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."

- Teddy Roosevelt.

You should go because this is a moment of decision. This is a moment of decision between doing something and doing nothing. The naysayers are opposed to doing anything, you should support doing almost anything to actually address climate change in some way.

So what if the Carbon Tax has flaws, or emission trading schemes haven't yet led to a reduction. Doing something, is what is needed. Even if in a years time it is a massive cock up, there will be something on the drawing board to go back to.

Australia does the world a disservice by doing nothing. Not only because the effects of climate change are global, but because it parasitically looks over the shoulder of governments actually actively doing something, flawed or functional to try and learn the solution whilst bringing nothing to the table. This behavior is not befitting of a nation that aspires to global significance and leadership.

The naysayers seem to feel that failure to implement the right solution is catastrophic, irreversible and a dead end in terms of learning. They urge more discussion. This is legislation, not a constitutional referendum, the oppositions dilemma is 'bogus' discussion can continue even after implementing a carbon tax, carbon trading scheme or even rationing. The only difference being that discussions occuring with some kind of action in place will be significantly more informed than discussions without climate action.

Those in opposition urge compliance to the old addage 'when all is said and done, more is said than done.'

Opposed sure, but what do they actually stand for?

Take the Kyoto Protocol. Destruction of the environment is not only rational; it's exactly what you're taught to do in college. If you take an economics or a political science course, you're taught that humans are supposed to be rational wealth accumulators, each acting as an individual to maximize his own wealth in the market. The market is regarded as democratic because everybody has a vote. Of course, some have more votes than others because your votes depend on the number of dollars you have, but everybody participates and therefore it's called democratic. Well, suppose that we believe what we are taught. It follows that if there are dollars to be made, you destroy the environment. The reason is elementary. The people who are going to be harmed by this are your grandchildren, and they don't have any votes in the market. Their interests are worth zero. Anybody that pays attention to their grandchildren's interests is being irrational, because what you're supposed to do is maximize your own interests, measured by wealth, right now. Nothing else matters. So destroying the environment and militarizing outer space are rational policies, but within a framework of institutional lunacy. If you accept the institutional lunacy, then the policies are rational.

~ Noam Chomsky.

You should go because climate action is positive. The opposition stands FOR nothing.

What does the opposition actually stand for? Why do the feel so strongly opposed to Climate Action? Who are we protecting?

I find the anti-climate change stance disturbingly vacuous, and perplexingly passionate. But there are clear losers from the introduction of a carbon tax - polluters.

Currently there is this terminology called 'externalised costs' say I'm eating KFC, it's a pretty likely scenario. Once I'm done eating I can put my rubbish in the bin. This costs me some time, or I can leave my rubbish, my mayonaise smeared wrappers, my greasy chickenbones on the table. This costs me no time. An employee instead or an impatient future diner will clean it up for me, I've externalised this cost, shunting it onto some other individual. KFC can absorb the cost (and probably does) in its prices, because it has little recourse. Generally I clean up after myself, because it costs very little.

Currently a company can spew shit into the atmosphere with no obligations to pay the costs of cleaning it up or mitigating the consequences. They clearly lose out if they have to pay the costs of the environmental damage they are doing. Currently it is free, they don't have to account for the damage and this saving can just be factored into their profits.

Some feel the cost of paying for this pollution caused by their processes or products would be so onerous, they wouldn't actually be able to operate anymore and thus have to move jurisdictions or shut down operations.

In essence this means the oppositions argument follows thusly:

"If we had to pay for the damage we are doing, then we wouldn't be able to do the damage."

Which I would hasten to point out is exactly the same argument of those in support of climate action. I make no bones about it, I want these industries to fail and dissappear or at the very least move offshore.

How can the argument be the same for both sides and conflict arise? Let me clarify, climate change effects everybody regardless of their station in society or geographical location (although the higher above the sea level you are the better off long term). The argument breaks down to 'who pays?'

Those in opposition stand for you, you as a human individual paying, and as Chomsky alludes to - your grandchildren. People who aren't even born yet should pay for the environmental damage caused.

There is no 'nobody pays' option. There is only a choice in how we pay. One way is for the industries with direct control over polluting to pay within the framework of their business operations (basically what is being proposed) through a tax or trading scheme. Another way is to simply tax citizens directly from their pay packets whether they are emitting greenhouse gases or not, which doesn't really discourage institutionalized pollutions, (they would have externalized this cost onto society in general).

Lastly there is simply leaving through the environmental fallout of climate change in full effect, this involves mass starvation, rising sea levels, weather based natural disasters, extinction of species, the collapse of whole eco-systems and in one form or another the collapse of civilization as we know it.

There is of course a gamble involved - climate change may be a bogus science, concocted by meteorologists with far less vested interests than those opposed to climate action. Isn't there some scientific debate?

Science is not Democratic

"Whenever we are talking about facts, certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it means to have a domain of expertise."

- Sam Harris.

You should go to get yourself informed.

'Science' is a word charged with meaning. It means "an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world." Any fact about the world that you get to have an opinion on is an unknown and as yet untestable fact. Then you are engaged in speculation.

Here is what I know and it is enough scientific knowledge to convince me that climate change is probably man made.

1. Denser materials absorb more and retain heat for longer than lighter materials. Due to thermal inertia.

2. CO2 is denser than O2. CO2 is released into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels in man made activities.

3. The effects of a warmer climate are cumulative. A warmer climate will melt ice caps at an increasing rate due to the loss of a reflective surface (the polar cap) and a warmer ocean.

These three scientific facts are enough for me to accept that climate change is probably happening and the consequences are probably dire.

What is the scientific debate? And whose opinions are valid in this debate?

I'm not a meteorologist or a climatologist, neither is Tony Abbott. But amongst people who do fall within this domain of expertise there is consensus. Scientific consensus.

What this means is that it doesn't matter what Tony Abbot, Barnaby Joyce or I think as to the likelihood of climate change occuring. Climate change will or wont happen regardless of our opinion. But in terms of any climate debate, there are opinions that are simply wrong, invalid and should be excluded. These are the uninformed, misinformed and just plain stupid opinions.

Science is not democratic, we don't get to vote on whether climate change happens or not, we simply get to vote on how we pay for it.

The Risks

"Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."

- Rupert Murdoch.

You should go because it's probably the right thing to do.

Being generous and presuming that the scientific community may be wrong about the consensus they have reached that climate change is occurring, consider taking action as insurance. We can pay something now to ensure that something that may occur definitely doesn't. Or we can do nothing and risk the most catastrophic and unpleasant event that could happen to our species short of a Nuclear Winter.

The costs of climate action are really for most of us, quite insignificant, relatively cheap and only increase the more we delay. By contrast the costs of climate change are really, really, really, really expensive.

Thus follow Warren Buffett's advice - don't risk something important to gain something unimportant. The savings from doing nothing are not important, and it is being suggested you risk the planet, that I feel is important.

Democracy is not scientific

"In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn't. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn't see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn't it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum."

~ Noam Chomsky.

You should go because your interests are being subverted through deliberate misinformation.

Kevin Rudd lost his office trying to introduce a taxation on abnormally large profits earned by corporations with no national allegiance from the sale of irreplaceable resources they didn't create, that would redistribute that natural bounty back to the community it rightfully belongs to and invested for the benefit of future generations.

It was this community that punished him for acting in their best interests, because it didn't bother to avail itself of the facts, whether it be the fact that BHP and Rio Tinto's share prices or profits didn't suffer at all while the Super Profits Mining Tax was on the table, nor did they concern themselves that even if those profits were redistributed away from shareholders, directors are under no obligation whatsoever to distribute profits to shareholders at any time in the form of dividends and would never be as generous as the government would have been anyway. They were convinced by the $120 million dollars spent daily on ad campaigns that had little factual basis convincing them that Australia's economy would go to hell in a hand basket if they weren't entitled to keep profits in excess of 40%. (or whatever).

Conversely Tony Abbott despite having the majority of seats in the lower house was denied office by a group of independents (and one Green member) who actually demanded of him to produce a budget for his proposed spending plans. Some described this as undemocratic. They were right, because neither the press or voting public bothered to subject him and his policy to even this basic level of scrutiny.

Democracy is not scientific. One can broadcast a message that has little to no factual basis whatsoever and influence democratic outcomes.

Wretched though it is, economics is scientific. The Super Profits Mining Tax would have been more beneficial to every average Australian than the compromise Gillard agreed to. This is the case no matter what Tony Abbott or any voting individual thinks. As Sam Harris alluded, certain opinions on economic well being are simply invalid, incorrect. The personal opinions of a mining magnate will not change the facts of what is actually in your best interests, but you can let it sway you. You already have, and it didn't even need an election, just opinion polls.

The same is happening with climate change right now. Climate change is scientific, not democratic, by that I mean that its the sort of thing that will happen whether Tony Abbott or anybody else personally believes in it or not.

In the domain of science we don't get to choose what we want to believe. We can only do this in democracy.

The point Chomsky makes is this, democracy can be swayed by opinion, and the vested interests in the private sector can simply outspend the government in making sure which opinion is prevalent. They need not present an opinion that has any factual basis whatsoever.

Scientifically it is my understanding the 'debate' on climate change is 95% of meteorologists believe it is happening and man made. 5% express some doubt as to whether it is primarily man made.

Democratically speaking any debate that conflicts with the private sector will be 95% opposed media spending and 5% in favor. Your elected representatives simply cannot defend themselves against the coffers of the businesses they are attempting to regulate.

They are subverting your democracy to serve their own interests. But democracy is still by the people, if not for the people. It requires your ignorance, complacency and unwitting support.

This is a direct challenge to the functionality of your democracy, and subsequently beyond doing the right thing, a reason to support a carbon tax and go to the rally on Saturday is that it is devaluing your democratic rights.

Do the right thing.

The business of business is business.

~ Alfred P Sloan Jnr.

You should go because even if it won't work, its the right thing to do.

There is a cliche in parenting pertaining specifically to doing the right or wrong thing. 'If your friend jumped off a bridge would you do it?' it is intended to teach the child to follow their own moral compass, moral imperatives and ignore infractions by others. I have little doubt that most parents and particularly parents that describe themselves as 'conservative' would agree with me that it is wrong for a child to steal other children's property, just because other children are doing it.

Yet we gladly suspend this thinking when it comes to climate change, one of the few things that could actually result in mass starvation and potentially extinction of the human race. At the very least an end to human civilization as we know it. Here it is wrong for Australia to act on climate change, until every other country (particularly bastions of functioning democratic and humanitarian leadership China and India) follows suit.

The logic being that we will export pollution and jobs to other countries.

Firstly, I would remind people of what ACTION on CLIMATE CHANGE actually is supposed to achieve. It is supposed to achieve the cessation of activities that contribute to climate change that fall within our countries jurisdiction.

The haters of climate action though, give those employed and invested in the industry no credit and demonstrate a distinct lack of imagination. Because jobs disappear does not mean they cannot be replaced. We already subsidize a large and unprofitable automotive industry, we can easily do the same for a large, emerging technology of the future such as solar. We can employ as many people as we like in this industry because there would be demand for its output even if we gave it away, that would render real benefits upon our society (free energy).

The naysayers claim to represent business interests and the market. This is complete fucken bullshit crap. They are just lazy people who would rather carry on doing what they've always done because it is easier than change and they lack the imagination to imagine a tomorrow. They are children trying to do whatever they can get away with, and that is kind of their job. But they are not representing a more informed view of what is good for business, good for the economy and good for you.

For a more informed view of what is good for business, good for the economy and good for you, take it from Drucker who LITERALLY wrote the book on management. the following is an excerpt from the effective executive and is I feel fittingly an effective criticism of the stand against climate change based on protecting the polluters' industries:

Du Pont has been doing so much better than any other of the world's large chemical companies, largely because Du Pont abandons a product or a process before it begins to decline. It does not invest scarce resources of people or money into defending yesterday...
...the need to slough off the outworn old to make possible the productive new is universal. It is reasonably certain that we would still have stage coaches - nationalized to be sure, heavily subsidized, and with a fantastic research program to 'retrain the horse' - had there been ministries for transportation back in 1825.

~ pgs 101-102 The Effective Executive, Peter Drucker.

Sound familiar? Because it is in essence the governments plans to invest in 'clean coal' research and carbon sequestration, rather than solar. I guarantee that pretty much anybody reading this book cannot claim to understand business better than Drucker.

Consider how passionate you would feel about defending the right of your parents to feed you (an infant) cheeseburgers for dinner every night, because cooking you nutritious meals incurs an increased cost in time.

Business has no right to a market, no right to profits, no right to customers. The market is a jungle designed to chew up business and spit them out for our benefit. As a society we have no obligation to protect the value of natural deposits of coal, asbestos, oil or anything else that somebody currently makes a buck out of. The stance of the opposition is in essence the same argument that would say 'Apple should be banned from releasing the iPhone because Nokia currently makes a profit from selling the Nokia 5160'.

Industries have a responsibility to themselves and their shareholders to invest in the future, don't give up yours to protect their past.