Posts Tagged ‘Jorg Imberger’
Power and greed bank on fear and ignorance
Jorg Imberger is an eminent and influential Australian academic who heads the Centre for Water Research at UWA. In Monday’s West Australian he presented an argument against the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).
The first half of his comments included some creative rhetoric suggesting that climate change was being used as a tool to maintain political power and that emissions trading was being adopted as a profit making mechanism.
He presented some interesting arguments in the second half of the article discussing the scope of the problem of climate change and his views on how we should respond.
Professor Imberger pointed out that Australia is only responsible for about 1.5% of the world’s carbon emissions and so the “amount of carbon that will be saved each year if the scheme is fully implemented is miniscule”.
He went on to point out that the warming we are already experiencing due to our use of fossil fuels (anthropogenic warming) is now triggering feedback mechanisms that are exacerbating the problem.
A good example of this is the recent study in Geophysical Research Letters which has been the first research to show arctic melting has caused an increased release of methane into the atmosphere, methane being a potent greenhouse gas.
Given that we are already committed to 2°C of warming and the potential effects of these feedback mechanisms, the implication of Professor Imberger’s comments is that the CPRS is a dangerous distraction and we should instead be facing up to the consequences of climate change.
Instead of an emissions trading scheme, Professor Imberger suggests two main alternative strategies to tackle climate change.
Firstly, he argues that we should stop exporting food and make agricultural production more efficient. Farmers could then be encouraged to grow native trees and plants on the 37% of our land mass that would be freed from this change. This would sequester a large amount of carbon and begin to return some of the biodiversity lost due to global warming
Secondly, he suggests that given the changing rainfall patterns in Australia — less rain in the South East and South West and more in the North West — people could be progressively encouraged to relocate.
While I’ve attempted to summarise the key points of the argument, I’d encourage you to read Professor Imberger’s comments for yourself.
A rational response to a diabolical problem
Professor Garnaut has called climate change a diabolical challenge for Australia. On the one hand Australia can’t afford to act alone, on the other we can’t afford not to act.
Is the CPRS the right response to climate change or is Professor Imberger correct, and is it “clearly irrelevant to the climate change problem”?
It is true that Australia’s overall emissions are dwarfed by those of the United States and China. It is also true that an emissions trading scheme will have an impact on Australia’s economy, although less than might be feared. However there are a number of other important points that need to be made.
Climate change is a global problem and requires a global solution. The mechanism we have as a society to enact global policies are international agreements between states. These agreements cover a wide range of topics from human rights to international trade. A particularly relevant example is the Montreal Protocol which addressed the threat to the Ozone layer by reducing the use of CFCs.
There is an important process in train to reach an international agreement on reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses. The process started in Rio in 1992, continued in Kyoto and then Bali last year, and will progress further in Copenhagen next year.
This long period of time has coincided with a gradual increase in awareness of the impacts of climate change by citizens, empowering governments to take action on their behalf.
The only way the world is going limit global warming to 2°C is to reach an international agreement to reduce emissions and stablise the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Despite only being responsible for 1.5% of the worlds emissions, Australia is an important player in this process, particularly in the Asia region, and it is critical we are working positively towards an agreement.
Australia needs to demonstrate leadership and maintain credibility through action on climate change; signing the Kyoto Protocol; being prepared to agree on a specific reduction target and implementing a mechanism — in our case the CPRS - to achieve that target.
The CPRS is an effective mechanism because it allows us to agree reduction targets at a national level and then set limits on the emissions of individual businesses to achieve those targets. By auctioning permits and then allowing them to be traded it provides an efficient mechanism for businesses to meet their reduction obligations.
Professor Imberger is rightly concerned about the potential economic impacts of the CPRS impeding our ability to adapt to climate change. However Australia won’t unilaterally adopt deep cuts and Penny Wong, the Minister for Climate Change, has made it clear that we will wait until the outcome of the Copenhagen discussion before making any specific commitments.
The key point is that Australia must be working towards a global agreement and must be ready to act when we have an agreement. Participating in this process is the only chance we have for limiting global warming to 2°C.
The second important point about an emissions trading scheme is that places a price on carbon. This enables the country and businesses to make rational economic decisions to reduce emissions. Placing a price on carbon is already having a positive impact by helping to fund abatement projects in developing countries under the Clean Development Mechanism.
With a price on carbon, businesses are enabled to make decisions that might include the strategies suggested by Professor Imberger. If the cost of water and of transportation means it is no longer economic for Australia to export food, then we will stop. If the abatement benefits of reclaiming agricultural land and replanting bush provides sufficient economic incentive, then it will happen.
What is the alternative way to implement these strategies?
I do think Professor Imberger is absolutely right in one particular respect: it is important that we also plan for the consequences of climate change. The world is already committed to some level of climate change and so it is true that reduction is not enough and adaptation is critical.
As an aside, some businesses are already acting in this respect. For example Woodside Energy has conducted a large study in conjunction with Oklahoma University to help them prepare for climate change. The study will, amongst other things, guide them in the design of future offshore production platforms to cope with changes in tropical cyclone wind speeds and wave heights.
Right now the CPRS is the government’s principal response to climate change and it is an important one, but perhaps we should now ask the government for a Climate Change Adaptation Scheme as well.
