Questions for John Howard's Trading Report

These are the questions we believe should be asked of the Prime Minister's Task Force on Emissions Trading Report.

COMMITMENT? Would the Report exist at all if the Government had its way? Was the PM forced to commission the Report by public opinion which has run ahead of the Government on this issue? Is the Report a piece of political theatre, designed to help the Government squeak through at the coming Election? Given his way with words, it would take a wiley politician like Mr Howard less than a minute to find a way to call the whole process off after the election. (Eg. the economic analysis in 2008 finds the damage to the economy would be too great at any level of restraint.) The leisurely pace set by the proposal sees 2008 start on the detailed economic analysis to establish a long-term target, legislation by 2009, trials by 2010 and trading by 2012.

These questions arise:

If there is a sense of urgency, why did the Task Force take 3 months to come to such broad conclusions? Why not start the economic modelling immediately? In the 11 years the Government has been in power, has no modelling been done or has all policy to date been based on best guesses?

Why was the Task Force even considered necessary when there is little difference in most of the technical detail between a 200-page discussion paper on possible designs for a scheme delivered in August 2006 by the National Emissions Trading Taskforce set up by the Labor states and the Task Force's 200-page report released yesterday?

Why was the Task Force asked to repeat the exercise conducted eight years ago in 1999 by the Australian Greenhouse Office when the Howard Government commissioned it to deliver a report on an emissions trading scheme for Australia?

Given the above, can we trust the Government on Climate Change?

EXTREME OUTCOMES MORE LIKELY: The Report commits Australia to a global scenario of more than 2°C increase in average temperatures. In fact, the target is so soft that, were the rest of the world to follow Australia's example, the likely rise is around the cataclysmic 3°C-4°C. The lower level involves the loss of wildlife habitats like the Great Barrier Reef and the Polar Ice Caps. It also invites more cyclones, the relatives of Katrina and Larry. The drying of Australia will resolve a lot of speculation about the future of industires such as rice, cotton and mining. The inland could be depopulated. The upper levels of temperature rises involve large movements of refugees to places like Australia from low lying countries to our north (a scenario first depicted by the Pentagon in 2001) in numbers that our armed forces would find overwhelming. (Hence the Pentagon's scenario study: would the USA use military force against these civilians if Australia asked for help under the terms of the ANZUS Treaty?) Imagine a fleet of Tampas, junks, and fishing boats beaching themselves along our undefended coastline. Would our soldiers fire?

Does the Government prefer that we 'adapt' to these outcomes rather than pay higher prices for electricity and fuel?

ECONOMIC LOSSES GUARANTEED: Could the Report's reluctance to set a serious pace will certainly cause economic loss of the type it seeks to avoid? The insurance companies aren't celebrating the Report the way the coal miners and power companies are, because they are already in the grip of the climate change crisis. Actuaries know: the numbers don't lie like politicians. Major natural disasters have increased 300% in number since the 1960s, and 15-times in terms of insured losses (in real terms, adjusted for inflation). The majority of the worst catastrophes have been climate change related. Claims for storm and flood damages in the UK doubled over the period 1998–2003, compared to the previous five years. The results are rising insurance premiums, and the risk that in some areas insurance will become unaffordable. In the United States, insurance losses have also greatly increased.

The world's two largest insurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, warned in a 2002 study that "the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends" could cost almost US$150 billion each year in the next decade. These costs will hit voters in the hip pocket. The Stern Review by the former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank Nicholas Stern predicted in October 2006 that economic growth could be cut by 20% unless drastic action is taken. Failure to invest 1% GDP in mitigaiton efforts could risk a recession whch could destroy up to 20% GDP, according to Stern. Such an even would be worse than the impact of the two world wars and the Great Depression.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE QUESTION: We live in an era which forces each individual to answer the Climate Change Question: "How should I live my life?" It is the ultimate ethical question. Beyond politics and ideology, Climate Change is a matter of morality for people in places of power and influence because they are making decisions that will affect the personal safety and quality of life of millions of people, most of them yet to be born.

"Am I my brother's keeper?" asked Cain. The English Common Law of Torts says I am. The Christian Faith says I am. Simple humanity says I am.

Climate sceptics have a right to their opinion, but do they have a right to equal access to the media, given their miniscule minority status and low level of qualifications compared to mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific opinion?

Polluting industries have a right to debate the issues, but do they have a right to fund the manipulation of public information of the type reported by ABC 4Corners program ("The Greenhouse Mafia"), the documentary "The Denial Machine" and, the recent book SCORCHER by Dr Clive Hamilton.

Governments with strong financial support from high emissions industries have a right to give them a fair hearing, but do they have a right to distort democratic processes to serve their interests? (See above sources. Note: Agriculture is a high emitter, but not a big source of financial support for the Government. It did not get a seat on the Task Force.)

ASK THE ACTUARIES: And for those sceptics who still think this is all a great hoax perpetrated by the environmental lobby to gain control of your lives, don't ask the scientists. Obviously you don't think they can be trusted. Instead, follow the money. Ask the actuaries. Call the chief actuaries at IAG, Swiss Re, Munich Re... Could they also be part of the Climate Change Conspiracy?

CORPORATE LEADERSHIP: Is now the time for companies to stand up and tell the Government that it must take Climate Change seriously? Corporations law makes directors liable to shareholders for losses incurred from events or conditions which were predictable and preventable. Every director of every public company is exposed. Every major corporation of significance - even Exxon Mobil which has been financing the professional sceptics until recent months - has acknowledged the danger and set out on the path towards carbon neutrality.

MEDIA ENGAGEMENT: Would the Government be able to stage this charade if we had an informed media? The outrageous lies ("Australia is at the forefront of this issue") told by the Government are swallowed whole by respected columnists. ("Regional agreements are the answer.") Global warming will not be solved by patchworks of regional agreements. It is a global problem and must be solved globally. The rest of the world has agreed to that. ("We will take the lead towards a new Kyoto.") Australia and America are lucky to be allowed to sit down at the table for Round 2. There is no respect for us there. Our intransigence is being used by China and India to dodge their responsibilities. ("Kyoto was flawed and a failure.") Kyoto 1 was trialling a new global market for a commodity few understood. Growing pains are not a sign of terminal illness.

Should the media always judge the Government's statements on Climate Change as being those made by climate sceptics?

These questions will be answered for us in time. Let's hope it's in time for us to do something about them.