Sorting fact from fiction
Tony Abbott, climate change deniers and radio shock jocks are running a scare campaign against a price on pollution reminiscent of big tobacco’s tactics against anti-smoking campaigns in the past.
As a result, many Australians are confused and unsure about who or what to believe.
In fact, there are two types of myths floating about – one we might term ‘political myths’ and the other ‘scientific myths’.
Here is a short list of useful resources to help you sort fact from fiction, and provide you with some ammunition next time you find yourself in a discussion about climate change or the carbon price.
But of course, information alone isn't always enough to change someone's mind. Our values, beliefs and personality will all affect how we respond to new information and how likely it is to change our attitudes or behaviour. Read more about the psychology of climate change here, here and here.
Political Myths
"I'm no climate science denier, but I don't agree a 'great big new tax' is the way to go. What's wrong with the Coalition's 'direct action' approach?
The fundamental problem with the Coalition’s Direct Action Policy is that it will cost an enormous amount of money while doing nothing to reduce Australia’s emissions. Nor will it do anything to modernise our economy and create jobs in new industries.
In fact, because there is no cap on total emissions in the Coalition's plan, there's a good chance it could actually lead to increased emissions. It's a bit like paying people to fill in holes in the road - don't be surprised if people start digging new ones, just to get the compensation!
The federal Department of Climate Change has estimated that rather than reducing emissions, the Coalition’s policy would actually see emissions rise by 13% above 2000 levels, while still costing the Australian people a massive amount of money – between $10.5 and $30 billion dollars.
According to the Department’s analysis, the only way the Coalition’s Direct Action policy could achieve its stated 2020 target of a 5% cut in emissions on 2000 levels (which is still way below what is needed to avert catastrophic impacts, is by spending $5.2 billion on international permits.
Such a heavy reliance on international permits not only continues the practice of shifting the burden of action onto countries with least responsibility for causing the problem in the first place, but it also removes any incentive for Australian business to adopt new low emissions technologies and create jobs in new industries such as renewable energy.
“Julia Gillard said before the election that there would be no carbon tax, so she doesn’t have a mandate to implement one now.”
The ALP went to the 2010 election stating that if elected, it would implement an emissions trading scheme. The Greens went to the same election advocating a fixed price for emissions permits.
At the 2010 election, the Australian people elected a Parliament in which neither of the old parties won a clear majority and Julia Gillard now heads a minority government with the support of the Greens and independents.
As such, the current proposal – a fixed price for permits for 3-5 years moving to an emissions trading scheme after that – does accurately reflect the outcome of the 2010 election in that it combines elements of both the ALP and Greens election platforms.
“It’s only fair that the Australian people get to vote again on this issue, like we did on the GST.”
Apart from the fallacious ‘lack of mandate’ argument implicit in this statement (see above), this argument also ignores the very short and rapidly closing window of opportunity we have for action. Unlike the GST which has the same economic effect regardless of when it’s implemented, we have perhaps only a decade to massively reduce our emissions if we are to avoid runaway climate change. Once we reach that point, the policy options we have now – like a carbon price – will simply not have the effect they potentially have now.
It has been estimated that at current levels of commitment to action by governments worldwide, we are looking at an increase in global temperature of 4 degrees Celsius by 2100.
We are already facing sea level rises of at least 1-2m this century even if all greenhouse emissions stopped today, just due to the emissions ‘already in the system’. That’s enough to wipe out Altona, Brisbane Airport and Lakes Entrance.
The time for talk is over. It’s way past time for action.
Scientific Myths
The 10 Myths of Climate Change
Here's a useful summary of the facts behind the 10 most common myths peddled by climate change denialists.
Temperature records are unreliable
Good luck with all those chats with your neighbours!
And if all the above has inspired you, here's where to take action.