Climate Policy is a Fiendish Problem for Governments ( continued )
ARTICLES
Climate Policy is a Fiendish Problem for Governments ( continued )
and the United States – although some US states , particularly California are moving aggressively to develop alternative energy sources .
The latter is true for much of Western Europe , while China and South Korea are committed both to phasing out coal and to leading the world in wind and solar power technology . In collaboration with the US giant General Electric , South Korean and Japanese companies are working to develop prefabricated ( and hopefully foolproof ) small nuclear reactors called SMRs .
At this stage , China ( currently the world ’ s biggest greenhouse gas emitter ) is humanity ’ s best hope – if it indeed holds to its stated resolve .
Political Paralysis
Politically , with a substantial economic position in fossil fuel extraction and export , Australia ’ s Federal government seems paralysed when it comes to taking meaningful climate action . We signed on to the Paris Agreement but , even if we meet the agreed reductions in emissions , precious little consideration is given to the fossil fuels that we export for others to burn . And while much of the financial sector now accepts that any new investments in coalmines will ultimately become “ stranded assets ”, some politicians nevertheless continue to pledge tax dollars to fund such projects .
What can be done ? Clearly , because meaningful action is likely to impact both on jobs and export income , this is an impossible equation for Australia ’ s elected representatives . Might it help to give them a “ backbone ” in the form of a fully independent , scientifically and economically informed statutory authority , endowed with real powers ? Would such an initiative even be possible under Australian law ?
Realising that reasoned scientific and moral arguments for meaningful action on climate change are going nowhere fast , some 41 Australian environmental organisations sought the help of the Australian Panel of Experts on Environmental Law ( APEEL ) to develop the case for a powerful , independent Commonwealth Environmental Commission ( CEC ) linked to a National Environmental Protection Agency ( NEPA ).
Last March in Canberra , at the culmination of a two-year process , environmental groups presented their conclusions , preceded by a more mechanistic analysis from the lawyers . In very broad terms , the new agencies would do for environmental policy what the Reserve Bank currently does for economic decisions , that is , they would have the power to make calls on crucial issues ( whether they be interest rates or air pollution limits ) that cannot be vetoed by the government . Of course , that would require a government that is willing to imbue them with such power in the first place .
While it ’ s a good bet that developing such a major national initiative will , at best , be a long , slow and arduous process , it is true that ( to quote Laozi ): “ A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step ”.
What is also clear is that “ business as usual ” is not a viable option for the future economy , defence and health of Australia .
Peter C . Doherty is a Laureate Professor at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity .
Disclosure Statement : Peter C . Doherty is currently funded as a chief investigator on an NHMRC Program Grant focused on immunity to the influenza A viruses . He is a member of the scientific committee for Doctors for the Environment , Australia and the advisory committee for the Melbourne Sustainability Society Institute .
This article was first published in ‘ The Conversation ’ on 27th March , 2018 . SEN and the Science Teachers ’ Association of NSW are most grateful to ‘ The Conversation ’ for its generous policy of en-couraging the republishing of its many fine articles . We also thank the author , Dr Peter Doherty , for supplying this article , thereby supporting this policy .
26 SCIENCE EDUCATIONAL NEWS VOL 67 NO 3