Who would have thought it would be so hard? A couple of years ago over 70% of Australian’s agreed we needed to take action on combatting climate change and reduce our use of highly polluting fossil fuels. But now it seems hardly anyone is prepared to do anything about it.
I think there a few factors affecting this change and financial pressures and disinformation campaigns are probably the most significant. But surely the name “carbon tax” is not helping. As a “brand” it does not have anything going for it. Yesterday, while having 612ABC radio playing in the background I was getting more and riled with ignorant fools ringing up saying carbon is an essential element of life and naturally ocurring, so why should we tax it? It took a school teacher to ring and explain the basics of science and point out that the plan was not to tax the “carbon” that was naturally in the atmosphere, but the part that was being added by our use of highly polluting sources such as burning coal for energy, using petrol to fuel our cars, planes and ships and the widespread removal of native forests across the world.
We made the decison to install solar hot water and solar electricity panels to our home about 3 years ago and despite the considerable cost have been delighted with the decision. We wish we were 100% self sufficient – but we do all we can to minimise our energy use. Where we can travel by bicycle we do and it is great to know we are doing good for both our bodies and the environment by keeping a car off the road. A win – win if ever there was one.
Bike power - Lino print by Sandy Guthrie (2006)
So why have Australians become so reluctant to take action on climate change? If this tax was renamed as a “Pollution Levy” would it become more palatable? Would people understand it better? A Vox Pop conducted by ABC Radio in Brisbane a couple of weeks ago showed most people approached had no idea what a carbon tax was or what it was trying to achieve. How does the government educate a public who seem so completely disengaged on the issue?
Business interests are fighting a huge war, which has all the parallels of the Big Tobacco conspiracy against the unequivocal evidence of smoking being very bad for you and it seems we are taking more notice of that than the facts that our esteemed scientific community are trying to communicate. It is one thing to be an aware and “cynical” electorate, but do we really know more about the science than the worlds leading climate scientists? Or is it just that inaction is easier and we think cheaper (for now anyway) so let’s just not do anything? Is it a coincidence that the most vocal of opponents you hear ringing up the radio stations are old men who won’t be here to see the mess anyway.
Wind Power - Lino print and mylar etching by Sandy Guthrie (2006)
Yesterday there was more noise about this issue in the Australian media than has been for a very long time with the launch of an ad campaign fronted by the actors Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton. Before this ad was even shown on TV, the front pages of Murdoch newspapers were heralding the outrage in the community due to “rich” Cate being the person spruiking the campaign. The “outrage” being that she can afford to pay more for things, so how dare she tell me what to do? Aside from the fact that this was a total media beat up, why should anyones wealth affect their desire to do the right thing for the environment? There are plenty of fat cats who clearly don’t give a damn – with outrageously fuel hungry luxury cruisers, enormous homes and guzzling cars. At least Cate drives a Prius and uses solar energy for her home and workplace. She is doing her bit. But this attack was clearly another attempt to sidetrack the issue away from the key argument – we need to put a price on pollution so that individuals/businesses change their behaviour to avoid/minimise the tax and because this pollution is harming the planet and you should not be allowed to pollute and not pay for the damage you are doing.
It’s not really that hard is it?
Totally agree. We have to start sometime, like 10 20 or 30 years ago.
Thanks Carina, We can’t claim to be quick learners, can we?
Thank you for standing up to reason. Honestly, lately I think I am going crazy mad with all the negative comments! When the Rio de Janeiro convention on biodiversity took place in 1992 it triggered many policy changes across the world and climate change is at the centre of it all.
We cannot ask science to “prove” global warming or climate change, at least not in the next 100 years when it’s too late, we can only ask science to use statistical modelling and research to come up with “best” or “worst” case scenarios or what is happening, but it is not imperative to have a detailed understanding of climate change to understand how dramatic increases in environmental pressures have caused negative impacts on systems that are by nature, complex and adaptive. Turning a blind eye will not make them go away.
One of the principles underpinning legislation in Australia and the world at the moment is called the Precautionary Principle. What it says is that when there is uncertainty about damage to the environment it is preferred to err on the safe side and not take action, so as to avoid potential damage. Same thing here, it is better to act and try to use all tools available to try and stop, mitigate and adapt to this wicked problem. One tool is enforcement and legislation, another can be economic incentives, such as a carbon trading scheme.
To be honest, my worries are more focused on the fact that, as with any new tries to fix a complex problem, there will be teething issues in the beginning and sometimes, humans tend to make things worse before they get better. But in any event, someone has to start somewhere. Let’s just hope that this scheme works in the way it should so that fossil fuel emissions are curbed and we reduce our pollution substantially or at least enought to make a difference!
I firmly believe that effective communication is a great tool, but as always, scientist are not good at communicating, neither are governments, so all we hear out there is just political jargon! But not an educational and informative description of what has been happening. But what would be the point of further public consultation when a substantial number of Australians still do not believe in climate change?
Thanks Lorena. I was not aware of the “precautionary principle” but agree with the idea. I also think even if people choose to ignore the science, we’ve all travelled to cities with awful pollution issues and know how damaging it is to your health and well-being. How can reducing pollution ever be considered a bad thing to do? The world has changed so radically since the Industrial Revolution and I think sometimes people forget how much of an impact modern man is now having compared to how it used to be for the centuries before.