Australian government defence & climate confusions

I’ve spoken before about what appears to be an outbreak of split brain among the leaders of the world; that is, their apparently effortless ability to carry on with business as usual, while expressing concern about climate change effects that make business as usual untenable.

The defence White Paper released this week by the Australian Government is more evidence for this. It proposes to spend $100 billion on defence hardware, with submarines the most expensive item, to counter a perceived military threat from China, resulting from that country’s military buildup.

Apart from the questionable assumptions about China’s foreign policy intentions–just possibly China’s build up may have more to do with defensive, rather than aggressive, policy positions–and the rather ludicrous image of a handful of Australian submarines preventing any kind of determined aggression, and the evidence in Australian history of the enormous national damage that is caused by the practice of constructing enemies, one is compelled to ask  just what is this massive defence expenditure intended to secure? Because if the latest scientific evidence on climate change, also released this week in a study published in the Nature journal, is any indication, there may not be much left to defend.

The study looked at the total amount of CO2 emitted since the onset of the industrial revolution, and compared these to the total capacity of the atmospheric system to carry these emissions before triggering dangerous climate change of beyond 2 degrees C rise in temperature. This is a different approach from that usually taken, in that it focuses not on annual emissions but on the total load the atmosphere can sustain. The study’s conclusions are reported bluntly:

“The world will overshoot its long-term target on greenhouse gas emissions within two decades. A study has found that the average global temperature will rise above the threshold that could cause dangerous climate change during that time.

“Scientists have calculated that the world has already produced about a third of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that could be emitted between 2000 and 2050 and still keep within a 2C rise in global average temperatures.

“At the current rate at which CO2 is emitted globally – which is increasing by 3 per cent a year – countries will have exceeded their total limit of 1,000 billion tons within 20 years, which would be about 20 years earlier than planned under international obligations.”

The authors of the study note that even with currently known fossil fuel reserves the world’s has more than sufficient capacity to exceed these limits:

“The scientists found the total amount of greenhouse gases that could be released over this time would be equivalent to 1,000 billion tons of CO2. This is equivalent to using up about 25 per cent of known reserves of oil, gas and coal.”

Even the most stringent of targets now being discussed by the international community offers only a 25% chance of containment within the required limits:

“The study concluded that the world must agree on a cut in carbon dioxide emissions of more than 50 per cent by 2050 if the probability of exceeding a 2C rise in average temperatures is to be limited to a risk of 1 in 4.”

A one in four chance for the collapse of the planet’s biophysical supports. To bring this into perspective, you might ask yourself if you would you get on a plane, or into a car, if you knew it had a one in four chance of crashing.

I am interested to know how the Australian Government would define a national emergency if this does not constitute one–and an emergency that is here now, because every day of delay reduces the likelihood that these targets will be met. It is a genuine national emergency because it will impact–is already impacting, as the plight of the Murray-Darling shows–every aspect of our national life, and far more profoundly than any war we can contemplate.

Just as in a war the work of the whole population has to be (and has been in the past) directed to the war effort, so in facing climate change there is no other national priority that remotely approaches it. The proposed Australian CPRS (emissions trading scheme), with its absurdly weak targets and abundant free permits to heavy polluters, is fundamentally flawed, as every expert in the country, and most of the general population, knows. It doesn’t begin to do what has to be done.

If the $100 billion now proposed in this White Paper to be spent on military hardware to meet a speculative threat were to be directed to a comprehensive restructuring of the economy to a low carbon economy, and national life to low carbon national living, there may be some chance of doing what we can to achieve these climate targets.  It might be possible to promote the sorts of international initiatives that must be undertaken now to avoid climate change that is beyond dangerous (it’s already dangerous enough, as the people of sub-Saharan Africa in decades long droughts can tell you).

It doesn’t seem to me that this is difficult or complicated to grasp. I think the Australian community in general has a fairly clear view of it. Again I wonder about the split brain syndrome that seem to be plaguing our leaders, in government and in opposition, particularly in Canberra.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. Split brain thinking is quite insidious. For example, writing about leaders with split brain contains a deep implication that they, the leaders have split brain while we the followers do not. Such implications are, as always, dis-empowering to both groups; the leaders feel blamed and resentful, while the followers feel righteous yet powerless, (and as if they need to be forgiven!).

    Split brain thinking weakens the “green” movement every time it participates in discussions of whether or not global warming and/or climate change exist. Perhaps it would help to engage in both/and thinking rather than either/or thinking. For example, both global warming and global cooling exist; global climate has both changing and stable aspects.

    Grass roots movements seem to offer the best solutions for our planetary crisis, and they are very much based on individual empowerment. And, paradoxically it is much more empowering for an individual to recognize his or her split brain than to assume that it only exists in others.

    Of course, even talking about problems and solutions creates a dichotomy that might further mask the whole reality!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *