Here's my take on the specific issue of whether Australia should take action on climate change, though this doesn't cover the wider validity of climate change science (which I believe is very likely true) and the specifics of such action. I am an advocate of Australia adopting an emissions trading scheme/carbon tax, here's my reasoning why.
I wholeheartedly support Australia introducing an emissions trading scheme, although I am concerned that the government may have trouble being competent enough to run it effectively. The main issue with introducing such policies in Australia is that we only contribute 1.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so why should we introduce a policy that will cost our economy billions with uncertain benefits (the billions we might make back by investing in green energy for example, and then the avoidance of the damage to our economy that hopefully will occur if we avert climate change) when it will have a very small effect on global temperature?
I can tell you exactly why, allow me to use the analogy of the war in Afghanistan. There are currently (as of May 2011) 140,000 coalition soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, discounting generals and political leaders, not one of those front-line foot soldiers is ever going to change the outcome of the war by themselves are they?. So if their individual efforts contribute nothing to the eventual outcome of the war, by libertarian thinking they have no incentive whatsoever to fight yes?
But they still do.
That’s because the war in Afghanistan is a communal effort, if all 140,000 soldiers don’t fight, then all of them lose the war, but if most of them fight, they might win the war. That’s why we need to do our part. Even the largest single contributor to climate change, China, emits only 16% of global emissions; everyone’s facing the same dilemma.
Let’s take the analogy still further, how hard does each individual soldier have to fight? All need to fight to an extent, but even then surely, by libertarian thinking, none are going to risk their lives more than they have to and end up receiving a special award for gallantry right?
BUT THEY STILL DO.
Why? They’re already doing their part, in climate change terms they’re not just cutting emissions gradually but drastically, how does this make sense?
It’s because individual heroes are the only individuals that can have a wider effect, hearing of VC winners in Afghanistan and reading about their exploits inspires and puts pressure on other soldiers to do their best as well. Sure no soldiers fights for a piece of coloured ribbon, but when another member of your platoon runs into gunfire to rescue a wounded comrade or destroy an enemy machine gun nest, something about it can give you the confidence to do the same when you find yourself in those circumstances someday.
That’s why Australia has to introduce major emissions cuts, we’re the most educated, fittest and best-dressed soldier in the platoon, there’s no one else in a better position than us to run into that gunfire, which I would unabashedly admit we are doing, except that we're not. Most of Europe, New Zealand and several other countries have already introduced or are proposing legislation to greatly restrict greenhouse emissions. We face a mammoth task, the 2007 IPCC report predicted warming of 2-6 degrees Celsius this century if we take no action. By comparision, at the height of the last ice age, when there were ice sheets extending southwards to Spain, global temperatures were a mere 8 degrees cooler. So we're facing a pretty disastrous situation a century or so from now.
So the next time Andrew Bolt or Laurie Oaks use the illogical argument that the emissions trading scheme is pointless because it alone will not greatly affect global temperature, please just explain all this to them.
I wholeheartedly support Australia introducing an emissions trading scheme, although I am concerned that the government may have trouble being competent enough to run it effectively. The main issue with introducing such policies in Australia is that we only contribute 1.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so why should we introduce a policy that will cost our economy billions with uncertain benefits (the billions we might make back by investing in green energy for example, and then the avoidance of the damage to our economy that hopefully will occur if we avert climate change) when it will have a very small effect on global temperature?
I can tell you exactly why, allow me to use the analogy of the war in Afghanistan. There are currently (as of May 2011) 140,000 coalition soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, discounting generals and political leaders, not one of those front-line foot soldiers is ever going to change the outcome of the war by themselves are they?. So if their individual efforts contribute nothing to the eventual outcome of the war, by libertarian thinking they have no incentive whatsoever to fight yes?
But they still do.
That’s because the war in Afghanistan is a communal effort, if all 140,000 soldiers don’t fight, then all of them lose the war, but if most of them fight, they might win the war. That’s why we need to do our part. Even the largest single contributor to climate change, China, emits only 16% of global emissions; everyone’s facing the same dilemma.
Let’s take the analogy still further, how hard does each individual soldier have to fight? All need to fight to an extent, but even then surely, by libertarian thinking, none are going to risk their lives more than they have to and end up receiving a special award for gallantry right?
BUT THEY STILL DO.
Why? They’re already doing their part, in climate change terms they’re not just cutting emissions gradually but drastically, how does this make sense?
It’s because individual heroes are the only individuals that can have a wider effect, hearing of VC winners in Afghanistan and reading about their exploits inspires and puts pressure on other soldiers to do their best as well. Sure no soldiers fights for a piece of coloured ribbon, but when another member of your platoon runs into gunfire to rescue a wounded comrade or destroy an enemy machine gun nest, something about it can give you the confidence to do the same when you find yourself in those circumstances someday.
That’s why Australia has to introduce major emissions cuts, we’re the most educated, fittest and best-dressed soldier in the platoon, there’s no one else in a better position than us to run into that gunfire, which I would unabashedly admit we are doing, except that we're not. Most of Europe, New Zealand and several other countries have already introduced or are proposing legislation to greatly restrict greenhouse emissions. We face a mammoth task, the 2007 IPCC report predicted warming of 2-6 degrees Celsius this century if we take no action. By comparision, at the height of the last ice age, when there were ice sheets extending southwards to Spain, global temperatures were a mere 8 degrees cooler. So we're facing a pretty disastrous situation a century or so from now.
So the next time Andrew Bolt or Laurie Oaks use the illogical argument that the emissions trading scheme is pointless because it alone will not greatly affect global temperature, please just explain all this to them.
I don't think this really grasps the true nature of Nihilism. But it's a start.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I emailed the above analogy to Andrew Bolt, the next day he replied with this response.
ReplyDelete'Here's where your analogy breaks down. That soldier in Afghanistan really can save lives. They've told me so when I've gone there.
But with emissions trading, even the action of Britain and the US together - the allies which largely won a world war twice - wikll not cut the temperature so that you'd notice.
Andrew Bolt
heraldsun.com.au/andrewbolt'
So basically his rebuttal is, using my analogy, that we're unlikely to mobilise enough members of the platoon to fight to defeat the enemy (climate change) to a worthwhile degree anyway, so we shouldn't fight at all. I guess that is the only sensible argument against it you can make, still pretty weak though, especially considering that China, Russia, India and Indonesia were on our side in WW2.