Global Warming ?

The Global warming question stirs a mixed reaction in Australian minds, but even those who deny it is a risk to the planet concede that we are experiencing weather change.  The ice at the north pole is retreating, we are getting more severe storms and temperatures continue to break records.  Whether this is a natural phenomenon or - as scientists contend - the direct result of increasing the amount of carbon dioxide ( Co2 ) in the air we breathe is where battle lines are drawn.

It really all started in 1781 when James Watt invented the steam engine - and set off the industrial revolution.   From that point factory chimneys sprouted and discharged smoke and the manufacturing age began.  The horse gave way to the internal combustion engine  and the catalyst for the world we know today - electricity - required the burning of fossil fuels for it's generation.

For a long time, planet earth's defences could cope with the Co2 generated because the tree cover allowed photosynthesis to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and that other great carbon sink - the oceans - soaked up the excess.  By the 1980's the amount of carbon in the air had reached 350 parts per million - and today it is greater than 400.   If we continue to burn fossil fuels, astronomical future levels are probable.

The problem is that this industrial revolution was not evenly spread.  Europe, America, Australia and Canada grew rich while India, China and most of Asia remained poor and agrarian.  Now those countries are moving into the industrial age the Co2 output is pushing the world temperature above a 2 degree rise and causing the oceans to become acidic.

We have had world conferences to try and bring Co2 under control.   Kyoto in 1997 produced suggested guide lines but lacked any form of enforcement, and Copenhagen in 2009 was a complete disaster.   The countries trying to catchup refused to curb their use of fossil fuels and the repercussions in the rich world were too awful to contemplate.  The conference ended with a meaningless promise to give the issue further thought.

Very powerful interests surround coal - oil - and gas, the three main components that are generating Co2.   Huge amounts of money are invested in the mining companies that extract this resource and it is the life blood of industry generally.  The natural outcome was for industry to fund denial propaganda and this has resulted in eminent scientists on both sides of the argument creating doubt in the minds of the public.

Much in the way the tobacco industry managed for years to obscure the dangers of smoking by challenging the validity of health warnings, global warming has suffered a similar fate.  At the same time, rational science is telling us the awful price we will have to pay if we seriously expect to hold global warming to just two degrees above industrial levels.

We would probably have to revert to a carbon tax and the damage that would do to industry profits and dislocation.  Wind and solar are touted as the answer to electricity generation, but they can not guarantee a reliable base load and some nuclear power generation would need to replace coal and gas to make this possible.   Electric cars - or possibly a hydrogen module - would be needed to quickly replace the internal combustion engine - and that's suitability for use in the heavy trucking industry is doubtful.

The big problem is that there will be a heavy financial cost to each and every Australian if we do bite the bullet and do what is necessary to stabilize the carbon content.  Australia mines and exports coal, oil and gas and we would need to retract from our way of earning a living.  The cost of change would be heavy and carry a bigger tax burden and we would no longer be the "lucky country " in the eyes of the world.   Our wealth - and that includes where our superannuation and investment funds are invested - are in the very products that product this harmful Co2.

Once again the world will meet - this time in Paris - to try and resolve the global warming question. Once again the implacable forces that underpin fossil fuels will combine with the industries that profits from their use to prevent any sort of binding United Nations protocol with teeth from coming into effect.

It is so easy to put off firm decisions when it is the existing people of this planet who will only suffer the marginal effects of global warming.   We are a selfish lot !  We will probably adopt some marginally improved outcomes, but by doing little we will flick pass the misery on to future generations !