Warnings that can'tbe ignored

Climate scientists have beenwarning us about global warmingfor decades. But in the last fewyears, alarm bells have been ring-ing more loudly.Previously it was assumed thatgradual increases in carbon diox-ide (CO

) and other heat-trappinggases in the atmosphere wouldproduce gradual increases in glob-al temperatures. But now scien-tists predict that an increase of aslittle as 2°C above pre-industriallevels could trigger environmentaleffects that would make furtherwarming — as much as 8°C —inevitable (see Box 1, over).Worse still, a 2°C increase ishighly likely if greenhouse gasconcentrations reach 450 parts permillion (ppm). They presentlystand at 430ppm and are increas-ing by 2 - 2.5 ppm per year (seeTable 1).Such accelerated warmingwould create the hottest Earthsince the human race evolved (seeGraph 1). In the earlier stages, anadditional 2 billion people wouldbe at risk of insufficient water,95% of coral reefs would be lost,the Amazon rainforest and otherimportant ecosystems would bedestroyed forever, and a super-drought would spread to theworld’s largest food producers,causing widespread famine and anunprecedented refugee crisis.The collapse of the polar icecaps would result in a sea levelrise of up to 25 metres, and mas-sive devastation to coastal andisland communities and majorcities. The rate of species losscould match those of previousmass extinctions. Needless to say,not only civilisation, but the verysurvival of humanity would bethreatened.

Australia —greenhouse gasemissions junkie

Each year human activity ispumping out twice as many green-house gas (GHG) emissions — 8billion tonnes as against 4 billion— as the world’s forests, land andoceans can absorb.Moreover, there is a time lagbetween greenhouse gas releaseinto the atmosphere and the finalimpact on global average tempera-ture. Since the late 1880s, this hasrisen 0.8°C and the GHGs now inthe air will cause a further 0.5-0.6° rise over coming decades.This puts us dangerously close tothe temperatures at which run-away warming will occur. Theharmful effects are already beingseen in droughts, floods, cyclones,heat waves and rising sea levels.While Australia’s share of world GHG emissions is small,around 1.4%, our highly industri-alised economy has the highestGHG emission rate per person inthe world: 5.63 tonnes of carboneach year (see Graph 2, over).The global average is 1.27tonnes and the world environmentcan absorb only 0.62 tonnes perperson. Just to get Australia’semissions down to a level theEarth can absorb would mean cut-ting emissions by 90%.Yet, despite knowing the seri-ous risks since the 1980s, theAustralian government andresource industry lobbyists (the“greenhouse mafia”) have sabo-taged international negotiations inorder to protect the profits of asmall number of big polluters likeBHPBilliton and Rio Tinto.

We have no choicebut to make everypossible effort

The urgency of the situationcannot be overstated: globalwarming and climate change arealready upon us. Bringing green-house gas emissions under controlwill require deep changes andimmense effort at the global level:a revolution in the economy andindustry as big as mobilising forworld war.Climate change scientists saywe have a window of around 10years to make the necessary infra-structure and investment changesthat can produce these emissionscuts.In the words of the May 2007report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC),“It is technically and economical-ly feasible to stabilise greenhousegas concentrations in the atmos-phere.”But getting there in time is thegreatest challenge. It meansadopting policies adequate to theclimate crisis, and creating thesocial and political movementcapable of making sure they areactually introduced.

This charteroutlines the Socialist Alliance’sview of those policies and thestrategy we need to implementthem.

Graph 1: Past CO

levels and theaverage temperature of the Earth.

This table, from the Stern Report, shows the likelihood that a givenlevel of greenhouse gases (expressed in “carbon dioxide equiva-lent” — CO

e) will result in global warming over a certain tempera-ture. For example, greenhouse gases that level off at 550ppm CO

egive a 63-99% chance of exceeding a 2° warming compared topre-industrial temperatures. The figures are drawn from a widerange of studies. The red shading indicates a 60 per cent chance of exceeding the temperature level; the amber shading a 40 per centchance; yellow shading a 10 per cent chance; and the green shad-ing a less than a 10 per cent chance.

See<http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/1/Chapter_8_The_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pdf>

Table 1: Probabilities of Global Warming.

Set the greenhousegas reduction targetsthat the planet needs

Any GHG emissions reductiontarget fails the test if achieving itstill gives us runaway global warm-ing. This is the central problem of the UK’s 2006 Stern Review, whichadopts a limit for greenhouse gasconcentration of 550ppm, eventhough, in Sir Nicholas Stern’s ownwords, this would produce “at leasta 77% chance — and perhaps up toa 99% chance, depending on the cli-mate model used — of a globalaverage temperature rise exceeding2°C”.The only responsible limit is onethat gives the best chance of holdingthe temperature rise beneath 2°C.That means a maximum greenhousegas concentration of 450ppm.To achieve it the SocialistAlliance calls for a 60% reductionof Australia’s emissions (comparedto 1990 levels) by 2020, including95% of power station emissions, anda 90% overall reduction by 2030.We need mandatory emissionsreduction targets of 4-5% per yearnow. We propose immediateeconomy-wide and sector-by-sectorplanning for all greenhouse gases, tomeet these targets on time or before.We must be able to review andchange these targets as scientificforecasts are updated.Businesses, local councils andgovernment departments should allbe included in such an audit, andnetworks like that of the local coun-cils committed to reducing theiroverall GHG emissions to zerostrongly encouraged.

Ratify Kyoto andnegotiate a muchstronger treaty

The rich industrial countries aremostly responsible for greenhousegas emissions, but poor under-developed countries like Bangladeshand Kiribati are hit first and worstby climate change.The rich nations must assist poornations to develop economicallyalong a road that avoids high-pollution industries. This aid is notcharity, but repaying our ecologicaldebt. Many poor nations will havetrouble just dealing with the symp-toms of climate change withoutmassive technical assistance.Australia must also accept a largeshare of environmental refugees dis-placed by rising sea levels, especiallyfrom the Asia-Pacific region.The government must immediatelyratify the Kyoto treaty and push fora new international treaty that aimsfor 90% emissions reductions on1990 levels by 2030. The industri-alised nations are the only ones ableto lead the way — Australia mustbecome a leader, not a saboteur, of serious international climate action.

Attack energyinefficiency, aim forzero waste

All the experts agree that the eas-iest cuts in GHGs come fromincreasing efficiency and reducingwaste. More efficient appliances,insulating homes, better recycling,building public transport instead of private cars, marketing locally pro-duced goods — there are many sim-ple but effective changes that arepossible right now.But these changes will never beintroduced on the scale necessary if left to the individual consumer’sresponse to appeals to save energy,and to the sticks and carrots of ener-gy price hikes and tax rebates.To begin the transition to sustain-ability, it is essential to set energyefficiency as a national goal, andthen develop targets, standards, reg-ulations and national and local cam-paigns to achieve it.Take as an example Venezuelaand Cuba’s elimination of incandes-cent light bulb use. In both countriesthis goal was achieved by havingteams of young volunteers movefrom house to house, installinggovernment-supplied, low-energyreplacement bulbs for free.It’s the sort of approach that’sneeded for the immense job of mak-ing Australia’s 5.5 million housesand blocks of flats energy efficient.Agovernment committed to ener-gy efficiency would launch a sus-tainable energy household conver-sion plan, with annual targets forsolar power and heating installationcompulsory for energy utilities. (Asexplained below, these would haveto be returned to public ownershipto do this.) Such a plan would buildon and promote the various commu-nity initiatives already dedicated togoals like creating “zero emission”housing, schools and other facilities.It would require the sameapproach from business, and with asystematic energy audit and setcompliance deadlines, would closedown or take over firms that won’tupgrade to low emissions technolo-gy and processes.It would also monitor and estab-lish strict standards for the energyuse of business products. Businessesoperate in a competitive capitalisteconomy, have a vested interest inselling as much as possible and areunlikely in most cases to implementclimate-friendly techniques unlessstrong regulations are introduced.Integral to the plan would be thephasing out of the $8.9-9 billion infossil fuel subsidies, especially toenergy-hungry industries like alu-minium refining. Industries that areheavy users of energy would berequired to generate their powersustainably or alternative materialswould be found and these industriesclosed or cut back.All products require energy to bemanufactured. Waste of energy andresources are built into the entireeconomy. More profits are madefrom designing products

not

to lastand pollution produced along theway is released to become someoneelse’s problem. Even traditionalrecycling largely ignores manufac-turing waste and assumes relativelyfew products can be re-used or recy-cled at the end of their lives. Mostconsumer products — with all theenergy and raw materials that havegone into their production — oneway or another become landfill.In a zero waste economy, prod-ucts are designed from the start withan ability to be repaired, re-used anddisassembled for recycling. Oneway to do this is extended producerresponsibility, where manufacturersmust take back their used products(cars, TVs, computers, etc.) and re-use the components. Another way isleasing schemes, where appliancesare repaired and updated, thusextending their working life.

Phase out coal,no nuclear

Governments and the coal indus-try are spending millions of dollarsresearching “clean coal” technolo-gy. This entirely experimental tech-nology would involve capturing car-bon dioxide from coal burning andburying it underground, where itwould remain a threat to future gen-erations.Coal burning now accounts foraround 36% of Australia’s GHGemissions; mining and handling coaladds even more. Aplan for phasingout coal mining and export must bedeveloped, and must involve creat-ing new jobs for miners, as well astransitional assistance to help affectedcountries meet their energy needsthrough renewables.No new coal mines or coal-firedpower plants should be approvedfrom now on, and all existingapprovals (such as for the Anvil Hillmine) should be revoked.The nuclear lobby and its friendsin the Coalition and ALPbegan thepush for expanding the mining of uranium when its price started torise — well before concerns aboutglobal warming reached their pres-ent height. They then cynically usedconcerns about climate change topromote their agenda.But expanding the nuclear cycleis not a solution to climate change.The storage of nuclear wasteremains dangerous, and there willalways be the risk of disasterousaccidents like at Chernobyl andThree Mile Island. Huge amounts of energy and water are used in urani-um mining and power generation,and the development of nucleartechnology risks further nuclear

Runaway global warming is caused by self-perpetuating cycles (“pos-itive feedbacks”) that accelerate global warming. Increasing temper-atures trigger these feedbacks, which in themselves cause moreglobal warming so that the process of global warming becomes self-fuelling and self-perpetuating. Here are some examples:•As icecaps melt there is less reflective white surface on Earth, sothe land and water beneath absorb the sun's heat instead of reflect-ing it. This reduces the amount of ice that grows back over winter,leading to even less reflection of sunlight and more warming. Arcticsea ice is expected to disappear by the middle of this century.• Water vapour is a powerful natural greenhouse gas. As the Earth'stemperature rises, more water evaporates, which contributes to fur-ther warming.• Methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbondioxide, is frozen in vast quantities in the permafrost (frozen ground)of Siberia, Canada and Alaska. Thawing of the permafrost hasalready been observed. As temperatures rise, more methane will bereleased, triggering further warming and hence more methanerelease, and so on.• Decomposition of organic carbon in soils increases with rising tem-peratures, releasing more CO

into the air. This can make forestsemit carbon instead of absorbing it.• Ocean warming and slowing of the Gulf Stream reduces CO

absorption, leading to higher concentrations in the air and further warming.• Warming leads to forest die-back and fires, releasing more CO

andcausing more warming.In the words of James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute,

“We either keep the warming small or it is likely to be quitelarge.”

• “We were very pleased to see the SA announcement that you had adopted ambitious and visionary emissions reduction targets for greenhousegases... and hope that it does influence other parties to commit to similarly ambitious targets”

— Cam Walker, Friends of the Earth Australia.

• “Commend you on your recent decisions re greenhouse emissions”

— Dr Ted Trainer

Box 1: Triggers for runaway global warming.Graph 2: Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by sector in 2005.

Source:

Australian Greenhouse office.

weapons proliferation. Apart fromall this, the time needed forapproval and construction of nuclear reactors is much too longto reduce our reliance on fossilfuels within the next two decades.Aboriginal communities haveresisted the expansion of uraniummining and the dumping of nuclearwaste on their traditional lands.The federal Coalition government’sdecision to take control of Aboriginal settlements in theNorthern Territory and scrap thepermit system that givesAboriginal people a say overwhether mining can take place ontheir lands is another victory forthe nuclear lobby at the cost of Aboriginal land rights.Socialist Alliance opposesAustralia’s participation in thenuclear fuel cycle. We oppose thefederal government’s racist landgrab.

Renewables can andmust be our mainenergy source

Alarge number of specialiststudies have established thatAustralia could meet its basic energyneeds from a combination of non-fossil fuel sources like solar, wind,biomass derived from agriculturalwastes, tidal and geothermal (hotrocks beneath the Earth’s surface).Countries like Spain andDenmark already produce morethan 20% of their energy fromsolar and wind power. By contrast,Australia’s state and territory gov-ernments have adopted totallyinadequate Mandatory RenewableEnergy Targets (MRET), while thefederal government, under pressurefrom the greenhouse mafia, haswound back its existing MRET,which had delivered a totally inad-equate increase in renewables.At the same time as massivegovernment subsidies continue tobe given to dirty fuels like browncoal, renewable energy technolo-gies are being starved of adequatefunds.This strangulation of seriousresearch and development fundingfor renewables is very convenientfor the fossil fuel and nuclearmafias. It prevents from comingtrue the scenario they most dread— the speedy development of renewable technologies withfalling unit costs that increasinglycompetewith their polluting money-spinners.The quickest way to guaranteethat renewables are taken up at thespeed needed to keep greenhousegas concentration in check is not toleave this job to the market andprivate industry — even “green”industry — but to create an ade-quately funded, public renewableenergy facility; a “Snowy Riverscheme” of alternative energyresearch, development and imple-mentation.

Towards a new agri-cultural model — goorganic, protect theforests

Our current agricultural prac-tices — based on highly mecha-nised planting and harvesting of single crops and on artificial fer-tilisers — consume huge quantitiesof fossil fuels. This not only cre-ates pollution, but when fossil fuelsupplies start to diminish, foodsecurity along with the climate willbe threatened.Australia must start a transitionto carbon-neutral and organicfarming. The use of dry areas togrow crops that consume too muchwater, such as rice and cotton,must end.All organic waste, includinggreen waste and sewerage, shouldbe composted and the methane gasby-product harnessed for use as anenergy source. This ensures richsoil and avoids methane gas escap-ing into the atmosphere from land-fills, which currently occurs.Food production should bedecentralised and localised toreduce the energy needed to trans-port and refrigerate foods. TheSocialist Alliance supports thegrowth of urban agriculture, espe-cially as many cities are built onour most fertile lands.Existing farming communitiesshould be encouraged with income,resources and training to make thetransition to organic agriculture.Biodiversity and the survival of native ecosystems must be promotedin order to preserve our food sup-plies and the diversity of nativespecies that make up the “web of life” on this continent.Land clearing and outdatedforestry practices such as old-growth logging are the biggestcause of greenhouse gas emissionsin Tasmania, and account for 6%of national GHG emissions.Moreover, native forests that havenot been logged store up to threetimes more carbon than forests thathave been logged.To increase this “carbon sink”capacity, extensive programs of native-forest planting must be initi-ated.

Make public transportfree and frequent

Transport is responsible for 14%of Australia’s greenhouse gas emis-sions, a figure that just keepsgrowing. Road transport accountsfor by far the largest share, around90% of the total. The longer wecontinue with this transport model— where cars carry 80% of peopleto work and trucks carry 60% of goods — the worse things will get.The CSIRO says that to reversethis trend we have to put publictransport at the centre of our citydevelopment plans. Not surprising,given that trains are 40 times moreenergy efficient than cars! Buthow?Obviously, we won’t switchaway from car and truck use unlessthere’s huge investment in publictransport to make it a real optionfor the millions who don’t use itnow.Asystem that people want touse will have to provide frequentservices and place everyone within10 minutes walk of a service, espe-cially in outer metropolitanregions.It will have to be a publiclyowned, integrated system of heavyrail, light rail, ferry and busservices.But even that wouldn’t beenough. To jump start the switch topublic transport it has to be free.That’s what transport authoritieshave always done when they reallyneed people to use the public sys-tem, as in the 2000 SydneyOlympics. It’s what has happenedin the Belgian city of Hasselt;within a year of introducing freebus fares, patronage increased by870%.The natural reaction to this pro-posal is to think that it would costa vast amount of money. However,this reaction fails to measure thetotal (economic, social and envi-ronmental) cost and benefit of pub-lic transport against the total costand benefit of the alternative —continuing to shift people andgoods by private car and truck.On that scale, public transportwins hands down — every 10%switch out of car and truck andinto public transport would reducethe costs of air pollution, green-house gas emission, car accidents,traffic congestion, motor vehiclewaste disposal, noise pollution androad maintenance by an order of $1.4 billion at least.Free and frequent public trans-port combined with policies thatstimulate cycling and walking isthe only serious approach to curb-ing greenhouse gas emissions inthe transport sector.

Carbon tradingschemes won't solvethe crisis

Mainstream political debate onglobal warming is dominated bydiscussion of “emissions trading”systems. These involve “capping”national GHG emissions at a targetlevel and issuing permits or “cred-its” to polluting industries that tellthem how much carbon dioxidethey are allowed to emit over acertain time.These schemes are riddled withloopholes. In theory, the totalamount of carbon that can bereleased is reduced each year, theprice of carbon rises and those whodon’t make the change to carbon-saving technologies pay the price.In practice, the schemes are verydifficult if not impossible to policeand the price of carbon is set fartoo low to force business to aban-don its polluting practices quicklyenough to have anything like theimpact on overall emissions that isneeded.For example, the CSIRO hascalculated that carbon would haveto trade at between $350-$575 atonne to produce the (inadequate)level of carbon emission reductionstargeted in the Stern Review. Atthe other end of the spectrum, JohnHoward has threatened Australiawith a “Garrett recession” if car-bon ever reaches the ALP’s (verydistant) target of $50 a tonne.Carbon credits are also givenout for “carbon offsets”, like plant-ing a forest somewhere, regardlessof whether the plantation wouldhave gone ahead anyway or if another forest was cut down inorder to plant it! These credits per-mit companies to carry on pollut-ing, all the while continuing toprofit. Planting forests is in anycase not a permanent, or evenmeasurable store of carbon (where-as digging up fossilised carbonfuels is basically permanent).If the credits are given out bygovernments instead of being soldor auctioned, and if the caps aretoo lenient, industries suffer nopenalties and can go on pollutingas usual — which is what has hap-pened with the European Union’sscheme over the last two years.

No solution withoutpublic ownership anddemocratic control

The principle of “polluter pays”means that the assets of pollutingcompanies should be directed tocleaning up the mess they havemade. Individual consumers do usepolluting products but they arerarely responsible for the decisionsthat result in the pollution occur-ring: it is the big industries thatmust bear the costs.The first measure to ensure a just solution is to take over indus-tries that will not stop polluting,placing them under public owner-ship and scrutiny. In this way,those operations that are essentialcan be identified and kept (andcleaned up) while non-essentialaspects can be scaled back or shutdown. The profits that these publicenterprises will still make can be re-

• Vote Climate gives Socialist Alliance the topscore for climate change policy. See<http://voteclimate.org.au/ FED07-detailed-policy-sumaries>

Rail vs road — some points to consider

•A modern, small automobile with two passengers gener-ates almost 25 times the air pollution per passenger mileas a four-car commuter train at 35% capacity.• Two sets of commuter rail tracks will handle the passen-ger traffic of at least six lanes of highway.• A new light-rail line costs about a third of a new highwayor loop road, and recent developments in track-laying tech-nology can take 60% to 70% off that cost.• Trains are faster, quieter and smoother than buses. Inaddition, they avoid traffic jams and most accident scenes.• Rail deaths and injuries are almost nothing compared tothose in automobiles.• Rail cars and locomotives have lasted up to 100 yearswith decent maintenance.• Railroad tracks are cheaper and easier to maintain thanroads and highways.

From <http://www.nmrails.org/chew.html>

How much would it cost to beat global warming? Who pays?

In his 2006 review, Sir Nicholas Stern calculated that the cost of fighting global warming would probably be only 1% of global prod-uct per year - $US350 billion in 2005 terms.But Stern's target for greenhouse gas emissions is 550ppm, whichmeans a 77% to 99% chance of average global temperatures risingby more than the critical 2°C limit.So how much would a plan to keep greenhouse gas concentrationsbelow 450ppm really cost? Would it be affordable?Below are some examples that show that, although we need anemergency mobilisation of economic and human resources to fightglobal warming, these resources do exist.

Sources: Stern Report, Zero Emissions Now, IPCC, Earth Policy Institute, Danish WindEnergy Association, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Robert Socolow,Stephen Pacala and Jeffery Greenbach, Greenpeace and European Renewable EnergyCouncil.