It was well that Tony Abbott gave his climate change denying speech
this week in London, because his thinking betrays a bizarre
Euro-centric conservative outlook that constantly ignores multiple
studies that show Australia’s economy will suffer greatly from climate
change.
His speech to the Global Warming Policy Foundation was a typical Abbott speech: a greatest hits of climate change denying canards that collapsed under its own lack of internal logic.
It was redolent of the shallow conservative thinking that unfortunately dominates far too much Australian commentary – especially when it comes to climate change.
They think climate change is a myth but it doesn’t matter because global warming will be good because, as Abbott put it, “far more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves”.
And as with most dull conservative thinking in Australia, it is a very European perspective that oddly would have you believe that Australia is located nearer to Austria than Asia.
The idea that increased temperatures may have some positive aspect
for colder parts of the world is neither new nor insightful. The 2006
Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change noted that, in higher
latitudes, “cold-related deaths will decrease” as a result of warming .
And if you stop there – as in effect Abbott did – all sounds good. But the report’s next sentence notes climate change will “increase worldwide deaths from malnutrition and heat stress”.
Climate change is much easier to stomach when you ignore the fate of a majority of the world’s population.
Abbott’s weird approach of viewing climate change as though we live in some snowbound country is the type of thinking that leads to the Carmichael coalmine despite a lack of financial viability and great environmental negatives.
The Australian’s Paul Maley, for example, responded to Abbott’s speech in praise-worthy tones, suggesting it was “was a thoughtful speech that deserved to be taken seriously”. He suggested that Abbott raised many good questions but that “a richer vein would have been the inherent tension between poverty reduction and climate mitigation measures”.
He is right, but wrong in picking what that tension is.
The argument offered by Maley is one that echoes Abbott and other conservatives such as Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan that industrialisation powers economic growth and thus it would be wrong for us to deny this to other nations.
Maley argues that “this begs an awkward question: are we really opposed to climate change in all its forms? What if coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef is the price we must pay for affordable energy in south Asia? What if renewables, for all their promise, can’t provide the horsepower required to lift millions out of poverty?”
It is a line of thinking that writer Richard Cooke recently suggested to me involves shouting how Greenies want us to go back to horses and carts, while at the same time arguing that we can only ever use 19th century modes of power generation.
Not only will Australia suffer much more from climate change than just coral bleaching but the economies of south Asia are going to be hit harder than just about anywhere else.
In a nice bit of timing, the day after Abbott’s speech, the IMF released its latest World Economic Outlook, which contained a chapter on the economic impact of climate change.
The reported noted (much as the Stern review did) that climate change may actually have some positive economic affects for countries in colder parts of the world.
The IMF noted rising temperatures have “uneven macroeconomic effects”. If you live in a place where the climate is colder, warmer temperatures may actually lead to increased crop production.
But the report also notes that there will be “adverse consequences concentrated in countries with relatively hot climates, such as most low-income countries”.
The IMF argues that in these countries climate change will lead to lower per capita output, in both the short and medium term.
Even worse, they suggest the effect will be “long-lasting” and widespread. “[It] operates through several channels: lower agricultural output, depressed labour productivity in sectors more exposed to the weather, reduced capital accumulation and poorer human health”.
And just in case you were hoping the problem might be able to be mitigated, the IMF found that “data indicate that macroeconomic outcomes have not become any less sensitive to temperature shocks in recent years, pointing to significant adaptation constraints”.
That is, such countries are not going to be able to just adapt to the higher temperatures and carry on as before.
It rather slaps down the faux altruistic excuse for supporting the Carmichael mine as being important to help India’s economy, given the IMF finds that India’s economy will be among those most affect by climate change.
But while you might think it doesn’t really affect us, it is worth noting that when the IMF talks of economies with “relatively hot climates’ it refers to “117 economies with average temperature greater than 15°C.”
And among those 117 economies is a rather familiar island continent known as Australia.
While the economic output of the southern parts near the coast of Australia are projected to be relatively unaffected, the IMF projects significant output per capita drops for the rest of Australia.
The agricultural areas will be hardest hit – something that you would think might worry the National party.
We need to shift from treating our nation as though its climate is that of Europe. We like to think our economy is linked with Asia more than Europe; our climate certainly is and we need to act accordingly.
His speech to the Global Warming Policy Foundation was a typical Abbott speech: a greatest hits of climate change denying canards that collapsed under its own lack of internal logic.
It was redolent of the shallow conservative thinking that unfortunately dominates far too much Australian commentary – especially when it comes to climate change.
They think climate change is a myth but it doesn’t matter because global warming will be good because, as Abbott put it, “far more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves”.
And as with most dull conservative thinking in Australia, it is a very European perspective that oddly would have you believe that Australia is located nearer to Austria than Asia.
And if you stop there – as in effect Abbott did – all sounds good. But the report’s next sentence notes climate change will “increase worldwide deaths from malnutrition and heat stress”.
Climate change is much easier to stomach when you ignore the fate of a majority of the world’s population.
Abbott’s weird approach of viewing climate change as though we live in some snowbound country is the type of thinking that leads to the Carmichael coalmine despite a lack of financial viability and great environmental negatives.
The Australian’s Paul Maley, for example, responded to Abbott’s speech in praise-worthy tones, suggesting it was “was a thoughtful speech that deserved to be taken seriously”. He suggested that Abbott raised many good questions but that “a richer vein would have been the inherent tension between poverty reduction and climate mitigation measures”.
He is right, but wrong in picking what that tension is.
The argument offered by Maley is one that echoes Abbott and other conservatives such as Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan that industrialisation powers economic growth and thus it would be wrong for us to deny this to other nations.
Maley argues that “this begs an awkward question: are we really opposed to climate change in all its forms? What if coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef is the price we must pay for affordable energy in south Asia? What if renewables, for all their promise, can’t provide the horsepower required to lift millions out of poverty?”
It is a line of thinking that writer Richard Cooke recently suggested to me involves shouting how Greenies want us to go back to horses and carts, while at the same time arguing that we can only ever use 19th century modes of power generation.
Not only will Australia suffer much more from climate change than just coral bleaching but the economies of south Asia are going to be hit harder than just about anywhere else.
In a nice bit of timing, the day after Abbott’s speech, the IMF released its latest World Economic Outlook, which contained a chapter on the economic impact of climate change.
The reported noted (much as the Stern review did) that climate change may actually have some positive economic affects for countries in colder parts of the world.
The IMF noted rising temperatures have “uneven macroeconomic effects”. If you live in a place where the climate is colder, warmer temperatures may actually lead to increased crop production.
But the report also notes that there will be “adverse consequences concentrated in countries with relatively hot climates, such as most low-income countries”.
The IMF argues that in these countries climate change will lead to lower per capita output, in both the short and medium term.
Even worse, they suggest the effect will be “long-lasting” and widespread. “[It] operates through several channels: lower agricultural output, depressed labour productivity in sectors more exposed to the weather, reduced capital accumulation and poorer human health”.
And just in case you were hoping the problem might be able to be mitigated, the IMF found that “data indicate that macroeconomic outcomes have not become any less sensitive to temperature shocks in recent years, pointing to significant adaptation constraints”.
That is, such countries are not going to be able to just adapt to the higher temperatures and carry on as before.
It rather slaps down the faux altruistic excuse for supporting the Carmichael mine as being important to help India’s economy, given the IMF finds that India’s economy will be among those most affect by climate change.
But while you might think it doesn’t really affect us, it is worth noting that when the IMF talks of economies with “relatively hot climates’ it refers to “117 economies with average temperature greater than 15°C.”
And among those 117 economies is a rather familiar island continent known as Australia.
While the economic output of the southern parts near the coast of Australia are projected to be relatively unaffected, the IMF projects significant output per capita drops for the rest of Australia.
The agricultural areas will be hardest hit – something that you would think might worry the National party.
We need to shift from treating our nation as though its climate is that of Europe. We like to think our economy is linked with Asia more than Europe; our climate certainly is and we need to act accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment