My Moral Dilemma

[Rodri]

This is complicated and might take some explaining so if you don't like reading, stop now.

Almost 30 years ago I read a hypothesis about greenhouse warming due to human actions. It was just a hypothesis at that stage but it rang true for me and the beliefs that I held then and still hold. That is that we cannot keep polluting the planet while we destroy the systems that sustain life because we will just destroy the systems that we require to survive and ensure our own demise in the process.

I still believe that, but...

... I have a problem with this climate change debate that is happening right now. It's to do with the way that the debate has altered from a scientific discussion to an emotive, almost faith-based conflict. I also don't think much of the proposed actions (more on that later) that are supposed to save us from something which really hasn't been proven, outside of some computer modelling (which is reliant on certain input data, which is hypothetical). I know, Al Gore made a film and it was very emotive and a lot of people saw it and were converted to the cause of doing something, but there was no scientific proof in that film. Besides, Al Gore was a politician and was in a position to really do something but he never did, until after his political career ended.

The trouble is, now it seems that both sides just throw insults at each other and make statements which are blatantly false and yet no-one seems to really want to bite the bullet and do the hard things that need to be done, if this problem is as big and as pressing as we are sometimes led to believe. The scientists are still not giving us the actual proof needed to convince the entire population that we need to act. Even if they were, governments seem to think that they can do very little and it will all sort itself out in the marketplace.

I remember reading a piece some years ago that stated that the only way to measure greenhouse warming was to measure minimum night-time temperatures because greenhouse warming is heat trapped and reflected within the gaseous layers of the outer atmosphere and only consistent rises in minimum night-time temperatures over the entire planet for an extended period of time would be a clear indication that the greenhouse warming was increasing. This didn't even offer a method for proving that the warming is caused by human intervention, just a way to detect a warming trend. The results are still not in.

Just on greenhouse warming. We need a certain amount of it, just to keep from freezing every night when the sun goes down. It is vital for all life. Our atmosphere and it's greenhouse layers keep us alive. (You don't hear that very often in the climate debate.) The system is also fairly robust and self correcting. (You don't hear that often either, but the deniers will use it sometimes for their own ends.) The difficulty is, we still don't know how much we are affecting these systems. We have an impact, that is obvious but how big an impact is not known. Sorry if you are a faithful believer but these are the real facts as I know them.

I think the problem arose some time ago when certain groups of scientists decided that by the time we knew for sure what was happening, it might be too late to do anything to fix the problem. This shifted the emphasis from gathering data to convincing populations and governments that action must be taken. In the process, numbers were fudged, dire predictions were made and truth became a casualty of the climate-change cause. I happen to like truth. I don't have much time for lies, no matter who is telling them. I can't make a decision based upon a lie and I cannot ask other people to make major decisions based upon lies.

Are you beginning to see my dilemma now?

Now let's talk about proposed action. The strongest push is for a carbon, or emissions based trading scheme. But what is that really?
What good does that do for the environment and how will it impact my life? I need these questions answered because the first will determine my willingness to accept the second. If a carbon trading scheme will be vastly beneficial for the environment and that can be shown, then I am probably going to be willing to accept a greater impact upon my life, simply because it is worthwhile. But if a trading scheme is just a way for the speculators to turn an environmental gas into a tradable commodity, so that they can make a profit from it, then I will not be very willing to accept much (if any) impact upon my life because as far as I can see, the only thing being achieved is moving more money into the bank accounts of the rich and powerful from the bank accounts of ordinary people.

The Australian government is proposing a carbon tax but then they say it's not really a tax but a mechanism to move to an emissions trading scheme. They say it is a tax on the big emitters but these are the big power companies that supply almost all of our electricity. So I think the cost of the tax will be passed on to the consumers and as small consumers pay a premium price and big consumers get price discounting, it will be the small consumers who will be paying the most. But at the end of the day, nothing seems to have changed except the price of electricity and the price of petrol. The big polluters will be able to pass on costs and still keep polluting as much as they do now. Consumers will have less money available to invest in sustainable technologies for their homes and some speculators might get rich trading something that is all around us, a part of us and vital for life. I have heard that Al Gore has already established a private carbon trading exchange, much like an international stock exchange, ready for the time when governments decide to sign up for an international carbon trading scheme.

The funny thing is, Australia exports huge quantities of dirty brown coal to China and India. These nations have no carbon tax attached to the price of this coal but if that coal is used in Australia, it will draw tax. We are exporting our pollution to other countries but this is supposed to be a global problem and that just doesn't help anyone. Meanwhile, goods manufactured here will cost more to make (carbon tax) so more companies will move overseas to where they can manufacture their product cheaply. As there are no restrictions proposed on trade, we will buy more goods from overseas and to pay for that, we will have to sell more minerals and coal to other countries to pay for those goods. All those big ships powering around the globe carrying trade goods that we used to make right here seems a little bit counter-productive if we are really trying to reduce carbon emissions.

I have this dilemma. I really want to see the human race reduce it's bad habits and respect the planet and the environment (and each other) but I really have a hard time getting on board with this climate change thing right now. But I also hate being seen as a supporter of the staus quo in regard to pollution and human activity.

What do you think?

[rasterbee]

Methinks that the initial concern over human's footprint and trampling on the Earth's general welfare was a noble and unbiased cause. Anyone can fudge data to support any hypothesis, at first the powers that be used these issues to divide the populace into competing factions. But then the "Global Warming is a hoax" side dropped in popularity and there was a corporate take over of the green side once the profits to be made were realized. If the leaders of the world were actually so concerned and basing their decisions on factual proof, they'd be making solar powered tanks.

I'm a Malthus-leaning person. There's the possibility of many impending problems, but I don't really know which ones and have faith in mankind's ability to find a technological solution.

[Wildor]

Rod, we're much the same age you and I. How many different "Doomsday" scenarios have you seen circulating in society in your lifetime?

Speaking for myself, quite a few. Ranging from the ridiculous and far-fetched to the more serious and possible. I'm convinced the human animal has this deeply ingrained need to fear (this is a theme I come back to often, I know...) and that if humans have no reasons to fear, they find some. And if they can't find some, they invent some!

Now, the above is not a judgement on the particular problem you speak of in this thread. Greenhouse effects and global warming are serious issues and I agree with you that this debate should be more rationally pursued. Rather, the above is a judgement on humankind itself. You see, I am convinced of one thing:

If ever the Global Warming debate is finally settled one day, the very next day will see the same exaggerations, distortions, hysteria and hatreds liberally bestowed to the 'benefit' of another debate.

A vast majority of us have Fear and Loathing of their own kind for the primary motivations of their lives.

[Balaam]

first thing the government should do is stop all this talk about climate change and move their focus to pollution. climate change and global warming won't be agreed soon because it's still not even widely accepted in the scientific community. punishing companies that pollute is a much more palatable position for the government to take

the next thing they need to do is stop hiring economists to lobby for a carbon tax, carbon trading scheme or any other supposed solution to the problem of pollution. what exactly does an economist know about fighting pollution? the reason they use economists is because economists are able to discuss the way the tax system is supposedly going to cause consumers to reduce their usage through a trickle down effect.

the government already knows that if they tax the electricity suppliers for polluting the suppliers will just raise their rates. so the tax won't encourage them to reduce their pollution. it's obvious they know this because part of their plan is to somehow rebate consumers for the impact of these rises. this is where their approach is flawed. if you compensate consumers for the impact of the tax all you do is shuffle money. there is no real impact in the short term. in the long term polluters will probably reduce their carbon output if (and only if) it's economically viable. but when their costs go down their prices won't follow, their profits will just go up.

they need to think about the fact that while they're talking about introducing a new tax to combat pollution, they are also planning to scale back solar power rebates for mr and mrs joe bloggs. they need to rethink their schemes because although it's great that they give solar hot water rebates, these rebates only apply to home owners that are replacing existing electric hot water systems and builders of new homes who want to do the right thing are ineligible for any of these initiatives.

for you, i can only suggest that you do what you can.
reduce, reuse & recycle
plant a tree, build a veggie garden, ride your bike, take public transport, install a rain water tank and solar hot water, if you have the money... install photovoltaic panels

and when it comes to the government... think globally and vote locally
we can only try to keep them honest by voting out the ones that treat the country like mugs

[Hehe]

This is really long, and it's late. So I'm just gonna nod and smile

Great ideas guys

EDIT: Wow. Some ideas I've never considered before...well, that's not difficult... But still, some great thoughts...I'm too tired to think about it enough to contribute, which is unlike me but well done guys...

+rep to Rodri, Wildor and Balaam. (EDIT: could only rep Rodri. IOU rep Wildor and Balaam)

[Rodri]

Over my lifetime I have propagated and planted thousands of trees, shrubs and other plants and encouraged others to do so as well. I blog about positive action for a sustainable future and I live a fairly humble lifestyle already but it seems that as soon as I say that a carbon tax is not going to do anything except make ordinary people poorer as everything increases in price, I get howled down as a denier and an apologist for the big polluters. I am just an ordinary person and I have no shares in big oil or big coal or anything at all really. I guess I should just keep my head down and wait for the heat to go out of this debate but I am also opinionated and like to have my say.

[Balaam]

good onya Rod
looks like you're already fighting the good fight
i think sometimes these are the things the pollies don't get
individuals (for the most part) are already doing what they can

when i built my house i did the calculations and even though i used steel and concrete... in 2 more years my build will have reached a carbon neutral position. that's not including the extra plantings that i'm doing beyond what i needed to do. i only removed 2 trees more than 2metres tall, it was more expensive to do it that way but it was worth it to me. the neutralising trees are a combination of natives and fruit trees so i get extra benefit beyond the neutralising effects. in less than 2 years my family will be eliminating more carbon than we produce. we already use only rain water and plans for solar are on the books and hopefully i'll get in before they cut the rebates

the difficulty here is when the incumbent government revises their tactics after the election
after being elected following a "no carbon tax" speech, they turn around and announce the introduction of a carbon tax
now we have 3 years before we can vote with our feet... so, what to do?

keeping my head down is not an option
i've already written letters to the editor & my MP and posted on various forums discussing it

i stay clear of the global warming debate and stick them with the facts about how they are duplicitous in their actions. there is no question that the world would be a better place if there was less pollution blown into our atmosphere. i just really doubt that an australian carbon tax is going to have any impact on the world's pollution problem.

a much more effective approach would be to put business tax incentives on reducing pollution along with increased incentives for individuals to go solar, and not just usage reduction solar, include off the grid solar and solar/wind turbine combinations

the pollies will ask "who's going to pay for it?"
the answer is the same regardless of the scheme... the people!
the general public always pays for everything, directly or indirectly