The Australian, November 16, 2007

CAN WE SAVE THE PLANET

[Rachel's introduction: The precautionary principle for action on climate change: 'It's like Pascal's wager. The consequences if we worry and take action about global warming will be minor if we are wrong. If we do not take action and we are wrong, the consequences will be devastating'."]

By Henry Thornton

"Australia has a significant role in the development of a future East Asian community as a "major resources power" and "responsible actor" in the region, Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said yesterday.

"I believe it is important that Japan and Australia play a leading role in such areas as energy security and climate change in order to build up the momentum for the formation of an East Asian community of the future," Mr Fukuda told The Australian.

These are topics to be discussed in Singapore at next week's Third East Asia Summit.

A prominent economist whose judgment Henry trusts implicitly said recently that: "Every scientific report on the subject of greenhouse gas emissions looks worse. Solving the problem is going to be excruciatingly hard, as it will require co-ordinated global action. We may only have 10 or 15 years to take the necessary corrective action."

Here at HenryThornton.com we have embraced the precautionary principle as our guide to action on climate change. Henry's editor wrote in mid 2006. "A highly respected Australian scientist said recently of global warming: 'It's like Pascal's wager. The consequences if we worry and take action about global warming will be minor if we are wrong. If we do not take action and we are wrong, the consequences will be devastating'."

Thinking about the problem Jonson mused about the future of Australian politics. "I imagined bipartisan agreement on monetary and fiscal policy, virtual agreement about health and education and on the desirability of running a lean government with all activities that could be provided by private contractors so provided. The big future political divide is about the environment -- one party wanting a greener, quieter, cleaner and if necessary materially poorer future and the other effectively advocating an Australia that is browner, noisier, dirtier but materially richer".

Perhaps this choice is upon us faster than could be imagined even 18 months ago. This election has seen the opposition endorse the government's position on monetary policy, take a marginally tougher line on fiscal policy -- so far only symbolic but important, as Treasury briefings after the election will show -- and competition to improve health and education within a generally agreed framework. Both sides are being very careful on climate change -- Labor being careful not to rock the boat by hinting at more radical remedies, and the Coalition by attempting to show serious new concern for the subject.

It is worth considering what explicit and effective action would entail.

The hard choices would include imposing much higher taxes on petrol and aviation fuel, taxing pollution (but allowing a market in carbon credits), encouraging through education and dissemination of information about the healthiest life-style -- plenty of exercise, a Mediterranean diet and moderate consumption of red wine. Open wood fires might be banned, or there could be a chimney tax to discourage such activities. Buildings would be required to be environmentally friendly with clever use of solar panels to provide shade while generating electricity. Tanks would capture and store water in the backyards of the nation, and run-off from city buildings. Waste water would be recycled.

All of this would readily be agreed by sensible and well-informed citizens. The big debate should be about nuclear power. Some would argue passionately that nuclear power is expensive, dangerous, leads to the production of nuclear weapons and produces long-lived radio- active waste. The more scientific amongst us would argue that nuclear fission is indeed a dangerous technology, and mankind should use all its ingenuity to handle pollutants from conventional power stations, as well as developing renewable power sources while spending a lot of money to develop unlimited 'free' power from nuclear fusion plants.

How to get the emerging but less developed nations -- crucially China and India -- to sign on will be the thorniest international issue. To Henry, it is clear that the more developed nations must take the lead and be prepared to impose radical changes -- involving tough restrictions in the short term -- on themselves as a sign of good intent. Lasting solutions will come from technological innovation based on sustainable price signals involving appropriate taxes on greenhouse gas emissions.

With the right price signals, cleaner technologies would already be competitive, and technology would develop even better solutions very fast.

Henry is by no means convinced that global growth would need to be slower except perhaps in the next decade while rapid adjustments to energy sources are made. New technologies make old technologies worth less, often literally worthless. This is natural implication of human progress -- but the corollary is that new technologies involve exciting new money-making opportunities.

Visit HenryThornton.com.

Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +10).