In December 2009, the Liberal / National federal opposition repudiated the concept of an emissions trading scheme (ETS). Up until that time it had been the official policy on both sides of Australian politics. The retreat by the opposition followed a year in which the views of climate skeptics were promoted in some newspapers at the expense of the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. This highlighted to me the critical need for our parliamentary representatives, whatever their political persuasion, to be given the opportunity to digest the fundamental science of climate change in an accessible form. This series of open letters to parliamentarians over the course of 2010, using simple graphs and everyday language, attempts to do just that. Click on the letter title to download and view a .pdf document.
In his speech of 12 March 2009 in response to the government’s emissions trading scheme, Senator Joyce claimed that “only three per cent [of carbon emissions] is human induced”. While the claim is preposterous, I don't believe the senator was intentionally misleading. This letter was written to the senator and a number of other coalition MPs on 18 January 2010 in the hope that any negative impact on policy of this error of fact might be corrected.
Explains the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, and the reason (thermal inertia of the oceans) why its full effect takes some decades, meaning the situation is already more serious than many believe. The time between the cause (increased greenhouse gas emissions) and the effect (increased temperatures) has a best estimate of around 40 years. This has profound negative consequences for humanity. However, if governments can find the will to act now, there is still opportunity to limit the damage. The letter was sent to all parties on 17 February 2010.
The debate on the connection between CO2 emissions and climate change has overlooked an independent and equally serious problem, the increasing acidity of our oceans. This letter was sent to all parties on 1 June 2010.
While we went into Copenhagen with both major parties willing to negotiate emission cuts of up to 25% by 2020, in the federal election campaign of 2010, neither side offered a solid commitment to do better than 5%. This letter, sent to all parties on 17 June 2010, explores regulatory measures to wean us off coal, as well as outlining a plan for an steadily increasing fossil fuel tax as an alternative to an ETS.
No binding global agreement is possible until the developed nations recognize that in a carbon constrained global economy, where emission rights have a value, the only fair way to distribute such rights is on a per-capita basis. Far-sighted individuals have recognized this from the foundation of the UNFCCC. The leading solution for setting national targets based on per-capita emissions is the Contraction and Convergence model developed in the UK by the Global Commons Institute.
A fortnight before the Kyoto summit in 1997, I sent the letter below to Australian prime minister John Howard, and a similar letter to United States vice-president Al Gore. The then Australian foreign minister Robert Hill replied, commenting that it contained interesting ideas. More recently, I sent a copy of the letter to the Garnaut Climate Change Review. In his report, Professor Garnaut also argues that an international agreement should be based on per-capita emissions.
Argues that technical solutions are available, and that market mechanisms will be required to ensure we adopt them. In particular, it argues that the only fair way ahead for both developed and developing countries is for emission targets to be based on population rather than (often excessive) historical consumption.