The threat of global warming and what, if anything can be done to prevent it or mitigate it

For discussion of local, national and international policy in petroleum economics, depletion theory, climate theory, social, ecological and political theory

Oz 2020 – missing in action It is ironical that the talkfest Australia 2020 involved over 1000 of the supposedly smartest people in this country yet it gave little consideration to the crucial ecological factors that provide the life support system to the operation of our civilization. The participants seemingly are unaware of the fact that everything we do and use entails the consumption of limited natural goods and services and generally entail the production of irrevocable waste materials, many of which degrade the environment. Everything. This means that the development and operation of our civilization entails the irreversible depreciation of limited natural capital. The common view in this talkfest was that humans can control how society can operate without ecological limitations. This lack of understanding of what is really happening means that where this matter was discussed it was often based on false premises or impractical objectives. A variety of ideas for saving water in urban areas and a scheme to manage and preserve river systems were put forward. These were a positive contribution towards remedying a little of the damage industrialization has done to our ecosystem. Calling for drought proofing and food security at least raises another serious ecological challenge. But the transportation consequences of peak oil apparently hardly rated a mention. There was an unrealistic call for vastly improved public transport in the cities without consideration of prioritizing the required use of natural capital as society tries to come to terms with the scarcity of transportation fuels. It is almost as through the proponents think this infrastructure can be built out of money! The current global food production crisis may have been discussed but what about the critical impact of what the scarcity of phosphates will have a significant impact on food security. The fact that our city sewerage systems eject nutrients, which are so valuable in the soil for food production, into the oceans where they degrade the marine ecosystem seems to be below the perception level of these smart people! That foolishness is on a par with so much rainfall being sent down storm water drains rather than being collected to support vegie patches. Was there any serious discussion about what can be done about the impact of decreasing soil fertility and arable land on the food production being eroded by drought and unwise water allocations? There seems to be the common belief that Australia can make a contribution to tackling climate change. That is a delusion. The vast amount of greenhouse gases emitted by global industry in the past century has initiated irreversible climate change. Reducing the rate of emissions in this country will have absolutely no impact. It is a politically sound move to foster that reduction in line with global trends. But it serves no useful purpose here to suggest that wiser energy production and use in this country will mitigate climate change. Sufficient global reduction in the rate of emissions will mitigate climate change to some extent but do nothing to reduce the deleterious impact of increasing acidification of the oceans. More effort should be going into adapting to the unintended consequences of the unwise, exuberant use of the fossil fuels in the past century. There was a supposed focus on sustainability by concentrating on reducing carbon emissions. That view just emphasizes that climate change has become the hot topic in the past year when there are many other serious aspects of pollution due to industrialization, including the impact of many products on the health of a range of species, including humans. Education about climate issues, nicknamed "eco-ed", at early secondary school level did find favour, as did community sustainability challenges, in which districts would compete to save energy in return for grants. This education should be based on a realistic view of what industrialization has and is doing. A reduction in ‘energy usage’ is to be encouraged but using the term ‘save energy’ would only cause confusion. ‘eco-ed’ should encompass all aspects of what industrialization has done, including drawing down on exhaustible natural resources, like oil and phosphates. And use of the term ‘sustainability’ carries the misleading implication that we can continue to irreversibly draw down on the limited natural capital. That is not possible, as future generations will learn from practical experience. It seems that the participants generally had the common view about the power of intangible economic forces even though the tangible ecological forces are starting to exert their control. Peak oil, peak food and peak water are starting to cause concern, even amongst governments! I wonder how long it will be before they realize that economic growth of civilization really means speeding up ecological collapse! The PM said “There are few limits to Australia’s future potential – now is the time to start turning our nation’s potential into a reality.” This just shows his lack of understanding of the reality that there are real ecological limits. The challenge is to use our intellectual potential to work out how to live within those limits as best that may be possible. Anzac Day serves to remind us of what past generations willingly did, often with the ultimate sacrifice as on HMAS Sydney, for the good of their country. Many of today’s young take inspiration from what their forbears did at Gallipoli, on the Western Front, in the Battle for Britain, in Tobruk and on the Kokoda Trail. These young should now be encouraged to meet the challenge of living with what nature provides in the name of the Anzac Spirit.