Liberal and Labor, make a call: how much heat can you stand

Here is a good article by Richard Di Natale and Adam Bandt, who are both candidates for the Greens in Victoria in the upcoming 2007 Federal election.

I call on Petro Georgiou, the Liberal member for Kooyong, to set a short term target for carbon emission reductions of 20% by 2020.

The letter was published here in The Age on June 11, 2007. Text follows

What risk of a plane crashing do you accept before buying a ticket? If it was 85 per cent likely, you'd never fly; 10 per cent, or even 1 per cent, would be too much.

Knowing that a plane might go down isn't enough; we want to know the degree of risk. So it's odd that we are prepared to make decisions about the planet's future without knowing the risk or likelihood of catastrophic consequences if action is taken, or not taken.

It can be hard to cut through the fog of figures about global warming targets: the difference, for example, between a 60 or an 80 per cent cut in emissions, by 2020 or by 2050, is difficult to crystallise.

This confusion is being exploited by both major parties and manufactured debates are played out relentlessly. Labor presents itself as tough on climate change while the Coalition says it puts economics above abstract goals.

But more than anything else, there is one number that really counts. It is the first step on the ladder of climate-change policy — and it is the one to which neither Labor nor the Coalition is willing to give an answer.

Given the science and likely impacts, how hot are we willing to let the planet get? Two degrees, three degrees, four degrees hotter?

And what risk will we accept of exceeding this target?

Temperatures have, already, risen 0.74 degrees above pre-industrial levels and, even if human activity added no more to current greenhouse gas levels, the planet will continue to warm about 1.4 degrees due to lags in the climate system.

The CSIRO last year predicted that, if we exceed a two-degree rise, 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef will be bleached annually and an 80 per cent loss of Kakadu's freshwater wetlands is likely. At just under three degrees, there's a 99 per cent risk of Greenland irreversibly melting, with an eventual global sea level rise of five to seven metres.

In the two to three-degree range, we can conservatively pencil in about 20 per cent of the planet's species becoming extinct and a one in five chance of the oceanic currents that regulate the planet's temperature simply shutting down.

A three-degree rise is simply way outside human experience. The last time it was that hot, in the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, beech trees grew in the Transantarctic mountains and seas were 25 metres higher.

If we can limit warming to less than two degrees, knowing about 1.4 degrees is already locked in, the consequences will still be severe, but the risk of triggering runaway climate-change events (where we lose the capacity to control the consequences) lessens significantly.

This is why German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the British Conservative party — both from the right of European politics — have recently reaffirmed the importance of a two-degree limit. The Howard Government, by contrast, isn't even in the realm of reason on this question, with the Prime Minister saying a rise of four to six degrees might make life "uncomfortable" for some, but that it was difficult to predict with any certainty.

His comment shows fundamental ignorance. The planet as we know it will not survive past a five or six-degree rise: it is predicted that, at four degrees, hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost — particularly in Siberia — will enter the melt zone, releasing the greenhouse gases methane and carbon dioxide in immense quantities.

Labor might know where the ballpark is, but they haven't bought an entry ticket yet. The ALP's Peter Garrett set out his party's policy on this page recently (The Age, 5/6), relying on a CSIRO submission to the Prime Minister's emissions taskforce that says a 60 to 90 per cent cut to industrialised countries' emissions is needed to stabilise climate change.

But Australia, as one of the worst emitters among the industrialised countries, requires a cut at the higher end of this range.

The CSIRO research and other research makes it clear that the "temperature stabilisation" associated with a 60 per cent cut is considered by many as too risky, giving us a massive 80 to 85 per cent chance of overshooting a two-degree target. Labor's policy for Australia of a 60 per cent cut by 2050 is therefore more about hope than science.

There is literally a world of difference between a two and three-degree rise in the impacts of climate change on both humans and the environment.

Caught between the science and the politics, Labor's Peter Garrett talks vaguely in the two to three-degree range, never being specific, never committing Labor to putting even one foot on the first rung of the climate change policy ladder — an unambiguous target.

And Labor does not have a short-term target — in many ways much more important than targets five decades away.

The Greens policy is to achieve emissions cuts of 30 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. This would give us an 80 per cent chance of keeping the temperature rise below two degrees. To maximise the chance of staying below two degrees, we must make big cuts early. For John Howard, a climate-change sceptic, this is more about smoothing over a political problem than real action. But Labor, too, falls short of the mark — they do not even set a temperature target.

Professor Tim Flannery, the Australian of the Year environmentalist, said recently his greatest wish was that political parties would state their "temperature limits" as to how hot the planet should get. The Greens recently moved a motion in the Senate to have a two-degree limit endorsed as Australia's target. The ALP joined with the Coalition to defeat the motion.

The challenge to the major parties is: just how hot are you prepared to let the planet get?

Peter Campbell, Greens candidate for Kooyong

Peter Campbell has lived in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs all his life. He attended Greythorn High School before undertaking his tertiary education at Latrobe University. Peter is married with 1 child and lives in Surrey Hills in an environmentally friendly renovated house that exports electricity to the grid from twenty solar panels and is self sufficient for water.



Peter works as an IT consultant, and enjoys bushwalking, climbing, kitesurfing, skiing and cycling. These outdoor activities have led him to be active on sustainability and conservation for over 20 years, including the protection of native forest and wilderness areas, the promotion of public transport and cycling, addressing climate change and promoting renewable energy. Peter believes that social justice issues such as education, health and employment conditions are intrinsically linked to environmental issues.

Peter’s local activities include:

• Committee member and former chairperson of Friends of South Surrey Park.
• Membership of the Boroondara Bicycle User Group and promotion of the proposed Eastern Rail Trail
• Field Organiser with Bushwalkers Search and Rescue which assists Police with search and rescue activities throughout Victoria.
• Local climate change campaigning and advocacy
• Founder of Greenlivingpedia.org website for sharing information on sustainable living.

If elected to parliament, Peter will work to:

• Take real action on climate change by setting goals for Kooyong to become carbon neutral and introducing a target of reducing Australia’s greenhouse emissions to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below by 2050.
• Secure Victoria’s water supply and protect endangered animals by stopping logging in water catchments and our ancient forests.
• Create more childcare places in Kooyong.
• Obtain Federal funding for more safe and convenient bicycle paths and routes for local and commuter use.
• Uphold our freedom of speech, which is essential for democracy and human rights.
• Secure Federal funding for improving public transport so that services are fast, reliable, frequent and well-connected.

Contact Peter Campbell via e-mail kooyong@greens.org.au or mobile 0409 417 504.

About Kooyong
Kooyong is an eastern inner metropolitan electorate covering an area of approximately 49 sq km stretching from Kew and Hawthorn in the west to Balwyn and Canterbury in the east, and from Balwyn North in the north to Hawthorn East and Camberwell in the south. Its suburbs include Balwyn, Balwyn North, Canterbury, Hawthorn, Hawthorn East, Kew, Kew East and parts of Camberwell, Glen Iris and Surrey Hills.

For a more detailed map of the district, visit the Australian Electoral Commission's website

Additional information

Greens historical results in Kooyong:

• 2004: 12.54 % - the 11th highest Green vote in Australia
  
• 2001: 10.72 % - the 10th highest Green vote in Australia
  
• 1994: 28.03% by election, Peter Singer

On 28 May The Age reported poll results of a swing to Labor in Victoria running at 10%, which would meant that if an election was held now the Liberals would lose Kooyong which is held by Petro Georgiou on 9.6%.

Sir Robert Menzies held seat for the Liberals from 1934 to 1966.