Some Climate Change Parameters

Two debates have cropped up in the last week or so which touch upon resolving some of the hairy issues raised by climate change. The first is the global disaster unfolding that is the food crisis. Like the oil crisis, the food crisis has shown what happens when globalisation goes bad and instability in supply collides with growing demand. The second is the national issue of the Rudd Government's carbon capture and storage (CCS) dalliance. Both demonstrate the need to have a clear set of parameters in mind when considering how best to tackle climate change and produce a sustainable transition away from carbon-based fuels while maintaining standards of living and in turn the economic engine that supports them.

The food crisis has in part been exacerbated by the combined turnover of both beef pasture and wheat and maize crops to ethanol production. Like the Iraq debacle on oil, it is debatable precisely how great the effect on wheat and grain prices the ethanol trade is but it is inarguably contributing to global speculation in grain prices.

Ethanol and other biofuels may be a good option for climate mitigation, but they must be produced in a manner that does not compromise food security or worse become a climate fools' paradise by destroying rainforests to plant a crop. The turnover of corn crops in the US and Argentina to ethanol is akin to the Greek Titan Cronus eating his own children. If efforts to encourage climate change reform are to be successful in both developed and developing countries, a latter-day Zeus must step in and end this madness by penalising emission savings made at the cost of food crop production. Ethanol must therefore only be accepted from either non-edible sources (such as algae) or waste produce after the main food crop has been harvested. The US has shown that ethanol production can be rorted into a subsidy-driven carousel, compromising both food and climate security. This mistake must not be repeatedly globally.

CCS represents a tempting solution for coal-rich nations to have their climate cake and eat it. However it represents a tremendous gamble in unproven technology. The other point that CCS fails to deal with is its effect on developing other technology to cater for ultimately diminishing coal and oil supplies. This technology should receive some support to at least test its viability, but it should come within the existing subsidy structure for the fossil fuel industry and the accompanied by a considerable acceleration in renewable funding. Similarly, any CCS program must not be in conjunction with nuclear as this would greatly increase the problems associated with capture and disposal of carbon waste. Remember that CCS pipelines will be pumping noxious gases which in turn must represent a security threat if they can be breached. An excessive emphasis on extractive technology also reduces the prospects of creating innovative products that can be exported and installed in a variety of climates, not requiring access to the kind of fissures and chambers needed to store carbon or nuclear waste.