Some say global warming is just the planet showing natural temperature cycles and has nothing to do with human activity. Others say that there is no doubt that we are the cause. Personally I'm not sure but I can't ignore that fact that there is a very large and credible body of scientific opinion that believes humans are causing climate change.
But you know what? I don't need to be sure that we are the cause, I just need to believe that there's a fair chance that we are the cause in order to support some action. It's like my car insurance - I don't need to be sure I'm going to have an accident next week before I buy my insurance policy. What I want to know is how much does the insurance premium cost? Then I'll decide whether I'l buy the policy or take the risk.
But how to figure out the price of this insurance policy? Well I had a go at Origin Energy's "Offset Calculator". I went on the high side (large house in NSW with lots of electrical appliances and a diesel mid-sized car that does 25,000km per year). It said $127 per year for my car and $508 per year for my house. So that's $635 per year for an insurance policy against a possible climate catastrophe. Less than 0.5% of household income. Much less than my car insurance (about $1500 per year), my home insurance (about $1200 per year), my private health insurance (about $2200 per year).
Hmm, would I pay this new premium? Yep!, in a heartbeat!
Do I believe that everyone else in Australia will do the same? Probably not. Some certainly will but most probably wont unless they have to. So that makes me a supporter of some kind of government action that forces a change to reduce emissions. What kind of action is the subject of the next blog!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is very interesting... I learnt alot from this. I do beleive that the free market is powerful and that the current liberal party has gone nuts. Just a general musing.. What's a pragmatist
ReplyDeleteI agree that we have a substantial risk issue to address. It's not just the immediate attention that the current climate debate is generating. Even if the climate change does turn out to be a non-issue, we have a significant responsibility to future generation for husbandry of our finite resources. Thus a move to renewables MUST occur at some point. We can not take an ostrich approach and push the responsibility onto our grandchildren. Simply burning the raw materials our plastics industry is NOT good management. Thus this debate is welcome irrespective of the so called climate "debate", and any action is simply prudent resource management. If we do nothing, not only do we push an avoidable resource crisis into the future where it will be less easily dealt with, we also run the risk of history viewing us as the selfish age of man.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the sentiment that it is a risk that needs to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteLooking at it purely from this point of view, it's very clear that action should be taken to mitigate the risk - as it is extremely high impact and the evidence shows that it is in the process of eventuating.
One of the big challenges with this issue is that we 'don't know what we don't know". A number of politicians have taken advantage of the many possible doubts and sown discord or watered promises down to be meaningless. I like Steve's approach because it is pragmatic. Its a "just do it" kind of logic, but I like the insurance policy analogy. We can't be sure it will work but we all are smart enough surely to accept that it has merit. We just need to get some politicians who lead with vision not with fear-mongering. ..and thanks for having a go Malcolm....
ReplyDeleteI understand the significance of the climate change and the need to do something to stop it. However with regarding to paying additional tax to the government I sincerely believe that current tax should be enough to cover these additional expenses. It is not too small at the moment. Also instead of distributing billions of dollars as a "stimulus packages" to everybody the government would be better spending this money for the climate control. Instead of increasing tax and requesting additional money they could use existing tax money in more clever way.
ReplyDelete