The Insititute of Public Affairs (IPA) had a carbon tax debate on August 2nd. It was shown on TV in the ABC Big Ideas program on August 27th. I heard fragments of it on radio while driving on the 28th August, and as I was a bit miffed at the poor quality of debate, I downloaded the full TV presentation. Let it be said that I do listen to the other side.

In order of speaking for the affirmative were John Hewson, Ben McNeil, and Mark Latham. The negative side were Lord Nigel Lawson, Prof Ian Plimer and Gary Johns. The hosts and choice of speakers should be enough to tell you what the debate was like. To rub it in, the introducers from the Spectator magazine told the audience that this was at long last the first real debate of this kind, as if we had not been debating this sort of thing for the last 40 years. At the end we do learn that a poll prior to the debate showed that 90 per cent of the audience was against the carbon tax. After the debate another poll showed that 81 per against. So at least some people had rethought their entrenched positions as a result, and kudos go to the affirmative side for braving the venue and speakers and achieving this. Or maybe something was lacking in the quality of the old fogies on the negative side. Of course the IPA claimed this as a win for the negative side.

By "the first real debate of its kind", the hosts seemed to imply that no real debate has actually occurred over the last forty years. They must have meant that its the first debate where they controlled the venue, audience, the speakers, and had the ABC broadcast it as if it were actually a fair and meaningful debate. The public position of the IPA is clear. On their website[2], they assert that the IPCC and its advice about global warming is not credible, and should be subject to legal inquiry with "full powers". They list what are supposed to be 10 myths about climate change, all nicely referenced to obscure journal articles that no one will be likely to challenge. The ABC made no mention of the position of the IPA on climate change. The IPA is a front for various corporations. It has recieved support from tobacco companies in the past and has not denied that it still receives such funding. Such channels of money are also used for global anti-climate science funding, as detailed in books "Merchants of doubt" by Naomi Oreskes, and "Climate Cover-Up" by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore [3]. Its not the first time the ABC has sourced its material from IPA, without describing the IPA and its position.

... "the cash for comment choice for the Liberal Party, Big Tobacco, Big Coal and Big Carbon and many other fellow travellers. " [5]. Spectator Magazine seems to be another of their smog outlets. So the Nigel Lawson is a former editor of the London Spectator Mag. Gary Johns is a former IPA member. Prof Ian Plimer is a well known anti-climate science advocate.

So you have now been warned. The framing of this particular debate was poisoned at the outset. Speaking of framing, their are many interesting ways to frame the questions around climate change, since it questions our energy use and existance of our global civilisation. They are useful to borrow. [4] This debate could not avoid touching on a few framings, but missed others.

Climate change - as market failure.

This is a major argument for the carbon tax. Until the external and future costs of carbon emission excess shows up in market prices, the market cost mechanisms will ignore it. John Hewson argued that many green businesses and innovation will benefit from this.

- as technological risk.

There are risks in not making a transition to a clean energy future. We need energy, but not carbon emissions. There are proven ways to get energy without carbon emissions. Ben McNeill we should take this path to a better future and innovate for all we are worth. There are competitive risks in Australia being left behind while the rest of the world is already innovating. Global new investment in renewables exceeds investment in old fossil fuel technology. China is changing its energy source directions. If we want manufacturing in Australia, we need clean energy to power it. Otherwise it will be done elsewhere. Digging up carbon from the ground is a dying occupation. Not mentioned was concentrated solar thermal with storage, and the BZE plan.

- as global injustice.

The negative side debated that we should not deny the developing world the chance to improve the lot of its peoples by using cheap fossil fuels. So IPA appears to occupy a moral high ground. Given IPA funding, promoting fossil fueled development would be a win for their corporations that sell the fossil fuels, and also for the owners of all the manufacturing that has been sourced in developing world, because of cheap labor and lax regulations. Although carbon dioxide itself might not be a dirty pollutant, coal power stations certainly are. Do we really wish the developing world to make all our things at extra low cost slave labor, have them suffer from all the pollution, and then later suffer the droughts, desertification and sea level rise of climate change? Obviously the IPA does.

- as over consumption

No one really mentioned this. A carbon tax would be expected to help reduce energy expenditure, increasing efficiency, reducing our material throughput and slow down the advance of entropy and time. There was no direct mention of population or economic growth limits, except by Mark Latham in a general way, saying that the economy has to recognize the limits of our environment.

- as mosty natural.

Prof Ian Plimer would have you believe that its all natural, and therefore all we need to do is to adapt. This is taking the world "natural" in different senses at the same time. The Plimer argument boils down to the following. Since every climate variability and change happens many times in his worlds past when we were not even around, climate change must be a natural thing, and this disproves the idea that humans have something to do with causing the sudden rapid climate change we experience now. Plimer also specifically states that carbon dioxide had nothing to do with climate change in the past either. This is his big lie, and in his "Heaven and Earth" book,  got comments by informed reviews.

"..The book negates the well documented consistent relations between climate and carbon gases, which through the Earth’s history resulted in temperature changes in the range of several degrees C , including abrupt climate changes and related mass extinction of species ... [7]

Atmospheric carbon is a central exchange reservoir in the carbon cycle, with which all the other natural reservoirs and forms of carbon interchange. Atmospheric carbon also is a greenhouse gas, which even Plimer does not deny. It therefore regulates global temperature, and global termperature regulates other carbon exchange processes. The carbon exchange processes and chemistry occur with rain water, oceans, rocks, soils, plants and animals. These dynamic processes influance the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Now we have come along lately and injected a massive spike rise of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We have become a new "natural" process that has never existed before, that now burns huge quantities of buried carbon, and interferes with the plant, animal, soil, and ocean ecosystems that were important parts of the old carbon cycle. Should there be surprise, that linked global temperature and most other parts of the global carbon systems will also change? Plimer admits the existance of volcanoes, but otherwise the influence and feedback dynamics of atmospheric carbon dioxide in changing climate are denied. Plimer is a particular naughty person as he takes the IPA viewpoint of accusing the IPCC of fraud, when his own book, "Heaven and Earth" is a particular excellent example of fraudulent research, argument and logic.[6] Thankfully the affirmative debaters waste as few words as possible to dismiss this old fraud. "We support the peer reviewed science." Just because something is natural process doesn't mean its not going to cause harm.

Is not mitigation armed with science and foreknowledge the very best of our human capabilities for adaptation to nature?  Sitting around and waiting for Business as Usual to wreck our environment is a significant maladaptation.

- as planetary tipping points.

No one mentioned this. We are already reaching some of them, only the rate of tipping is imperceptable on a year by year basis. Over decades the changes do add up. Human memory is fallable over longer periods of time, because our memories adapt to what is the new "normal". So oil companies are thronging to explore the newly opened North Pole sea beds for oil, as if the entire worlds climate system has not already tipped over once already from fossil fuel use.

Climate science is settled. How about a real debate?

There was no debate about the best form of carbon price, and what other kinds of adjustments should governments make for the best carbon outcome.  The negative side talked as if climate science was a fraud. The affirmative side talked about the benefits of a carbon tax.  There was little in the way of debate or meeting of minds.  Nigel Lawson said anybody who calls carbon dioxide a pollutant is a fraud and should not be listened to.  Mark Latham makes the argument that science findings and advice themselves should not be denegrated, and should not be the object of political negation and debate in Parliament. Politicians are in general not great at science, and have far less ability and time to investigate the matters as deeply as those that devote a working lifetime. The IPA and the ABC also do the public a dis-service by presenting these debates that take as the initial starting point the idea that the science can be decided by debate by none-scientists. Not when the climate science was settled over 40 years ago. I did not pay my tax dollars to support the ABC in order for it to show debates presenting anti-science fraud from deceitful corporate funded organisations such as IPA. It is unfortuante that anti-science politicians and media fogies are given more public speaking and media weight than scientists themselves. The ABC is partly to blame for this.  The only question remains is this. How long will our civilisation take to hang itself, or will some form of it become sustainable?

References:

[1] ABC Big Ideas: Carbon Tax http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/ipa_carbontaxdebate_full.mp4

[2] No Climate at the IPA . http://climatechange.ipa.org.au/

[3] De-Smog-Blog http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up

[4] You have been framed. Six new ways to understand the climate challenge http://theconversation.edu.au/youve-been-framed-six-new-ways-to-understand-climate-change-2119

[5] http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/business/the-institute-of-public-smokescreens/

[6] Review: Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/04/24/review-ian-plimers-heaven-and-earth/

[7] Plimer wants to talk science? OK, here goes…

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/05/plimer-wants-to-talk-science-ok-here-goes