UTSpeaks: Progress or procrastination? (Part 3 - Chris Riedy and open forum)

Editor's Notes

• #3: Five years ago, I gave my first UTSpeaks lecture on Pollution, Politics and Power. Back then, public understanding of climate change was low and I spent a lot of the lecture explaining what climate change is. Climate change wasn’t on the political agenda in the way it is now. I called for more public debate on climate change and political engagement with the issue. Well, be careful what you wish for!Since then, climate change has become one of the major political issues of the day and a constant topic of public debate. But, public concern about climate change has dropped from its peak around 2006 and 2007 and split along political lines. Climate change response has become an ideological and political battleground that has claimed several prominent politicians. While a majority still believe in climate change and the need to respond, fear about the impact of a carbon price is rife.In this context, when politicians are running with the issue and ‘climate fatigue’ has set in, what role does the community have in responding to climate change? Many people feel excluded from the debate, tired of hearing the same old arguments from politicians and wishing it would all go away.I’m going to argue that it is critical to re-engage communities in climate change response and I’ll set out a couple of ideas for doing so in the short time I have.
• #4: Why should communities play a part in responding to climate change? Why not leave it to government?I’ll give two principle-based reasons and two pragmatic reasons.Whether is is tropical cyclones like Yasi, bushfires like those that hit Victoria and Canberra, prolonged drought, heat waves or sea level rise, all of us will increasingly experience the impacts of climate change. As a basic democratic principle, impacted communities should have an opportunity to influence outcomes.
• #5: Likewise, we will all experience the impact of responses to climate change, such as rising energy prices and cost of living increases.Again, a basic democratic principle is that impacted communities should be able to influence the outcomes.
• #6: More pragmatically, lasting action on climate change requires widespread community support to keep the pressure on politicians and businesses. While the Gillard Government is likely to get its clean energy future legislation through parliament in the next month or so, what will happen when there is a change of government? The constant chopping and changing of climate change policies makes it very risky for investors.In the UK, there is bipartisan support for climate action and the conservative government recently set a target to reduce emissions by 50% by 2025, the most ambitious target in the world. Communities need to be engaged if they are to force Australian politicians down a similar path.
• #7: Finally, the community has direct and indirect influence over a large proportion of Australia’s emissions. Households are directly responsible for about 18% of Australia’s emissions because of the electricity, gas, petrol and other fuels they use. But they are indirectly responsible for more than 3 times that amount because of indirect emissions from food, goods and services and construction and renovations. Diet and purchasing decisions can have a big impact on Australia’s emissions.
• #8: So, how can communities become more engaged? How can we encourage and motivate actions to respond to climate change?This is a simplified summary of the extensive literature on behaviour change. Essentially, it boils down to three types of influence on what we do. The systemThe groupThe selfIn the time I’ve got left, I’ll give just one example of how we could be doing better in each of these three areas. First, lets look at the system, and specifically the financial landscape.
• #9: Sometimes, we can’t afford to do things that make sense. There are many ways that we can improve energy efficiency, and in the long run, they often pay for themselves. But it can be difficult to afford the upfront cost when we are faced with other pressures.And sometimes there are split incentives, for example, in rental properties the landlord pays the cost of installing energy efficient equipment but the tenants get the benefit. Take zero carbon homes as an example. If you build a zero carbon home, you will never have to pay an energy bill again. But, your home may cost 15% more to build. The extra cost will pay for itself in about 11 years but can you afford the extra cost right now when you could use that money to afford a home in a more desirable suburb? And will you still be living there in 11 years? We can use innovative financial mechanisms to overcome these barriers. A pay-as-you-save loan covers the upfront cost of the zero carbon features and you pay it back over time from the money you would have saved on your energy bills. If you move, the loan stays with the home.
• #10: You won’t find much mention of these kind of innovative financing mechanisms in the Clean Energy Future package.
• #12: She proposed a Citizen’s Assembly on climate change that was scorned by the media and political opponents and subsequently dumped. She then went on to announce a carbon price with no real consultation and no details, creating space for conservative interests to prosecute a fear campaign that has divided the community. That’s about as far from building a community consensus as you can get.
• #13: The International Association for Public Participation defines a spectrum of public participation, with increasing levels of public engagement. At the moment, the Gillard Government is informing the community about its plans and providing some constrained opportunities for consultation but it is certainly not involving citizens in developing climate policy, collaborating with them or empowering them to make their own decisions. If communities are to re-engage with climate action, we need to move further down this spectrum.
• #14: I may be in the minority, but I still think a Citizens Assembly on climate change is a good idea. It may have been poorly communicated and poorly timed, but the fundamental idea of involving citizens in the policy-making process is a good one that has worked in many places around the world. I was involved in the World Wide Views on Global Warming…These processes do not always deliver consensus, but they do usually allow participants (and observers) to become more accepting of alternative views. If we are to move towards bipartisan support for climate action then processes like this that help to find common ground and develop mutual understanding are crucial.