• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Kyoto climate conference:

Should our sacrifice be greater?

by Simon Longstaff

The official position being advanced by the Australian government in advance of the climate conference in Kyoto is that current proposals for uniform and binding targets are unfair and against the national interest.

The government's reasons for adopting this position are bound to be far more complex than those filtered into broad public debate. For example, there will be complex reasons behind the claim that the nature of Australia's economy makes it unusually vulnerable to the economic pain that would flow from an adoption of some of the stricter targets being proposed – for example, by the European Union.

A further concern seems to be that current proposals for 'uniform binding targets' are, on inspection, rather less than 'uniform' in that they seem to place a disproportionate burden on the shoulders of the developed world. The trouble is that these complex arguments are translated into a simple formula that is served up for domestic political consumption – an acceptance, by Australia, of the proposed targets would lead to a loss of close to 90,000 Australian jobs.

Now, it could be that Australia's declared position is merely part of the 'shadow-boxing' developed as part of a negotiating strategy and that a more conciliatory position will be put on the table at a time best suited to Australia's perceived advantage. However, what if this is not so? What if it turns out to be the case that the government's assessment of the national interest requires it to maintain its current position?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that just one of the scientific predictions about the likely effects of unchecked global warming is correct and that the oceans rise as the polar icecaps melt. Should this occur, then a number of low-lying micro-states (as well as Holland, Venice and the like) will risk inundation, leading to the complete destruction of the islanders' home and way of life. The affected people might survive this phenomenon by re-locating to another place with higher ground.

But at what cost? Put in these terms, the issue for us becomes one of evaluating the relative worth of 90,000 Australian jobs. So, how might we make such a judgement?

One response would be to deny the sense of the question by pointing out that the Australian government has absolutely no obligation to consider the interests of foreign citizens. That is the function of their government!

The trouble with this response is that it fails to take into account a number of important points. First, the government of a vulnerable island has little or no capacity to affect its own future by reversing the effects of global warming. Second, micro-states have no power and virtually no influence over international affairs. As such, they are generally incapable of matching the weight of larger players who are determined to pursue self-interest at their smaller neighbour's expense. Third, although it can be argued that the Australian government has no obligation to strangers, the same cannot be so easily said of each of its citizens.

For example, there are a number of ethical principles that suggest that the interests of one person should count neither more nor less than those of another. The 'golden rule' requiring that you 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is one example (amongst many) with that effect. If applied, then this principle requires each of us to put ourselves in the shoes of the other person and ask ourselves how we would judge matters from that position.

Bearing this in mind, it is at least conceivable that most of us would want the government of another country to do whatever it could to spare us from a preventable tragedy. It could be argued that if a country's citizens recognise such an obligation, then its government should do so too.

If only matters were so simple! For a start, it is not at all clear how many (if any) would apply this principle. Second, a government might feel itself compelled to ignore the qualms of our collective conscience so as to 'save us from ourselves'. Indeed, people in positions of public trust frequently face unpleasant moments when they feel compelled to 'get their hands dirty' on behalf of citizens.

However, there is another issue that we should also bear in mind. This is, we seem to be paying a lot of attention to the plight of the islanders while ignoring our own. What of the miners (or whoever) whose jobs may be lost as the cost for reducing emissions? Shouldn't we be just as concerned to put ourselves in their shoes?

The answer is that we should. And it will not do simply to contrast, in fairly stark terms, the loss of an island home with a job and conclude that the former is much worse than the latter. It may be that this is so. However, we need to pay sufficient attention to the adverse effects that a loss of employment may have – not just on an individual, but – on a whole community and its distinctive way of life.

Seen in this light, it is possible that the loss of 90,000 Australian jobs could be as devastating in its effects as the loss of an island home. But, taking everything into account, is it likely? Perhaps the difference lies in a matter of degree. Perhaps it lies in the irrevocable nature of a natural disaster that submerges a whole country and, along with it, all that sustains a distinctive culture.

The further loss of jobs, in Australia, may not turn out to be necessary. With the wit and the will we may find innovative solutions that allow us to have our cake and eat it too. Yet, it's difficult to imagine us escaping the need for some kind of prudent and principled adjustment.

Can we really afford to ignore the warnings? Can we justify present benefits at the cost of leaving our children a world that is so much worse for our indulgence?

We Australians have been unusually lucky to live in a country that enjoys a superabundance of the things from which a good life can be made. We have benefited from this fortunate state of affairs for many years. Perhaps the other side of our good fortune is to be found in the world's expectation that we make a proportionately greater sacrifice – because we can.

discuss this article

---