Abolition of slavery debate replayed as emissions trading scheme toppled in the house

By Simon Longstaff

This article was published in Living Ethics: issue 77 spring 2009

On 13 August 2009, the Senate defeated the Government’s legislation to establish an emissions trading scheme. Prior to the parliamentary debate, Simon Longstaff considered the issues and found striking similarities between the arguments surrounding the emissions trading scheme and a parliamentary debate to abolish slavery in 1806.

I would made three observations about the recent debate concerning the Federal Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS). The first is that a number of its critics, such as Senator Barnaby Joyce, were entirely sincere in their expression of scepticism. Second, that even the arguments of the most sincere needed to be assessed through the prism of politics where the pursuit of power often trumps the application of principle. Third, the quality of the arguments arrayed against the ETS were, on occasion, remarkably poor.

For example, in the course of an appearance on ABC TV’s program, Q&A, the Federal Opposition Senator, Nick Minchin, argued that it would be “reckless and irresponsible” for Australia to legislate for an emissions trading scheme during the current session of Parliament. Senator Minchin made a series of points in support of his proposition that a vote on the legislation should be delayed until after the US Congress concludes its deliberations and the principal Copenhagen negotiations are complete. He made much of the fact that Australians are collectively responsible for only 1% of anthropogenic emissions yet are part of an economy that will be disproportionately harmed by a ‘premature’ move to an ETS.

The clear implication of Senator Minchin’s comments is that any initiative on Australia’s part will be too insignificant to count for much (especially when measured against the potential cost). Yet, Australia has a proud record of taking the initiative even when our involvement can only produce marginal, material effects. On Senator Minchin’s analysis, the relative insignificance of our military force should have counted against the commitment of the lives of our fellow citizens to wars in far-flung places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, I suspect that Senator Minchin would be one of the first to defend such commitments – noting that, beyond any narrow consideration of national interest, Australia has a moral obligation to bear its share of the cost in blood and treasure; not because we have the power to change the fate of nations by the singular force of our arms, but because we are the kind of society that recognises the need to show leadership, set an example and ultimately, to do what is right.

The other half of Senator Minchin’s core argument concerned the disproportionate economic cost that might be borne by Australians should we take a leadership role in response to the threats posed by climate change. While I accept that economic considerations should be weighed in the balance of responsible judgement, I think that broader ethical concerns must be accorded at least as much weight. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that if humanity does not curb its greenhouse gas emissions, then we will wreak havoc on our planet, blighting the future. Yet, some would have us place self-interest ahead of our ethical obligation to the rest of creation and future generations of our own kind.

Given the dire predictions of otherwise disinterested and sober scientists, I want to suggest that global warming poses an ethical challenge of an order equal to that faced by Members of the House of Commons when debating Wilberforce’s Bill to abolish the slave trade. My suggestion will be labeled, by some, as fanciful comparison. However, the similarities in the debates of then and now are just too remarkable to be ignored.

the similarities in the debates of then and now are just too remarkable to be ignored

The debate about abolition took place during a period when the British were engaged in a war with France that was considered to be an existential threat to the nation. The debate about global warming has been recast in response to the threat posed by the global financial crisis – prompting the call that we should hold off until we can better afford the expected costs. Lest there be any doubt about the similarities, consider this quotation from the record of debate in the House of Commons in 1806. Here General Tarleton arguments against the abolition of the ‘African Trade’ (slavery) are described:

... before the House should proceed to adopt the resolution now proposed, he felt it his duty to call their attention to the situation of Liverpool – a town which, from a miserable fishing hamlet of about 150 huts, had within a century risen to be the second town, in point of commercial wealth and consequence, in the British dominions, entirely by the African trade. He begged to impress on the recollection of the House what the situation of Liverpool was when the right Hon. gent. and his colleagues came into power. It was eminent for the prosperity of its commerce, its wealth, its loyalty; for the important aid it furnished to the British marine, by affording at all times a numerous supply of seamen, through its African and West Indian trade. It was equally distinguished for its spirit in fitting out private ships of war, and by contributing annually three millions sterling in revenue to the public purse. But what measures of advantage had Liverpool experienced since the present ministers came into power? Why, the Restriction Bill upon the African Trade, by which the enterprising spirit of its merchants was paralysed, their trade diminished, the value of their shipping considerably reduced, and disputes existed between them and the planters. But if the mercantile interests of the country were to be thus crushed; if that commerce, which yielded so great a portion of the public revenue, was to be impoverished; what must be the natural consequence? But one of two alternatives; either the Minister must resort to the landed interest entirely, for the supplies necessary to carry on the war, or he must be driven to an ignominious peace. If the Right Hon. gent. seriously meant to proceed with the proposed measure, he could only say, that his constituents would feel themselves justified in coming forward in the most respectful manner, to solicit from parliament that to which they would conceive themselves justly entitled; namely, compensation for the losses they would sustain, in consequence of a measure that would deprive them of a trade which they had followed from the time of Queen Elizabeth, under the sanction of parliamentary protection. The necessary consequence of the measure must be bankruptcies without number; the emigration of useful artisans, with their capitals, to America; and the loss to this country, forever, of many useful artificers.

Source.

The arguments are eerily familiar: the prediction of economic ruin, the loss of commercial advantage, the relocation of business to easier jurisdictions (America), the need for compensation, the demand that the measure be delayed until a better time.

So, does the debate about the ETS possess the ethical gravity of an earlier issue like slavery? If the standard scientific predictions prove to be correct, then there are millions of people whose lives will be diminished (or lost) simply because we were indifferent to their interests when compared to our own. In essence, we will be preferring our comfortable affluence to their survival.

As the President of the Federated States of Micronesia, Emanuel Mori, recently observed: “We will all be drowning in our own backyards if leaders of developed nations do not take swift action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” It is the scale of the disaster that might befall us that raises the issue of global warming to the same level as the abolition of slavery. As such, it is a matter that transcends questions of narrow economic self-interest. This is not to say that we should be indifferent to the economic wellbeing of our fellow citizens. It is just that, as human beings faced by the potential for global calamity, we cannot give such concerns absolute priority. Rather, we should seek to avoid and mitigate the harm to our own – but not at the expense of others made vulnerable by our indulgence.

We, Australians, should demonstrate the kind of conscientious leadership that has distinguished the better parts of our history. I do not know if the ETS Bill before the Federal Parliament is the best that could be drafted. No doubt it is the product of compromise. However, given the challenges before us, it is essential that we not let ‘the perfect become the enemy of the good’. As such, I remain hopeful that our Members of Parliament will ultimately transcend the limits of party politics and enact the best possible legislation when it is debated again in November 2009.