The Climate Change Debate

"You always hear climate change theorists talking about all these consequences that seem incomprehensible. That's why I continue to be a climate change sceptic. They say we could be looking at several metres sea level rise. Well, show me one metre and I might start to be convinced." - a senior employee in a company specialising in large scale project and risk management.

With the recent government announcement to "put a price on carbon", the climate change debate has been thrown back into the limelight. However, it seems that the opposition, its followers and a number of climate change sceptics have immediately shifted the debate to a nonsensical political one, by labelling it a "carbon tax". Whatever you want to call it, it seems a good opportunity for me to put forward some long held opinions about this whole climate change thing, and maybe try to shift the debate back to something more relevant to intelligent Australians.

So, I'll start by putting forward what seems to be the common question. Do you believe in climate change? Before you answer though, I'd like you to consider this. I don't care what you believe, and neither, in my opinion, should anyone hoping for any sort of sensible and research supported action or non-action on the issue. After all, we're not talking about religion here, it's not about belief. We're also not talking about pure mathematics, so there's little scope for a sensible definitive 'yes or no' debate either. The fact that (again in my opinion) many of the central figures in the debate treat it as a 'with us or against us scenario', and that many of the people they're trying to persuade continually demonstrate little understanding of the scientific method, evidence and peer review process pushes the issue out of the realms of academic debate all together. Therefore, rather than try to put forward evidence for why I 'believe in global warming', I will put forward a rational case for why we might want to consider taking action regardless of what truly is.

I'll begin by putting forward some more questions. When will someone next break into your house? and when will a fire next sweep through your neighbourhood? You've probably answered, "I don't know", a very sensible answer unless you're God, or at least some sort of prophet. In view of that fact, consider this. If you own your own home, you probably spend upwards of $1000/year on home and contents insurance (http://www.insurancecompared.com.au/explained/in-the-home/home-ins.php). The insurance council of Australia reports that approximately 5.8 million Australians have house and contents insurance. So, collectively we spend upward of $5.8 billion a year on home and contents insurance (If someone wants to go to the trouble of finding the real figures, that would be great!). A brief look at our ever reliable media implies that a significant portion of victims of the recent Queensland flood were uninsured for their losses, many of whom thought they would be (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/15/3113439.htm, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/no-insurance-no-payout/story-fn7kabp3-1225987475477). This suggests that not only do Australians spend a lot on insurance, but many do so without comprehensive background research or consideration of the risks. Why are we happy to throw money at insurance companies without a complete understanding, without guarantee that our expenditure will work, and without any guarantee that an incident will occur in the first place? It seems to me that we do so because there's a risk, and even if we can't be sure of stopping it, we want to do something to mitigate that risk. We don't know our house will burn down, but we don't know that it won't either.

Now let's examine the common arguments against climate change action:

Argument 1 - We don't know the extent to which climate change is caused by humans, or (for the serious sceptics) whether it's influenced by us at all.

Argument 2 - Action is expensive, we can't afford it, and we don't know if it will be effective anyway.

Assuming you believe both these arguments to be valid, ask yourself this? Can you say for sure that humans are not causing climate change? and can you say for sure that any of the proposed forms of climate change action will be ineffective? If so, unveil your evidence, and you will soon be rich and famous. If not, maybe ask yourself why you pay so much house and contents insurance to protect against something which you don't know will occur, and may not protect you even if it does occur.


If you think I'm not comparing apples with apples, you're right. A fire, or serial burglar might rob you of your house and all your possessions, or possibly even your entire town or community. Weigh this up against theorised consequences of global warming which include global famine, increased incidents of extreme weather events, economic devastation and much much more (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007). If you don't 'believe' in these things, just remember, I don't care, and in my opinion neither should you if you're sensible. There seems to be a lot of evidence out there suggesting that these are likely consequences, and maybe you're not convinced, but at the very least you have to acknowledge a risk. Anyone who's familiar with AS/NZS 4360:2004, the Australian standard for risk management will be able to tell you that mitigating action should consider both the likelihood and the consequences. Maybe, if you're a climate change sceptic, it doesn't seem likely, but consequences don't get any more severe.

Ironically, I'm one of the minority without contents insurance.