Insightful essay that is a compelling analysis of the existential threat climate change poses to human civilisation. Gergis highlights a few key recommendations, those which first come to mind are:
- Ending fossil fuel subsidies and initiating large-scale investment in renewable energy to make subsequent private investment more commercially viable.
- Revising legislation that effectively permits corporations to increase absolute emissions under the pretext of reduced deforestation and enhanced carbon sequestration.
The lack of meaningful progress on these fronts—especially under our current so-called progressive government—highlights the raw power and influence of fossil fuel lobbyists. Their agenda remains focussed on safeguarding short-term economic and corporate interests, regardless of the long-term costs to humanity and the environment.
Rather than addressing the core issue of reducing absolute emissions, lobbyists tout dubious technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS), peddling the illusion of reducing “net emissions”. As this essay makes clear to any fair-minded reader, these tactics are embarrassing and evasive, delaying the inevitability of a global climate crisis. It’s time for major carbon emitters to stop treating this existential threat as a mere box-ticking exercise. Without a decisive shift to renewable energy in the coming decades, we risk locking in catastrophe.
The government must act decisively by implementing a robust cap-and-trade emissions policy to both price and limit carbon emissions. History shows that relying on corporations to voluntarily reduce emissions is laughable and ineffective.
Evidence-based media campaigns are essential to educate Australians about the causes and consequences of climate change. The public must recognise that transitioning to renewable energy—solar, wind, and base-load sources like pumped hydro and batteries—makes fiscal and practical sense. But, much progress in this area is also stalled by the fact that people don't perceive the consequences of global warming unless they are acute and directly visible, but by this point, vast irreversible damage would have already been done.
Given Australia’s unique climate and lack of nuclear infrastructure, expertise, and supportive legislation, a pivot to nuclear power is irrational. The only beneficiaries of such a move would be uranium miners and their political allies—conservative parties like the LNP, which often exchange leniency on emissions-reducing legislation for campaign funding from these industries. Mining magnates like Gina Rinehart are also hedging their bets, preparing for the decline of coal and oil by investing in uranium.
Frankly, a move to nuclear energy and lack of climate action probably doesn’t make sense to the rational-minded politicians in the LNP either. However, it aligns with their broader ideological commitment to minimal government regulation, and a powerful, largely unregulated private sector as a key pillar of the economy. Coupled with their reliance on donations from mining corporations, the political logic becomes clear, even if it undermines rational climate policy.
Read this essay. Share it with your friends and family. Engage in conversations, especially with sceptics, and equip yourself with logical arguments that climate denialists can’t refute. Turning our backs and hoping this crisis resolves itself is no longer an option.