Climate conference – long on science, short on politics

The Climate Change and Governance Conference in Wellington this week was a great at saying what needed to be done, why it needed to be done and when it needed to be done. Shame it hadn’t a clue how to get it done.

The conference, sponsored by Comalco, amongst others, presented an array of scientists speaking on everything from the economic costs of climate change to the chemistry of ocean acidification and the potential of alternative fuels and local energy programmes. On the second day, a couple of useful and interesting speakers were cut short so we could listen to the vacuous fake charm of Tony Blair, who for some reason needed a battery of extras – Jim Bolger, John Campbell and Carol Hirschfield – to introduce him via video link and take questions from pre-selected speakers.

Blair told us of the opportunities for business climate change presents and of the need to “incentivise individual behaviour”. To give him credit, he staunchly called for a strong international agreement that includes all major economies. Of course, one of the skills of politics is demanding things that are very popular, but impossible to achieve, safe in the knowledge that you can blame someone else when it doesn’t happen and look marvellously saintly yourself.

I learned a lot from science side of the conference, but the political naivety was scary. I found myself feeling a weird bond with former National Party MP Simon Upton at one point – the guy is an unabashed capitalist, and he presented a blunt statement of what is possible in a business-dominated environment (not very much). But he’s intelligent and knows how the political system operates. He at least understood the necessity of repeating ‘we need a carbon tax” over and over again.

One speaker noted that 75% of US residents want action on climate change, but was also of the opinion that nothing will happen until regime change occurs there. Yet the following speakers kept talking about the need to educate the public to “create a constituency”, as if that was all that needs to be done – there was no thought of how to translate that constituency into political pressure.

The democracy deficit that allowed industry to wreck the carbon tax needs to be addressed, as does the demoralisation of civil society over the past 20 years. Blair called for civil society to “keep the pressure on”. That’s nice, but coming from someone who has no intention of listening to civil society on GE or Iraq, it’s a bit rich. Politicians can’t turn public pressure on and off as it suits them, and still expect the public to show any interest.

Upton, on the other hand, called for a technological fix and a carbon tax on the grounds that business isn’t prepared to give up on cheap fossil fuels. He dismissed changes in the way society operates as “there are no precedents for government-imposed lifestyle changes on such a scale… neither democratic nor authoritarian states are able to do this”. Damn right, Mr Upton! Have you considered removing these impediments to progress?

On a more positive note, an Aussie economist, Steve Hatfield Dodds, noted that we could meet a third of our Kyoto commitments by taking more time off work. A small thing, but a recognition that a society that is unable to reward its members with anything but more consumption simply can’t continue. Not on this planet, at least.