Climate scepticism is all the rage these days and it’s become very fashionable to doubt the scientists and suspect global fraud.
The sceptics will denounce mainstream opinion for attempting to supposedly silence them, all the while loudly denouncing their opponents on talkback radio, the internet and mainstream press. They criticise minor errors in massive reports and loudly attack sloppy emails, but they play fast and loose with the facts themselves.
Sceptics are rarely accountable for their statements on temperature, on climate or carbon dioxide levels, preferring instead to rely on unsophisticated arguments like ‘it’s crap’.
At the heart of this scepticism is opposition to the transition to a low carbon economy. Sceptics are deeply wedded to the idea that we can continue to burn fossil fuels with careless abandon. They are deeply committed to the idea that the more energy we burn the richer we’ll all get, the more jobs we will have and the happier we’ll all be. Sceptics stand for business as usual and a sleep walk into the future.
The sceptics’ vehement opposition to international agreements to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to a national emissions trading scheme, seems to many domestic observers to only have economic or environmental consequences. The national debate has focused on the framework of jobs versus the environment, missing the effect climate change and resource scarcity will have on our national security.
The fact is that sceptics are soft on our defence, soft on border protection, and soft on our national security. Their ideological opposition to overwhelming scientific evidence make them blind to the potential threats that could be caused by climate change. Their opposition to the transition to a low carbon economy, and their overly optimistic confidence that we can carry on as usual, blind them to the likely threat of resource scarcity. The sceptics seek to convince Australians that we have time (and resources) to burn, that there’s no need to change our ways, and that we’re the lucky country, unconstrained because of our national resource endowment. Climate sceptics are wishful thinkers and their myopia is a danger to the national interest.
All science can be disputed and debated and this is a welcome fact of life in any democracy. Scientific discovery is not a finite process but an evolving one, and it involves as much human error as any other endeavour. Climate science is no different and every day scientists learn more of the challenges before us, and the challenges we are likely to face in the future. The consensus of peer reviewed science is that climate change is occurring, that we have a choice in how we respond, and those choices will affect the situations humanity faces in the future. The effects of climate change, resource scarcity and resource security will have a profound impact on our national security.
There are already a number of well authored reports on the impact climate change will have on national and international security. It’s a pity climate change sceptics don’t bother to read these reports because even if they aren’t convinced by scientists they may be persuaded by military leaders. The approach of the military to risk is fundamentally different to other areas of society. Military personnel factor risk into their thinking because they deal with life and death situations, whereas the rest of us are more cavalier because of our less demanding environment. The Chairman of the Military Advisory Board for the CNA Report ‘National Security and the Threat of Climate Change’ General Gordon R Sullivan (Ret.) states:
“We seem to be standing by and, frankly asking for perfect science. People are saying they want to be convinced, perfectly. They want to know climate science projections with 100 percent certainty. Well, we know a great deal and even with that, there is still uncertainty. But the trend line is very clear. We never have 100 percent certainty. We never have it. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield. That’s something we know. You have to act with incomplete information. You have to act based on the trend line. You have to act on intuition sometimes.”
Responsible political leadership on climate change needs to apply this sort of approach to the risks associated with climate change. This is the approach of the Rudd Government - an early and orderly transition to a low carbon economy though a free market mechanism – the CPRS. This approach safeguards our society, our environment, our economy and our national security.
The threat of climate change to our society, our environment and our economy has been well debated – the potential consequences for our national security have not. Academic research and reports on the national security implications of climate change outline a number of threats. These potential threats include food and water scarcity, rising sea levels, increased threat of national disasters like hurricanes, storms and flooding, and a rise in infectious diseases. These threats could strike in Asia and the Pacific and could affect millions of people.
The research in this area refers to climate change acting as a ‘threat multiplier’. This means we could see increased competition and conflict over arable land and water resources, internal and external migration, climate change induced asylum seeking, resource scarcity, political instability, failed states and ungoverned territories. Nations will simultaneously face constrained capacity to act and increased demands to intervene.
These are all potential threats to our defence, the protection of our borders and our national security but the climate change sceptics won’t acknowledge them, prepare for them or act to prevent them occurring.
Climate change sceptics have a profoundly irresponsible approach to our national security because their ideology does not allow them to acknowledge the potential threats we may face, and their denial of the evidence could leave our nation unprepared for a hostile and uncertain future. Make no mistake; if you’re a self confessed climate sceptic then you’re as soft as butter on Australia’s defence.
- Nick Champion is the Labor member for the federal electorate of Wakefield.
Get The Punch on Facebook
Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
RT @alaindebotton: So many of our problems would be alleviated if we had 3 or 4 exceptional friends living within a 2 minute radius.
It's terribly unfashionable to admit but my Cityrail train just left on time again
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting
Stop all the cheering, cut off the champagne. Prevent the pollies from barking and silence the drums.…
Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone
Some friends of mine had lunch on Saturday with a mate who spent so much time artfully composing photos…
Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)
That dopey Spaniard. Three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador has been banned for two years,…
Gentle jabs to the ribs
No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops
Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more
Most commented