Climate scientists are clear when they say that large cuts in human caused greenhouse gas emissions are needed to slow climate change. But there are two popular assumptions in Australia, probably replicated in other countries, that are preventing these large cuts from happening.

The first assumption is that government should take most of the responsibility for greenhouse gas abatement. This is well summarised by Stephen Lunn, social affairs commentator, who writes in the Weekend Australian, 20 December 2008, that “Most… accept human activity is changing the climate. And most see it as the Government’s role to find a way forward”.

The second assumption is that cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are bad for the economy. The Rudd government has commited to reduce Australia’s emissions by only 5% by 2020. This is much lower than the 25% to 40% the United Nations Framework Convention and Climate Change said the world needed in Bali twelve months ago. The rationale is that larger cuts would be bad for the economy, especially if other countries don’t follow suit.

Furthermore the governments carbon pollution reduction scheme has reinforced the belief that it’s the government who should take full responsibility, by providing compensation to households whose energy costs may go up, and free emissions permits to many major polluters.

These two assumptions are probably commonly held by most people around the world.

Lets say Barak Obama takes a strong lead on climate change. He slashes US greenhouse gas emissions, and demonstrates that human development is possible without loss of American jobs or quality of life. He will have discredited the belief that cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are bad for the economy. And other governments are likely to follow. We may well just get the emissions reductions the scientists say are needed. Many people are hoping for this.

On the other hand if most individuals, families, and businesses around the world change their mindset and take responsibility for the emissions resulting from their decisions we are also pretty likely to get large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

But as long as our leaders believe cutting greenhouse gas emissions is bad for the economy, and as long as we continue to say it’s the government’s responsibility to do something, then dangerous climate change is inevitable.

This blog exists because of my belief that a vigorous response to the climate change challenge provides a win-win situation, not a lose – lose. Yet Fairfax Digital’s Independent Weekly has just come out with this headline “Climate change is a lose-lose affair”.

This sort of headline is very dangerous because it promotes fearful thinking, and fearful thinking will not get us out of the economic crisis and neither will it solve climate change.

Let me give just one example of how a vigorous response to the climate change challenge provides a double win. From a manufacturing company which uses a LOT of energy. Supposedly a company that would be a big loser from climate change. But not just any manufacturing company, one of the world’s largest manufacturing companies. Big company. Uses a lot of energy. Surely acting on climate change is a bad thing for this company?

But no, in actual fact responding vigorously to the climate change challenge has yielded multiple WINS for this company.

Over the last three years its Australian manufacturing plant has reduced direct carbon emissions per widget manufactured by a staggering 30%. WIN = big savings on its energy bills.

One of its widgets is synonymous with “green,” is the most energy efficient on the market, and there is a waiting list to buy it. WIN = growth in market share.

Its environmental credentials attract some the best and brightest in the industry to work for it. WIN = people are the key success factor in any business.

The company of course is Toyota Motor Corporation, and the widgets referred to above are cars. Andreas Kammel, Environmental Policy Manager of Toyota in Australia recently said to me “there are strong business opportunities on the back of climate change, climate change does not have to be something that is difficult even for an energy intense manufacturer such as ourselves.”

The Toyota sustainability report can be found at http://toyota.republicast.com/sr2008/republicast.asp?page=1&layout=1&control=yes&zoom=100

Cars are a major source of greenhouse gas pollution, and I’m certainly not saying you should ditch your bicycle for a Prius. But I would not be surprised if Toyota is one of the first manufacturers to come out with a mass produced zero emissions vehicle. For Toyota, acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is good for the company and less harmful to the environment. It’s a WIN-WIN not a lose-lose.

We are in a time of economic crisis, and moving into a period of great environmental crisis. The last thing we need is the poverty of thought promoted by media with negative headlines.

Carbonetix has developed a website to assist its certified Mirrorlux installers and distributors with sales, marketing and installation activities. Mirorrlux provides an opportunity for Electrical Contracting and Facility Management businesses to build additional business by offering Delamping Services which can halve their customer’s lighting energy use.

The site has been developed to assist Mirrorlux distributors maximise the sales opportunities that exist to halve the lighting costs of their existing and prospective customers.

The resources included there are:

· Training videos and manuals to help you learn about Mirrorlux Reflectors.

· Promtional material to help you market and sell the Mirrorlux solution.

· A proposal generator and tracking system.

· Ordering and tracking system.

· A savings calculator.

· General news and updates.

If you would like to register to become a certified Mirrorlux installer/sales agent please go http://www.mirrorlux.com.au/ and click under the Distributor Login button.

I received yesterday a powerpoint about food security and climate change from Dr. Julie Cliff, a friend of mine who has worked in tropical medicine in Mozambique for the last 30 years. Her powerpoint had a dramatic image of cassava plants grown in laboratory conditions at different atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (shown below). Cassava is a staple crop whose tubers are consumed across southern and central Africa. The plants grown at higher concentrations of CO2 produced tubers with less than half of the useful food of the plants grown at lower CO2 concentration.

Yesterday I also met an economist who showed me some modelling that predicted the effect a $50 per tonne carbon price would have on the cost of employment across a range of sectors, such as manufacturing, banking and insurance, etc. Typically the cost was around $2,000 per employee – or in other words the modelling was predicting that business expenses would increase by $2,000 per employee if we had a carbon price of $50 a tonne.

These two viewpoints clearly show the apparent climate change challenge – one which shows that the response to climate change could be expensive, the other that not acting could have dire consequences for food security in southern and central Africa. This is the classic argument that I referred to in my first blog post – the climate change challenge is framed in a way that we lose economically if we act to limit greenhouse gas emissions now – but if we don’t act we will lose in the future.

So what is my climate positive take on this? More in my next posting – and comments welcome.