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.

East Sussex council in the UK has been running a program to support business resource efficiency since 2003 called BETRE. The program offers free energy audits to businesses and small grants to help reduce waste, water and energy use. Its assisted 1,800 businesses save over one million pounds sterling. Australian councils wishing to help local businesses improve their energy efficiency may be interested in learning from the BETRE experience. See www.betre.org.uk/.

LED lights are seen by many as the next big thing when it comes to lighting. But do they live up to their promise?

Over the last few months we have been researching and testing LED tubes. These tubes are the same shape as a fluorescent tube, and have hundreds of LEDs on them. To summarise our research results:

• The performance of LED tubes has improved greatly over the last 12 months, particularly in terms of total light output.
• Quality of manufacture is still of concern (one of the LED tubes in the photo has partially failed).
• Many tubes now have a very good “daylight” light colour, although some of the ones we tested were quite blue.
• We are not yet at the point where a LED tube can substitute a 36 watt tri-phosphor fluorescent, but if the technology continues to advance as it has the performance may match fluorescent tubes within the next three years, but with much lower power input.
• Pricing is still high, but as lighting performance improves the range of applications where LEDs can be used will increase. This should lead to economies of scale and price reductions.

The government clearly has underestimated the urgency of the need to cut carbon emissions. Evidence of this comes in the announcement today from Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that Australia would commit to reduce its emissions by 2020 by just 5% compared with 2000 levels.

After years of waiting now we finally have total clarity that we cannot rely on our government to drive the kind of carbon reductions the science says we urgently need.

A door has been closed. And whilst its hard to remain up-beat, lets consider the alternatives that will result in Australia significantly reducing its emissions. Alternatives such as:

• Voluntary action. My experience has been that individuals and companies who seriously try to reduce their carbon emissions can save much more than 5%, probably closer to 50%. It depends on their starting point and the type of industry they are in. But in general, if you have strong leadership commitment you can achieve big savings.
• Sexy carbon friendly technologies that are so cost effective they are a “no brainer”. Solar panels for example are very sexy. But expensive. Engineering ingenuity could solve this.
• The aggressive marketing of energy efficient technologies. Energy efficiency isn’t exciting, but it is cost effective. My business is energy efficiency. Any advice on making efficiency sexy and wildly popular would be welcome.

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.