Is debate on Carbon Pollution Reduction starting to sound a little like the Republican debate?

Carbon Pollution vs Australia as a Republic

In many ways the initial debate on pricing carbon reminded me of the debate about Australia becoming  a republic. At a fundamental level and to differing extents and at different times the majority of Australians agreed in the positive that Australia should be a republic and that carbon emissions should have a price/cost. How then did the outcomes diverge so drastically?

Perhaps Malcolm Turnbull should author that article, as he, perhaps more than others, has championed to his credit, in my opinion, both causes at significant personal cost. Pleasingly from my point of view, the debate, as it should, now revolves around what constitutes meaningful action. I state this optimistically and hope the real issue is not overly influenced by philosophy, populism and the associated manueverings by hardened, skilled and popular politicians.

To the extent that I am able to summarise a complex issue into a brief article with a lack of scholarly reference I make the following observations:

• Population growth and the associated increase in demand for energy relating to domestic and commercial appliances, technology and processes is significant and the statistics are compelling
• Depletable, non recyclable resources including carbon based fuels but extending to water and fisheries are finite.
• Basic economic theory supports the view that finite resources should be managed efficiently and with appropriate consideration given to the long run eg sustainability and incentives for technology innovation and transition.
• The science around Climate Change is compelling. Actual observations of climate change are occuring at or above the highest predicted ranges from the science.
• Short term profit objectives are strong motivations for behaviour but enterprise (whether for profit or not for profit) is adaptable and over the long run innovative and probably (generally) accepts that emitting carbon is a cost of production and should attract a price.
• Structural reform in our economy with respect to energy security and the associated transition to new types of energy infrastructure is widely accepted as a domestic and global priority.
• The risk of further compromising bio-diversity or alternatively the exciting opportunity of nurturing it. Read about the reintroduction of the Grey Wolf to Yellowstone National Park in Northern California.

I always paid attention to the well respected and long lived entrepreneurial strategist, Peter Drucker. Amongst his many contentions was the view that opportunity arose from observing and responding to amongst other things the big changes or as others may call it "a sigmoid function" or "waves of change". To me, the nexus of population growth, dependence on carbon based fuels, technology and process innovation, climate change, maintenance of energy security and energy infrastructure, globalisation, bio-diversity and an optimistic outlook suggest we have a great opportunity in Australia to act and not miss this opportunity.

So what is the opportunity?

At a basic level the opportunity can mean different things to different people and I am not interested in judging motivations. Other than to extend my 'republic vs carbon pollution' reference to suggest meaningful action should follow debate.

For Mojarra, we want to work to support individuals and organisations in taking meaningful action in the following areas:

• Decentralisation of energy generation to renewable sources like solar panels and wind turbines
• Implementation of Energy Efficiency Measures including energy management systems, process improvement, behaviour change and technology innovation.

Chris Hay, Mojarra CEO

Posted: 12-1-2012