>> The JCIPP is very pleased
to be hosting today's public
policy forum, which as I said
at our last one for a year we've
had some excellent speakers
throughout the year
including Ross Garnaut.
He gave a presentation in June
about his most recent
climate change report
to the Federal Government.
Climate change, of course, is
a incredibly significant issue
and it's also a very
complex policy issue.
And so it's only fitting
that we return to it
in this morning's forum.
The Vice Chancellor, Professor
Jeanette Hackett extends her
apologies for not being able
to be here this morning.
But, we have a more than
adequate replacement
because we have the Chancellor
of Curtin University
Dr. Jim Gill.
Jim's been the Chancellor
since 2010 and prior
to that he was the WA Water
Corporation's inaugural Chief
Executive Officer from 1996
until he retired in 2008.
And a major focus
during Jim's tenure
at the Water Corp. was a program
to greatly increase the
state's water source capacity
and promote efficient
water usage due
to the significantly
drying climate.
And in fact, in 2008 he
received the International Water
Association's Grand
Award in recognition
of WA's leadership--
those initiatives.
So, I'm sure with that
background he'll be very
interested in hearing from
our guest speaker this morning
and it's a great pleasure
to invite Jim, Dr. Jim Gill
to introduce our speaker, Jim.
>> Well, thanks very much John
and good morning everybody
and welcome to this
excellent event.
I just wanted to say two things,
the first about the John Curtin
Institute of Public Policy
and the second about
Tim Flannery.
But, the JCIPP to my mind
is a brilliant organisation.
It's a great institution.
It's one of the best
things Curtin does.
I always think that it's just
so important for universities
to be providing venues
fermenting if you
like in forum debate
on all sorts of issues.
If universities don't do it just
think we've got the journalists
who can't think you know in
the long term and politicians
who can't think past
the next election.
So, academ really has
to do it and I think
that the JCIPP makes a
fantastic contribution.
And many thanks to-- I think
he's just left the room.
Ah he's there.
Alright he's hanging in there.
I was going to say many
thanks to him because I think
that John's energy
and absolute tenacity
and his connections
really set this thing up.
So, I'm very proud of the JCIPP
even though I hardly ever make
it to your functions
John, so well done.
So, I also wanted to
just say-- talk about--
a little about Tim Flannery.
And I have to, as John said,
I used to run the Water
Corporation for about sort
of 14 years and I've always
been quietly very, very grateful
to Tim even though I had
never met the man until today.
And the reason was that sort
of the minute I got the job,
which was back in 95 it
seemed to stop raining.
It actually became clear that--
it's a pretty hard gig running
a water utility when it rained.
But anyway, and when you looked
at the history it actually had
started stopping raining if you
like in about 1975 and we've
been on a slide since then.
And so what I found was
that we were saying,
whoops we're short of water.
We're campaigning
for less water use.
We have to build more
dams and this and that
and the press are going around
saying you're incompetent.
You know your organisation
hasn't planned ahead.
And we said, "Look at our
50 year plan" this sort
of thing though, you know.
And so in the end I had to turn
myself in a way into a sort
of a home spun climate change
expert, which I started doing
from the late 90's and
giving presentations all
around the place.
And then the year 2001 was the
worst winter in living memory
and it just kept
on getting worse
until actually last year, 2010.
Perth dams only took two
percent of what they used
to take up until 1974.
So, dams are at zero
effectively.
And so we built deceleration
plants and other sorts
of reprehensible things.
But, while all that was
going on I had to go
around spreading climate change
and I was a complete amateur.
And I was always absolutely
delighted when Tim would come
out and say stuff, you know,
a highly authoritative
independent.
Other people would turn up and
do it occasionally as well.
Like Al Gore turned
up a few years ago
and he'd just launched his
book, "An Inconvenient Truth"
and he got a great following.
And I think he did
a great service
to climate change always.
But, Tim has always been
the [inaudible] the pinnacle
in Australia.
And he sort of-- in many ways
Tim you lifted a load off my
shoulders because I think I
could stop being incompetent
and say look Tim
says it's all true.
Anyway I'm going to--
I've got a script here
and it says Tim has--
Tim's a great scientist,
explorer, conservationist.
He's published more than 130
peer reviewed scientific papers.
His books include, "The Future
Eaters," "The Weather Makers"
and the second of those
has been translated
into more than 20 languages.
And in 2006 won the New South
Wales Premier's literary prizes
for best critical writing
and Book of the Year.
Tim is a former Director of
the South Australian Museum
and it's terrific that we've
got with us today the Chief,
Alec Coles of the WA Museum.
Tim's a member of
the, a founding member
of the Wentworth Group
of Concerned Scientists,
a Director of Australian
Wildlife Conservancy and he's
on the International Board
of the World Wildlife Fund.
In 2007 he cofounded
and was appointed Chair
of the Copenhagen Climate
Council, which is a coalition
of community, business
and political leaders
who came together to
confront climate change.
In 2011 he was appointed
Australia's Chief
Climate Commissioner.
He's won many awards including
Australian Humanist of the Year
and in 2007 as we all know,
Australian of the Year.
So, ladies and gentlemen
please join me
in welcoming Tim Flannery.
[applause]
>> Thank you, thank
you very much Jim
for that very kind introduction
particularly your exposition
of the water situation in Perth.
You may not believe it, but back
in the east I'm regularly
attacked
by right wing commentators
for being alarmist
about water in Australia.
So, when I came over here and
was saying that there was--
there had been a shift in the
climate and there was need
for [inaudible] or
investment elsewhere I'm glad
that message had been heard and
contributed something at least
to Perth's water security.
I just want to reflect
very, very briefly
on the situation
here in the west.
I know that there's very brave
firefighters fighting a bushfire
down south in Sudan in
the Margaret River area.
Just in the last
week or so the IPCC,
the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change
has released a report
on extreme events outlining
the situation there.
And in future you know
there's a probability
that we will see more
of those bushfires.
And we need to be prepared
just as we were with water
for these eventualities
in future and, of course,
pay tribute to those people
and know they're very much
in our thoughts who are fighting
for their homes and property
and lives maybe right now.
Today I want to really
look at four big issues
that the world is facing:
Population, urbanisation,
globalisation and
climate change.
But, before I do that I
want to just think briefly
about what we are because
we, us humans have such an
over winning confidence
in ourselves sometimes
that it's very frightening
for me.
And I just need as a
scientist to remind people
that 98.4 percent of our
genetic material is identical
with that in chimpanzees.
So, we are upright apes,
right, who are very similar
to the other great apes.
We-- I know there's some
religious people in the room.
I can tell from [inaudible]
If I could say I'm
at best an Agnostic I would
love to be able to believe
that there was a very kind
person in the heavens looking
after us and guiding our future.
But, I think the reality for
me is that we need to look
after ourselves first
and foremost even
if there is a guiding,
a God guiding us.
We need to look to
ourselves for our strength
and identify our weaknesses
properly and do our best as far
as we can for our
fellow human beings
and for future generations.
If you look back on our history
it's been quite extraordinary,
that 1.4 percent
genetic difference
with the chimpanzees has
been one of the things
that have allowed us to
build this civilisation
that we live in now.
We don't live as our ancestors
did 10,000 years ago universally
around the world in small family
groups as hunter gatherers.
We've built this incredible
global civilisation and look
at the goods that it's brought.
Look at the benefits
that it's brought us.
I mean you know my
clothing, my health,
the food we have just eaten
have all been delivered as part
of that great globalised
enterprise
and it's not something
we designed.
It's something that
has evolved, you know.
And when we look at
ourselves and the--
how that's evolved I
find it fascinating
because I think there's only
two or three major underpinnings
for this global civilisation
of ours.
The first is a very simple
mechanistic principle
that Adam Smith identified
in the late 18th century.
It's called the division
of labor.
Yeah so-- and he characterised
this using a pin factory
as an example.
Said, "If a single individual no
matter how skilled they are sits
down to make pins they may
make 60 or 100 pins in a day."
If however you have the
13 operations that result
in the manufacture
of a pin divided up,
so one person does one
operation you can make
with 13 people 30,000
pins in a day.
So, the division of labor gives
great, enormous benefits just
in terms of production.
The reason I say it's a
simple mechanistic thing is
that we aren't the only
species to have discovered it.
The other great civilisations we
share our planet with, the ants,
termites and other social
insects also discovered the
division of labor and
their success in part rests
on the benefits that
come from dividing labor.
Of course, those social
insects have built their great
civilisations, which can include
up to 8 million individuals
on the basis of genetics,
you know.
Genetic relativeness is key to
those individuals being able
to cooperate and so benefit
from the division of labor.
For us humans things
are very different.
We are much more
genetically diverse.
Our genetics doesn't
contribute greatly
to our ability to cooperate.
Instead its belief that's
really important, you know,
belief and the impact that
belief has on politics.
So, we have a certain
faith in one another
that kind will be returned with
kind, that if we trade we--
the trade is likely
to be trusted.
We won't-- default
is a rare event.
We also have certain identity
of us as a species in a sense
of our importance
as individuals.
And we also have a very acute
sense of equality, of equity,
of fairness if you want
between individuals.
And I would argue that
the entire trajectory
of human history since we left
being hunter gatherers has been
held in tension, a creative
tension that's expressed
in our politics between
those particular points.
And as time has grown on,
of course, the benefits
of the division of labor
have meant that we aggregate
in ever larger entities.
So, the bigger the entity
the more beneficial--
the more benefits one gains
from the division of
labor until today.
We are dealing at a
global level, you know.
We really duly-- truly do
have a globalised economy now.
We don't have a globalised
politics at least the level
of efficiency that
we would like.
But, we do have that
globalised economy
and we don't have the rules
really to make it work.
As I said earlier one
of the things that will,
that will recur through
the talk I want
to give today is a
sense of fairness.
What is fair?
What will people
tolerate in terms of in--
of disparity in incomes,
in disparity
in privilege and so forth?
And in a globalised
world, of course,
that's tremendously important.
A hundred years ago
a famine in Africa
or India may have left
me entirely unaffected,
may have affected very
marginally the prices
of something or whatever else.
But, kill 20 million
people in India,
have no effect elsewhere
in the world.
That is simply not
the case today.
We're now so interconnected in
this great global enterprise
that the effects filled
by the poorest will ripple
through society and
through global society
and that's increasingly true.
The nature of that enterprise
in fairness is or that sort
of what we'll tolerate in terms
of fairness is not
just a global issue,
but a national issue as well.
And it's a very old one.
I've-- I'm quite fascinated
by American politics
and Australian politics
for that matter,
but American particularly.
And I'm a great lover
of history as well.
And I was astonished to
read in my Roman history
that I'm just reading
at the moment,
which is Plutarch's,
"Roman Lives."
An episode in ancient
Rome that was so similar
to what we see today
in the United States
that it took my eye and
goes right to the heart
of this issue of fairness.
In the second century B.C.
Rome was highly divided
as it was throughout its history
between a privileged few,
perhaps 10 percent
of the population
who controlled the
senate, the Roman Senate,
and the 90 percent
who were poor.
And as time drifted on
the poor became poorer
and the rich became richer.
Wealth accumulated in
the hands of the wealthy.
And every now and again
a point was reached
where the citizens decided that
things had just gone far too far
and they needed to
exert their own power
and champions would rise up.
In the second century B.C. one
of those great champions was
Caius Gracchus [inaudible]
who was a famous, a very
famous Roman of the time,
an incredibly accomplished
and respected man
who built the Roman road system
in large part as we know today
or at least laid the
foundations for that.
Made great strides in terms
of redistribution of land
so that people at
least had some,
poorer people had some
income and so forth.
In fact, he was so successful
and I'll just read a bit
to you from Plutarch.
He was so successful
that as Plutarch said,
"The senate was terrified"
and the senate remember
being the top 10 percent,
"that Gaius might become
completely invincible.
And they found an unusual way
of trying to drive a wedge
between him and the people,
which was to take Gaius
on at his own game and carry
the favour of the Roman people
by gratifying their desires
even when they ran contrary
to the best interests
of the state."
So, the Roman Senate got
a fellow called Livius
to do their dirty work for
him who stood up as a--
in opposition to Gaius.
And Livius as was recorded
proceeded to propose laws
without taking into
consideration factors
such as right or wrong
or the public good.
Just like rival demigods
in a comedy.
The only thing he was concerned
about was doing more than Gaius
to gratify the whims
of the masses.
Now, if Gaius was
President Obama
and Livius was the Tea Party
I think we see there history
repeating itself.
And, of course, in ancient Rome
that tension was never resolved
until the imperium, until
a single dictator arose.
The whole of Roman history
up to the point of the rise
of Augustus was played out in
the context of those tensions
about fairness, equity and
what a society would tolerate
in terms of disparity.
The reason I bring that
to your attention is
that that issue has become
the overarching global issue
in many ways for today.
And I just want to go
through some of the trends
that I promised I would touch on
just with that example in mind.
The first I want to have a
look at is population growth
because the number of people
on the planet, of course,
has a very great impact
on the quality of life
and the resource distribution
that can be enjoyed by all.
Every two years the United
Nations runs a projection
on global population
trends out to 2050.
And I was really
interested and heartened
to read the assessment of 2009.
The U.N. determined that
it was likely at that time
that by 2050 midcentury there'd
be 9.15 billion human beings
on the planet, which
was good news.
It was rather lower
than expected.
In fact, 40 million
people lower than expected.
But, what was really important
about that particular review was
that it was the first time
since the U.N. had been
undertaking those projections
that the cumulative
total of people living
in 2050 was projected
to be lower than it was
at the previous projection
period
if you understand what I mean.
So, each projection period
the population was higher,
the projected population
was higher.
This one it was 40
million lower.
I was really interested in why
that might be and assumed--
went in and had a look
at the assumptions
that the group had made in
terms of projecting population.
I was really astonished to read
that among the things
they projected was
that the AIDS epidemic
would be defeated
and that AIDS would cease
to be a factor later this--
in the coming decades in terms
of our regulating population.
They also projected
that birth rates
in the developed countries,
places like the Australia
and the U.S. would
actually increase somewhat.
So, where was this
reduction coming from?
It turns out that
it was entirely
from the poorest
countries on the planet,
the poorest 50 odd countries.
Birth rates there are about
5.5 children per woman
at the moment.
They were projected to fall
to 2.5 or thereabouts by 2050.
So, all the heavy lifting in
terms of regulating population
under that projection
was being done
by the poorest people on Earth.
The range of probabilities
for population
under that projection
was somewhere
between 8 and 10 billion.
If the developed world
helped those poorest people
to increase the quality of life
and educational opportunities
and access to family
planning for women
in those poor countries we may
end up with 8 billion people
on the planet, which would
be a magnificent outcome.
Where it's 7 billion now,
we would top at 8 billion
and then start to decline.
If nothing was done and if
conditions remained poor
for those people it was possible
we'd have 10 billion people
by 2050 and growing, no end in
sight the population growing.
Unfortunately the
2011 projection,
which was released just a month
or two ago took the
shine off my optimism
for that 2009 projection.
It showed that in fact,
we are now more likely
to have 9.35 billion people
by 2050 and 10 billion by 2100
and still slowly growing.
We're clearly not
doing enough in terms
of the population problem.
We all focus on immigration
and a few thousand boat people
arriving in this country.
That's not the issue
to put it bluntly.
The issue is, how do we allow
the poorest people on Earth
to regulate their numbers
and increase their prosperity
and their satisfaction
particularly the women?
It's a problem that we
really do know how to fix.
Again and again experience
has taught us that education
and economic security for
the poorest women and access
to family planning delivers
the outcomes that we want.
They're not difficult
issues to deliver.
They're not even
expensive things to deliver.
They do however require
a degree of coordination
and globalised action on the
part of the wealthiest countries
on the planet to
deliver the outcome
that we will all benefit from.
So, that should be a simple
straightforward problem.
I'm heartened to see that those
people are helping themselves
in sub-Saharan Africa
now with little
or just the inputs they're
getting at the moment
from developing--
developed countries.
There are 300 million
middle class Africans,
so things are changing.
The issue is; are they
changing fast enough
to affect the demographic
outcome midcentury?
I'd like now just to--
and I should just mention
that you know among the things
that are happening in this
regard are the fourth upcoming
Durban meeting.
There's a pledge by
developed countries
to give 100 billion dollars
to adaptation and mitigation
for climate change for
the poorest countries.
Australia is really leading the
charge in terms of making sure
that that money is delivered.
But, we shall see if
the world responds.
We'll know in a few weeks.
And, of course, that will have
an impact, a significant impact
on wealth there for those
people in the poorest countries.
Where are all those
people going to live?
Over the next 40 years
or so the world is set
to see a massive urbanisation.
I haven't got the figures.
I couldn't get the latest
updates on the figures,
but there's something in excess
of 750 million people projected
to move into cities
in Asia alone
in the next three
or four decades.
That's twice-- more than
twice the total population
of the United States
in new cities
that are going to be built.
It is absolutely clear that
the built environment is front
and centre for our efforts to
create a sustainable future.
We need clearly to
think very carefully
about that built environment
as it develops again globally.
This is-- these are, I would
argue, global enterprises, yeah.
Intellectual property
from places like Australia
and the leadership
we can give in terms
of creating examples will be
critically important for places
like India, China and other
parts of South Asia as they go
about building future cities for
those many millions of people.
Elsewhere in the world
things are going well.
And could I just complement
the city of Perth here
on its rail projects in
that way and that was an act
of leadership Australia wide.
And I think which has been
looked at internationally
as well, the provision of
public transport or clearly one
of those things that
just needs--
it's absolutely essential
as we move forward.
I was in Japan earlier this year
and visited the Panasonic
Corporation
and I'm the Panasonic Professor
of Environmental Sustainability
at Macquarie Universities
and that was the
reason for the visit.
But, we saw their plans
for Panasonic to develop
on an old factory site a
development, which would have
about 1000 residences plus
roads, of course, shops,
schools, shopping
centres and whatever else.
And the energy required for that
city was all being generated
locally and generated by
three major renovations.
The first was the deployment of
the most efficient solar panels
yet commercially
available on Earth.
Each housing unit was estimated
to have about five kilowatts
of panels on its roof plus
some other deployments.
Ceramic fuel cell technology,
these are little cells like this
that burn natural gas very,
very efficiently and give you
or don't burn or use natural gas
to generate some
supplementary electricity
when that was required.
And also this most
amazing battery technology
that I've ever seen
developed by Sanyo.
These are three kilowatts of
battery storage was about as big
as your DVD, small little thing.
Inside them is just
hundreds and hundreds
of double A inter loop
rechargeable batteries,
amazing technology.
But, that triad of technological
innovations was going
to deliver not just the
electricity required
for the households,
but electricity
for all transport needs as well
as all public infrastructure
and commercial infrastructure
in that new development.
An extraordinary innovation,
well ahead of its time perhaps,
but which shows what can be done
as we contemplate the prospect
of those hundreds of millions
being housed in new cities
that have to be greener than
anything that we know today
at least on a large scale.
Globalisation; the great issue
of how do we work together
in this newly globalised
world economy
to overcome these problems.
I think we're seeing some very
interesting trends in this area.
I would argue and perhaps
not everyone would agree.
And I would argue that a
truly collaborative world
with a globalised political
dimension to it can only occur
when a democracy
has spread globally.
After all the dictator,
the selfish individual,
their self-interests are at odds
with the common good and that is
as true in their country as it
is for the world as a whole.
The Arab Spring I think has been
a really crucial development
in the spread of democracy.
We have seen the ancient
Roman world almost recreated
in Scipio Africanus you've all
heard of I guess, you know.
North Africa was part
of the Roman Empire.
It was part of this
Circum-Mediterranean
civilisation and we are now
seeing North Africa I think
taking its first steps to
return to a democratic fold.
And I think that's going to have
enormous implications not just
for Europe, but for
sub-Saharan Africa as well.
You just have to
imagine what it means
for immigration into Europe.
In newly prosperous and
democratic North Africa
if you're a sub-Saharan
African traveling
as an economic refugee would
you go beyond North Africa
into Europe?
I think that's doubtful.
I think that the situation would
change for Africa as Europe,
[inaudible] as North
Africa develops.
And, of course, there
are many people
in sub-Saharan Africa looking at
the Arab Spring for inspiration
to bring a better form of
democracy or a better form
of governance to
their own countries.
The issue that's really defined
in some ways our attempts
to work together globally
to deal with problems is
that the issue of
climate politics.
I was Chair of the
Copenhagen Climate Council
for the three years up
to the co-op 15 meeting
and it was fascinating
and terrifying
to see the negotiations unfold.
I think if you, if you-- well
if you imagine having 190 people
in a room trying to get
them to agree on anything.
You can imagine how difficult
that would be particularly
when they're so disparate
in interests and power
as the leaders of the 190
odd countries that we amassed
around the table there
in Copenhagen were.
And on top of that there
is a rather tedious sort
of formal process that
the UNFCCC has set
up that makes it very difficult
for agreement to be reached.
Any country can object and hold
the floor, even San Marino,
which has only 3000 people
or you know I don't know,
Monaco with 8000 if it wants
can hold up the countries
with hundreds of
millions or billions
from coming to an agreement.
What we saw at Copenhagen was
a parallel process development.
I think this was the great
breakthrough that we saw.
The UNFCCC process was ongoing
at one level, but the leaders
of the large countries
met during
that meeting, met separately.
The leaders of the United
States, China, India,
Brazil and South Africa and they
brokered a very simple document
called, "The Copenhagen Accord."
It was only five pages long.
If any of you have
seen it I don't know.
But, page one's just
the title page.
Page two is sort of some
introductory matter.
Page three is the
accord itself really.
And then page four and
five are empty appendices
or were at the time.
So, it didn't seem to
be much of an agreement.
>> No. But, it actually has
transformed the way that we deal
with the climate issue
because what it allows for is
for individual countries to
put their own pledges forward
as to what they'll do
to reduce emissions.
Country after country
has done that.
There's now I think in excess
of 90 countries have
pledged emissions or actions
to reduce emissions under,
"The Copenhagen Accord."
You're probably well aware
that Australia pledged minus
five percent reduction below
2000 levels of emissions.
That was accepted by
both sides of politics
and that remains the case today.
It might not seem very much to
you, but in fact for a country
like ours it is a
significant reduction.
You can imagine just with
the expansion of things
like the natural gas sector
in the fact that we've got
to compress that
gas to export it
that emissions are
going to rise.
We've got a growing population
and a rapidly growing economy,
which is emissions intensive.
If nothing were done our
emissions would have risen
by 26 percent above
2000 levels by 2020.
So, if you add that 26 percent
to the five percent
reduction you get in excess
of 30 percent emissions
reductions that are required.
That is an ambitious target.
And, of course, have eight
years and one month left
in order to achieve it.
So, seeing action being taken at
the federal level is heartening
in terms of some legislation
to achieve that target,
which is agreed by
both sides of politics.
"The Copenhagen Accord"
gets us about half
of the emissions
reductions that we require
to stay below the guardrail
of two degrees of warming.
And one of the problems that
you see as you project forward
to where we're going to
go for the other half is
that the carbon out of 250--
to 2050, which is you know
where we projected
to is really limited.
We can as a globe emit about
one trillion tons of carbon
into the atmosphere in the next
or between 2000 really and 2050.
That's the carbon budget for
the first half of the century.
And we've already used
one third of that budget
in just one fifth of the time.
So, in the first decade or that
five decade period we've used
one third of that carbon
budget of a trillion tons.
So, the accord is good.
It gives us some pledges.
It sets us on the road.
But, can the accord deliver
the enormous reductions
that are required to
keep the globe safe
from dangerous climate
change in the next 40 years?
I guess to me that is the
ultimate test of our species.
We've got lots of other
tests that we're going
to face including
an economic meltdown
in Europe and whatever else.
But, that is the ultimate
test because that is the test
that will determine a quality
of life for future generations
as far as we can
see into the future,
one of the most important
things.
I guess that there are crises
and crises when we look
around the world and the
only message I can take away
from trying to say well, where
should we put our effort,
which crises should deal with.
And we hear about this
in the media every day.
Oh it's not the right time to
deal with the climate issue.
We've got a crisis on our hands.
I just say to people that
you know if you're very ill
in a hospital facing a very
acute health crisis does
that mean you have to stop
breathing and drinking?
Of course, you got
to keep dealing
with the longer term
sustainability issues just
as you do with the
immediate crises.
They all have to be dealt
with if the species
is to be successful.
Looking back at the
history of ancient Rome
and what Jared Diamond has
written about in his book,
"Collapse" you'd have to
say that the deck is stacked
against us to succeed
in doing all of this.
But, I am not without
hope that we'll succeed.
I think we're more aware
than ever of our frailties.
We are more integrated than
ever before as a species.
And we're more technologically
capable.
Some of the big problems
are immediately
within our grasp to solve.
The population issue we
know how to deal with it.
We can deal with it.
All that is lacking is the
willpower and focus to do that.
The climate issue
is more challenging.
But again, I would argue
it's within our ability
to resolve and we can do it.
We can chew gum and whistle.
We can do it at the
same time that we deal
with these much shorter
term crises,
which seem to grab the
headlines so effectively.
Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
>> Hello Dr. Flannery.
My name's Anna and I'm a PhD
student doing a geography
related topic, water.
And I'd just like
your personal views
on the coal seam gas situation.
And I believe that this was
a misquote so you might want
to address how you feel
about this process.
>> That's the Australian
newspaper is it, with a headline
that says Flannery
backs coal seam gas?
>> That's correct.
>> Yeah. All I can say is
that headline bears
absolutely no resemblance
to the article itself
that they publish.
Nor does it bear any
resemblance to what I've said.
>> [inaudible]
>> Exactly.
So, I think I'll just leave
it at that saying it's one
of those issues where it's
just, it's misrepresentation
that article, the
headline I should say.
>> We have a question over here.
Yeah?
>> Tim you mentioned
the Tea Party before.
It's probably an
appropriate name for them
because they still live
in some sort of Alice
in Wonderland reality.
I'm just wondering what
you think the future
of American attitudes,
political attitudes
at the top is to climate change?
And is there any room
for optimism there?
>> What's interesting in
the ancient Roman context,
Gaius Gracchus was
murdered by the senate.
But, they were unable
to roll back his reforms
that would have led
to open revolt.
So, I think the struggle
is a very real one.
And, of course, it's
exactly what's,
what happened in ancient Rome.
You offer the people everything
they want plus a bit even
if it damages the state.
So, if you're a Tea Party
person you say no new taxes.
It's what the people want
because we all are inherently
somewhat selfish even
if it's immensely
damaging to the state.
So, that struggle that's going
on is between an [inaudible]
who are trying to hold onto
power and the people as a whole
who are represented by Obama
and so forth in my view.
And we shall whether the senate
of ancient Rome was any
more effective at dealing
with its enemies than the
senate of-- well not the senate,
but the [inaudible]
of the United States.
We shall see.
And I've got I can take
in terms of climate policy
that the United States actually
are doing reasonably well
despite the-- what you
might read about the House
and Congress are
saying a climate change
or many members saying
climate change doesn't exist
and so forth.
The U.S. has its own target
for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions,
which is 17 percent below 2005
levels by 2020 and they're
on track to achieve that.
They've actually done quite a
lot in the way of regulation,
particularly for their
fuel efficiency standards
and so forth, which have,
which have really helped.
And the-- in California, which
is a very major economy you know
in its own right is going
to start an emissions
trading scheme this year
or no next year, sorry 2012.
So-- and that will also help
with the national efforts.
So, I'm not worried about
U.S. or Canada or any
of those countries failing to
meet their obligations under,
the Copenhagen Accord.
I think they're all on track
to do it regardless of the sort
of federal policies
of the thing.
>> Tim this is a bit of a naive
economic question in a way.
But, what frustrates
myself and a lot
of other peers is big efforts
to invest money into the economy
to solve the crises or
to stimulate our economy.
Do you-- I just wanted
to sound out.
How do you feel about
the billions of dollars
that might get invested now on
technologies or economic things
that are clearly not
going to last very long
in a transition economy when
we finally accept that fate
and innovate towards
that direction
where the new economy will be?
It's a lot of money.
People are wasting
trillions of dollars.
Will we still have
that kind of capital
to make the necessary
investments
and stuff in the future?
>> Wow, quite a-- I'm not enough
of an economist to even answer
that in the most kind of I
don't know, ineffectual of ways.
It seems to me that you
know if you restrict things
to the energy sector, which
I do know a little bit about
and think about future
investments in energy.
They're inherently risky
because electricity itself is a
generic product.
I mean if you just
move back and forth
on your seat you'll generate
some static electricity.
There's a million
ways of doing it.
And yet companies are
investing billions of dollars
in large plant or have to,
to meet our future needs.
So, what those companies
really need in order
to minimize the risk of their
investments is a very solid
regulatory framework
and policy framework
within which to do that.
And that comes about through
bipartisan support usually.
That's what-- when we travel
around as the Climate
Commissioner
of Australia talking to industry
that's what they say they
require, the sort of
certainty that comes
with bipartisan support.
And the mandated renewable
energy target is a great example
of that where both sides
of politics have supported are
the mandated renewable energy
targets are 20 percent
of our energy coming
from renewable resources.
And we've seen a
number of examples
as the Climate Commission
traveling around Australia
of companies, which have
been able to really benefit
from building infrastructure
given that policy certainty
and a five percent likewise.
So, real-- it's really it's
very useful I think for industry
to see that the bipartisan
support for that sort of thing.
So, in terms of managing risk,
which I guess is what you're
about in picking winners
you know that sort
of policy certainty
is important I think.
>> [inaudible comments]
>> [inaudible] isn't it.
>> Ah yes.
My name's Richard and you
spoke in your presentation
about the Copenhagen
climate accord and--
Copenhagen Accord and the
reductions that were required.
But, that they are
mostly voluntary.
That there is-- countries
could choose.
And you said Australia
chose five percent by that
and that various gas
processing and coal mining
and other resource
developments were going
to lift our emissions
even higher so that they--
we'll actually need to
reduce by 30 percent.
>> Uh huh.
>> But, where-- how are
we going to then achieve
that if our resources
projects are allowed
to go full steam ahead
because of economic imperatives
when environmental
imperative's put
on the back burner as it were?
Thank you.
>> Well, look, the legislation
that's just passed the House has
been crafted to achieve
that target,
that target with
bipartisan support.
So, we'll have to see whether
it does achieve it or not,
but that's what the
government's promised.
The opposition likewise
has promised
that its climate
policy will deliver
that five percent target, yeah.
So, then that takes into account
all of the growth and so forth
that we're seeing in the
economy and the gas boom
and all the rest of it.
So, that the-- you know
the policies are there.
You know I see no
reason to doubt
that they won't achieve
what they've set up.
But, we'll know in
eight years' time,
before eight years'
time actually.
But, that's all you can.
No, no one can predict
the future, you know.
>> [inaudible comments]
down here.
[ Silence ]
>> [inaudible] just
wanted to thank you
for your amazing contribution
over the last few years
in this public role
that you've taken on
and how important
it's been for us
to have and-- yeah [inaudible].
[ Applause ]
>> You've obviously
got some support here.
But, it has been tough and
you must have experienced some
pretty trying times.
I remember the Alan
Jones interview
that they put you through.
So, I was just wondering about
some of your inside stories.
It seems to me there are some
amazing heroes out there,
the two independents and what
they did to get that through.
And now it's all-- we're getting
it all developed into a--
you know mainstream institutions
and some of which you are part
of and you're out
talking to the community.
I just wonder have we really
passed through that peak
and are we really
getting onto it now?
Are we-- are the captains
of industry adjusting?
Are the-- is the community
accepting that we're now
into the real business?
>> Yeah. Look Peter
thanks for that.
I mean what we've,
what we've got is a--
there's a national cap now,
right, so that the legislation
and the efforts everyone is
developing is around a reduction
of five percent below
2000 levels.
That's the national cap.
That's the thing that
everything else works to.
So, we should be
able to achieve that.
As I go-- as we go around
Australia we see all sorts
of attitudes really
from industry.
There's a lot of fear out
there in the community.
There's-- my local
postmaster for example,
said to me you know recently,
"Oh I don't know how I'm going
to pay this carbon tax."
And I said, "Michael you're
not going to have to."
It's not you.
It's about 400 of the big
emitters that need to pay.
But, people, some people
think they still have to pay
that carbon tax themselves.
From an industry perspective
I've found that some
of the smaller industries
are particularly fearful
because they don't know
what it means for them.
And that's fair enough isn't it?
If you're running a dry
cleaners or a fish and chip shop
or something you know its--
you don't know what
that impact's going
to be so you fear it.
And I suppose that's
something that's just going
to be sorted through time.
But, when we get to the larger
industries our interactions
with them suggest
that you know a lot
of them have done due
diligence and have done the work
and see opportunities
as well as the costs.
One of the great
examples is here
in Western Australia actually
is Sealcoa I think it is,
the seal-- the silicone smelter,
which is the single-- yes.
>> Simcoa.
>> Simcoa, thank you, yeah,
which is the single most carbon
intensive business in Australia.
And we had a meeting in
Bunbury a couple of months ago
and a business breakfast.
And there was a number of
people expressing how bad it was
and how difficult
it was going to be
to cope with this carbon tax.
And the representative from
Simcoa stood up and just said,
"Actually we see some real
advantages in this for us.
We can see how we can
actually reduce our emissions
and use our waste heat streams
and so forth much
more effectively
under this legislation
than we could before."
So, the sort of what
we're hearing
from the community is
very varied on this,
but some surprising
areas of support.
And just on the small scale one
of the things that astonished me
when we went down to Bunbury
was meeting two dairy farmers
who came up to me after I had
given a talk and said, "Well,
you know we're electricity
generators now."
And I said, "Oh yeah
is that right.
What do you do?"
They said, "Well, we use
waste from the dairy process
to generate 1.4 megawatts
of electricity
and we've got long
term forward contracts
to sell into the grid."
So, they have transformed their
business giving it a long term
reliable income stream that it
might not otherwise have had.
And that sort of thing has come
about through I think the
mandated renewable energy
target, you know the bipartisan
support for that sort of thing.
So, I've been surprised as I've
gone around the country at the--
what we've encountered in terms
of people, where they stand
in terms of addressing
climate change.
>> Oh yeah.
>> There's a question back here.
[ Silence ]
>> Yeah Tim my name's
Dominic Carlino.
Tim you mentioned
before that you believe
that democratisation was an
important step along the way.
>> Um huh.
>> I was just wondering
does include China as well
or do you see China as a
separate sort of entity?
And you know what your thoughts
are on how China is contributing
to the action required
to deal with [inaudible].
>> Sure, yeah.
Well, in terms of the
climate issue China is doing
exceptionally well.
They've taken a leadership
position in several areas.
You know the government or
the governance in China is
through really these
technocrats I suppose,
members of the Communist
Party who are often engineers
or who have a good
understanding of these things.
And they have got some
really good support.
There's-- I remember being
tremendously impressed two years
ago when a Chinese bureaucrat
called [inaudible] produced a
report called, "The
true cost of coal,"
which was a very
penetrating look
at what coal is actually costing
China, which got a run in,
"The People's Daily"
and so forth.
So, clearly the party
itself sees itself sees its
self-interest served by
addressing climate change.
And to be honest with you I
think why is the Communist Party
doing that?
It's in their self-interest.
It's in their survival interest.
China's got a lot of
environmental problems.
There's opportunities
in renewable energy
so clearly addressing
this is important.
They have pledged a minus
45 percent reduction
in the emissions intensity,
which is very important
to get them on the road.
And I should just explain
that to you is when I talk
about emissions is
intentionally.
A lot of people think
it's not quite so good.
But, energy demand in China
is insatiable, you know.
And there's a vast
number of people there.
There's-- the renewable energy
resources are not as great
as in a place like Australia
and they're struggling
to just make things work.
The global architecture of this
deal to stay below two degrees
of warming, really
it's an informal thing,
but it looks a bit like this.
The developed countries pledge
to turn their emissions
trajectory downwards this decade
and Australia's on track to
do that as the U.S. and Canada
and Europe's already done it.
And that'll give enough headroom
for the large developing
economies
to start turning their emissions
trajectory down in the decade
after and then the rest
of the world follows
between then and 2050.
So, it's a sort of coordinated.
People understand where
the give and take has to be
in this sort of thing.
But, you know having said
that China is changing the
world in other ways too.
They're development
of the PV industry
of [inaudible] tanks
has been extraordinary.
I mean you know using Australian
intellectual property really
they've developed this massive
vertically integrated industry
that's seen the price
of [inaudible] tanks
half in the last year.
And if you follow that out,
if you think about what
that might mean two or three
decades from now you know I--
my mind goes to a world where
solar panels are so cheap
that poor farmers in
sub-Saharan Africa can buy some
to desalinate water
and grow crops you know
in dry areas near the coast.
You know we don't know
where this will lead.
But, I just-- I've got a
gut feeling that these sort
of industries being
pioneered at the large scale
in China are going to
be transformational.
[ Silence ]
>> Tim, Bruce Ivers is my name.
And I have three
children in high school.
So, I'm thinking what sort of--
what are two or three things
that you can say to us that
we could get the high schools
to do, influence the kids to do,
which will be important
for their future?
>> Well, I find the kids just--
they're the dynamo for me.
Whenever I go, young
people understand this issue
and are engaged with it.
And some of them
are scared by it,
but a lot of them
particularly in the upper levels
of high school see real
opportunities in it.
And when I ask people what
sort of jobs they're going
to take a lot of them
are thinking of jobs
in the green sector
whether it'll be engineering
or whatever that is.
And clearly it's going
to be an area of growth.
How we prepare them for that
is a really good question.
And I don't pretend to have
all of the answers to that.
But, I think some familiarity
with well the politics
of the situation.
We need to teach kids
that sort of stuff.
I think we need to
teach them ethics.
I think that's a
really important thing.
And help them to prosper
in this globalised world
that they've entered
really before we have.
You know I noticed with children
if you follow the trajectory
of my family it's interesting.
My dad and mum, well my
mum didn't travel overseas
until she was 60 years old
and I took her on a holiday
when she retired from work.
Myself and my sister took away
to Ireland for three weeks.
I went overseas first
when I was 26,
but that was only
Papua, New Guinea.
My son first traveled
and daughter traveled
when they were eight and
10 to the United States.
And my son went off to China at
the age of 18 to teach English.
So, he speaks Mandarin now.
He's got a global web of
friends that I never had.
You know I had to write letters,
pen pals when I was younger.
And so they have entered this
globalised world before we have
in all of the challenges,
the ethical and political
and economic challenges I
think are much more transparent
to them then to us.
But, yeah that's where my
hope at least resides is
in those kids you know
taking up the challenge.
>> Tim, Greg McClenan.
Your comment about North Africa
was particularly interesting.
And my mind went to that
transition I think you were
talking about to democracy.
How do you deal in
that tradition
with the rising [inaudible]
fundamentalism
and the political instability
that possibly will bring?
>> Well, I grew up in a world
as a Catholic where my mother
and women weren't allowed to go
into the church without a hijab,
without a covering on
their head, where we fasted
for 40 days during Lent.
Yeah so you recognise
some of it yeah, right.
That wasn't that long ago
actually where the mass was
in Latin, where you
know it was, right.
So, we fool ourselves to
think that we are part
of a long standing
liberal tradition.
We're not.
The religious tradition
in our countries is deep
and fundamental and has
only very recently changed.
It was only in 1967 that it
became legal for or it became--
sorry, the sodomy laws in
Britain were dropped, you know.
This is-- these are
recent developments.
So, when we go preaching to
the Arab world that they've got
to be more tolerant
and all of this sort
of stuff I think we need to look
at our history a little bit
more carefully, you know.
And if you look at--
I mean to me Islam
and Christianity they're
brother religions.
They're very, very close.
And in Tunisia now to see you
know an Islamic party doing well
at the elections is like the
Christian Democrats in Germany
for me, right so the
same sort of thing,
right, the Christian party.
They have an Islamic party.
It's a very broad church.
I'm not denying that there's
fanatics there or whatever,
but we need to just take a
step back I think and look
at that evolution in the
context of our own history.
And remember that those
people are Visigoths, yeah.
They came and they were the
barbarians who invaded Europe
and many of them and
went settled Rome
and North Africa, alright.
So, they can't-- we share a
very you know common heritage.
[ Silence ]
>> Yeah.
>> [inaudible]
>> Hi Tim.
My name's Simon Pendle.
I'm an architect.
It's fantastic that you mention
the words ethics and fairness.
And to that I was wondering
if I could add the word beauty
and another, which
I don't really--
I'm not familiar with
that and that's marketing.
And I'm interested in
suburban Australia.
I'm interested in
urbanised Australia.
And it seems to me that there's
a marketing problem and that is
in respect to small
and humble living.
Workers cottages are
fantastic buildings.
They're small.
They're compact yet they
have a sense of generosity.
They're buildings that
many people despite leaving
if they have the chance
rather than living in mansions
with boats and four wheel
drives and all the [inaudible]
that goes with those
sorts of things.
And I'm just wondering if
there's a marketing problem
in this country or many
developed countries
around the idea of living small
and living humbly and living
with gardens and so
forth, but generously?
>> Well, it's a choice
that we make isn't it.
We-- I think that we
are recently reached--
this is my own personal view.
I mean my parent's generation
weren't wealthy, you know.
I remember when television
came, when we got our first car,
you know when we got our
first washing machine
and all this sort
of stuff, right.
And among the newly reached
people tend to use the baubles
that signify wealth
as a way of trying
to impress others, you know.
And that passes with the
generations in my view.
I think you see it in China
today on an extreme scale,
the newly rich Chinese you
know love to buy bottles
of very expensive French
wine and you know kind
of basically waste them
as we might see it.
But, the important thing is
the social message you send
by buying a 1000
bottle, dollar bottle
of wine with friends, yeah.
It's not the only way
to organise a society.
We know that from our
own European tradition.
I mean many princes
are in Europe
in the medieval period
would give money to,
give money to monasteries and
so forth and build churches,
universities or whatever
else is a display of wealth.
So, giving it away
is an important way
of signalling you've made it.
In India, of course, the
traditions are even more extreme
where wealthy people, princes
and so forth would
follow the water.
You know would give--
renounce everything.
I mean Gandhi was-- is
a great example of that.
And this recent fellow in
India who's done the same sort
of thing, but who has
gone on a hunger strike
to rid the country
of corruption.
It's an extraordinary
phenomenon in my view.
And I don't think it's
beyond us to take examples
from those other cultures
and from our own history
and to look at-- to sort of
separate out the social status
from the display of it and
how we actually display it
and what we do-- what
we think's valuable.
Now, so someone in
India in a loincloth
like Gandhi is ultimately
the most respected
and honoured person.
>> Yeah.
>> And that shouldn't be--
perhaps for us such things
are not even possible.
>> [inaudible]
>> Tim, Steve Luck.
You mentioned [inaudible]
feeding the energy grid.
Any thoughts on these sort
of ideas that we've been
so successful with both
federal and state schemes
that they've all been
sort of withdrawn
or canceled in this country?
I can't quite get
my head around as
to why the reasons
would that be.
And can [inaudible] make
a big enough difference?
>> Yeah, look I'm no
expert in that area.
But, what I do see is
the impacts of change
and constantly changing
policy on the industry
so it becomes a boom
and bust industry.
You know there's hundreds
of people employed one day
and there's no one
employed the next,
which really affects the quality
of the industry and the quality
of installations and so forth.
And I can sympathise with some
of the state government
initiatives
because you know the price of
[inaudible] has been falling
so steeply that if you've got
a fixed feeding tariff it can
easily become too lucrative and
we saw that in New South Wales.
You know where it
became too lucrative
and therefore an
unfair impost was put
on everyone else who
didn't have them.
So, it's a delicate
balancing act.
But, clearly Europe's done
it far better than us.
You know if you look at
Germany is a great example.
I mean the best spot for
sunlight in Germany is worse
than the worst spot
in Australia,
which is the West Coast of
Tasmania, right, which is.
And yet they have gigawatts of
the stuff out there as a result
of very good and
proactive government policy.
>> I'm sorry.
>> I might use the
[inaudible] one more question.
You know the talk was about
population and as well
and climate in the title.
At the last election, of
course, there was a discussion
at the big Australia idea.
Do we want a big
Australia or not?
>> Well, I mean that's a--
it's a good question and I
can't give a clear answer
to it beyond saying that we
live in a globalised world now.
And is it feasible
for any nation
to close its borders given that
we've got a globalised economy
and a globalised world.
I mean that's a question
for Australians
to contemplate I think.
Can we live sustainably?
Well, you know we're plugged
into a globalised economy.
We bring everything you
know from the outside
and we send everything,
you know elsewhere.
I think that those
issues they're--
it's a bit like the issue
of the boat people really.
And you know there's the tail
wagging the dog, you know.
A few thousand people come
to this country taking
up so much political oxygen
when the common interest
of all Australians is
best served by dealing
with the global population
problem given we live
in a globalised world.
The-- to me the debate should be
about how big should
our contribution be
to lifting the poorest
people out of poverty
and providing family
planning for them
and education for women.
How big a stake should
we have in that?
That's the debate that
should be taking the oxygen.
>> Okay on behalf of everybody
Tim it's been a great education
to have you here and we've
all enjoyed it immensely.
And I'm sure everybody
would join with me
in saying thanks very
much to Tim Flannery.
[ Applause ]
[ Music ]
[ Silence ]
