Flood recovery: Make the polluters pay

Over the course of one month, Australia has seen a series of major flood events in Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania.

Early estimates put the recovery bill at about $10 billion. But the ABC reported on January 18 far higher estimates.

AMP chief economist Shane Oliver’s figure was $30 billion, with a projected $13 billion cut in Australia’s March quarter gross domestic product.

The ABC noted: “Under natural disaster arrangements, the Commonwealth picks up 75 per cent of the relief and recovery tab.”

The question of who will pay for the damage wrought by the floods is largely already answered by this figure. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced a combination of cuts to public spending and a levy on wage earners.

Gillard has backed away from making the levy a regressive flat-rate tax, but the public spending cuts include most of the government’s already inadequate schemes for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate scientists have long predicted more frequent and severe extreme weather events due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. However, those daring to state this in the aftermath of the floods have been pilloried by media, politicians and business.

The worst public grilling was reserved for Greens leader Bob Brown, who on January 17 suggested a mining super profits tax be implemented with half to be set aside for national disaster relief.

"It is unfair that the cost is put on all taxpayers, not the culprits," Brown said.

Brown was swiftly and loudly attacked.

Minerals Council of Australia deputy chief Brendan Pearson accused Brown of “rank opportunism”.

“Senator Brown should be condemned for putting his party's political fortunes ahead of the interests of the people of Queensland,” he said.

The January 17 Australian quoted heads of the Minerals Council, Xstrata and Macarthur Coal attacking Brown with cries of “disgrace”, “political posturing”, “contempt for the flood victims” and more.

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said: “It’s a time of pulling together, not pointing the finger.”

Much as it may disquiet fossil fuel company executives and their allies in government, “pointing the finger” is now more crucial than ever if we are to avoid far worse consequences of a warming planet.

Many in the scientific and activist communities are discussing what approaches can best target the real climate culprits.

Such discussions must take place alongside a discussion of who picks up the tab for the climatic instability already set in train since the industrial revolution.

As one-in-100-year events become far more frequent, with rising ocean temperatures producing more intense rainfall, especially in Australia’s north, the “emergency measures” outlined by the federal government are likely to become fixtures of fiscal policy.

With no Labor or Liberal government willing to point the finger at the big greenhouse gas emitters, working people, as always, are the soft target and our public wealth is the easiest to draw from.

The ALP’s attacks on Brown’s comments cement a long-held position of zero criticism in relation to the fossil fuel industry’s role and responsibilities, and climate change.

Such deafening silence might lead one to believe that the government shares the views of climate denialism common in the federal opposition.

But is this the case?

A fact sheet on the federal Department of Climate Change website asks, “Can the warming of the 20th century be explained by natural processes?” and answers with a resounding “no”.

It goes on to say that “almost all of the climate indicators show that climate change during the late 20th century is consistent with greenhouse gas increases”.

In a long list of “observed climate changes” are increases in atmospheric moisture content, shifts in the patterns of rainfall over land, more heavy precipitation events and more of the most intense tropical cyclones.

Indeed, the government has committed $126 million to a “climate change adaptation program” studying climate impacts on coastal regions, biodiversity and world heritage areas.

In November 2010, the Queensland government released the key outcomes of its Inland Flooding Study in a report titled Increasing Queensland's Resilience to Inland Flooding in a Changing Climate.

It notes that “with our changing climate, flooding events are likely to become more frequent and more intense” and “proposes a 5 per cent increase in rainfall intensity per degree of global warming”.

The report also advises local governments to factor into their “adaptation” planning temperature rises of 2ºC by 2050, 3ºC by 2070 and 4ºC by 2100.

Warming is now about 0.8ºC above pre-industrial levels and scientists have projected catastrophic climate impacts at or above 2ºC.

Governments are not the only ones to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change.

Even mining giants have publicly acknowledged the relationship between increasing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

So why the silence now?

Silence must be maintained regarding the culpability of government and industry for dangerous climate change if a fundamental tenet of capitalist growth is to be maintained — the externalisation of environmental costs.

This tenet collapses if fossil fuel corporations are forced to bear the true cost of their activities.

Martin Ferguson’s “pulling together” is code for ordinary working people paying for the environmental vandalism of the fossil fuel industry.

It is incumbent upon the grassroots climate movement and all progressive political forces to fight to make those responsible for the problem pay to fix it.