Scare tactics
Campaigning is well and truly under way for the Earth Summit, the 30,000-delegate, $125 million-budget United Nations Conference on Environment and Development scheduled for Rio de Janeiro in June. Big business is throwing money and resources into trying to convince people that jobs and the environment are incompatible.
The February 14 Business Review Weekly fired the most recent shot with a six-page feature arguing that the greenhouse effect doesn't matter that much and Australian government representatives shouldn't sign an international agreement to cut greenhouse emissions.
Its argument is based partly on Australian exceptionalism: Australia is unusually dependent on fossil fuels because of limited possibilities for hydro power and the absence of nuclear power. Around 90% of our electricity is generated from coal, making us the world's largest per capita greenhouse gas producer (though a small population means that this is still less than 2% of the world total).
We can expect to hear plenty more of such rubbish in coming months. Around the world, powerful forces are already doing all they can to ensure that nothing useful comes out of the summit, and BRW and its ilk can be depended on to pick over the latest droppings of international right-wing "think"-tanks. That's a lot cheaper than getting down to the task of developing renewable energy alternatives such as solar, wind and wave power.
To back their message, the do-nothing lobby is also touting a "study" by the London Economics group (released, coincidentally, by BHP chairman Brian Loton) claiming that the Australian steel, aluminium and steaming coal export industries will go to the wall if they are forced to comply with targets set by a 1988 international conference in Toronto. The Toronto conference agreed to aim for greenhouse emissions 20% lower than those of 1988 by 2005. Already, some international industries have begun working towards this goal by energy saving and other cost-effective measures, but Australian industry appears determined to cling to the most backward international trends.
Scare tactics are the main weapon of big business in this dishonest campaign. Preserving a livable environment does mean changing direction, but it does not mean mass unemployment or dramatically lower living standards. Green groups have developed many viable proposals for job creation and job replacement in industries that are not sustainable. Of course, a privileged few would suffer as a result of such proposals: the publishers and most of the readers of the Business Review Weekly would have to get used to living more like the rest of us!