There was both good and bad news for climate change activists from the results of an ANU poll conducted last month into the environmental attitudes of Australians. The poll confirmed what has now become accepted wisdom in Australia that most of us believe global warming to be the most important problem facing the nation today and, encouragingly, it found a majority of people would be prepared to accept a lower standard of living, or pay higher prices in order to protect the environment.
But the poll also appeared to confirm what cynics have often maintained about individual attitudes to climate change: that is, while we might be in broad agreement with the need to combat climate change, we are resistant to taking action on an individual level. Indeed, the rapid growth in demand for electricity in Australia (and the low uptake of electricity generated from renewable sources) suggests we are downright reluctant to alter our personal consumption behaviour or to dig deeper into our pockets for the greater good of the environment.
The ANU poll found only 6per cent of Australians had bothered to reduce their car use for environmental reasons in a way both serious and sustained, with a further 15per cent claiming to have cut back on their car use ''often''. About 35 per cent said they had not bothered at all, and 34per cent said they cut back on their car use ''sometimes''.
More significantly, the poll found people prepared to pay higher taxes to protect the environment were in the minority: only 10 per cent of respondents said they would be ''very willing'' to have their tax take increased, with 36 per cent ''fairly willing''.
Most surprising, however, was the finding that only 54 per cent of Australians actually supported an emission trading scheme. Given the survey was conducted in September, before the full effects of the global financial crisis manifested themselves, support for such a scheme now is possibly even lower.
Such popular sentiment, combined with the dramatic economic downturn now being experienced in the world's major economies, might well persuade the Labor Government to defer its planned introduction of the scheme in 2010. A campaign to either delay the start of the scheme or to ensure the official carbon price remains at no more than $20 a tonne has been active since Labor came to power federally, but it has gathered momentum since the world's financial markets were enveloped by the United States subprime crisis.
The Business Council of Australia has been warning for some time that the scheme proposed by the Government's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, will result in businesses in energy-hungry sectors being forced to either shut down or to cut costs drastically to survive. That means job losses, the two words politicians fear most of all.
Two weeks ago, a big oil company told a meeting of Coalition MPs and senators that oil refining would cease in Australia if the carbon price rose from $20 a tonne (the initial price recommended by Garnaut) to $50 a tonne. Coincidentally, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull is now urging the Government to wait until 2011 before it gives any scheme the go-ahead.
It is easy to imagine federal cabinet succumbing to such pressure, the more so given Kevin Rudd's predilection for delaying or sugar-coating hard decisions. There was evidence of that in July (when oil prices were at their height) with the Government's decision to exempt transport fuels from an emission trading scheme.
With other governments around the world quite likely to cite fears of a recession as the reason to delay or downsize their commitment to climate mitigation strategies, Rudd has plenty of wriggle room if he should decide to delay matters. After all, Garnaut himself warned a 10per cent cut in emissions, by 2020, would be conditional on achieving an international agreement to stabilise carbon emissions at 550 parts per million, and he is on record as being doubtful that such an agreement can be negotiated at next year's Copenhagen climate conference.
That the Australian economy faces an uncertain outlook is not disputed. However, fears of a recession are probably exaggerated. The Economist is predicting that although real gross domestic product growth will slow this year to 2.6per cent, and again in 2009 to 2.1 per cent, it will pick up again the following year, suggesting that a 2010 start date for an emissions scheme is eminently feasible. What the Government must remember as it is being lobbied by rent-seekers is that business has known, since at least the time of the Kyoto protocol in 1997, that Australia and the rest of the world faced a carbon-constrained future, and that adaption, even if painful, could not be avoided. Delaying a scheme beyond 2010 might win Rudd some short-term popularity, but it will make the inevitable adjustment more painful and expensive. Timely introduction may well be the hardest decision that Rudd makes in his first term.