I

n Watching Brief Julian

Burnside writes that democracy

depends on honest politicians.

People vote for a politician or a

party who they think will best

represent their views and interests.

When the media lets politicians get

away with misleading voters about

the impact (or intent) of their

policies, the democratic process is

compromised. When that deception

involves an issue as serious as

climate change, the consequences

could be catastrophic.

Most informed people are calling

for leadership, and for governments

to take whatever action is required to

avert dangerous global warming.

While governments realise they need

to appear to be doing something to

address climate change, they are

frozen by fear of voter backlash if

they are seen to be compelling any

unwelcome changes in individual

behaviour. Governments' usual

response to these conflicting

pressures has been to put a lot of

effort into generating an image of

environmental credibility, a bit of

effort into mitigation efforts, and

minimal practical action to actually

change behaviours and reduce

emissions.

As a result, governments are

repackaging standard budgetary

items as climate change initiatives.

Without a system of environmental

accrual accounting, such as triple

bottom line, it is difficult for voters to

judge the proportion of expenditure

actually aimed at addressing climate

change. By measuring and

anticipating the social,

environmental and financial

consequences of policy and

investment decisions, triple bottom

line accounting would enable us to

escape from the greenwash spin

cycle by providing credible measures

of climate change expenditure and

benefits.

In the ACT, more than $100million

of the $242million in government

expenditure purportedly aimed at

climate change will in reality be

spent on keeping large and largely

empty buses on the road. Are we

meant to believe that without climate

change, Canberra would not have a

public transport system? It is ironic

that the latest ACTION Network Plan

fails to identify where park 'n' ride

and bike locker facilities are located,

as these are initiatives which could

genuinely be booked as climate

change expenditure.

A half-hearted attempt was even

made to portray road building as a

climate change measure, on the basis

that better roads reduce congestion

and hence emissions. In reality,

building roads encourages private

car use and increases total emissions.

Tree-planting programs, which were

originally promoted as water

catchment, tourism or beautification

measures, have been repackaged as

carbon sequestration initiatives,

without any acknowledgement of the

emissions involved in maintaining

them.

For example, the international

arboretum will require massive

earthworks, chemical inputs and

pumping of water. Carbon capture

figures reported in the media only

apply to mature trees, and many

species are in any case inappropriate

for carbon sequestration purposes.

When these trees die, from disease,

drought or fires, the carbon

contained in their bodies will be

released, negating any long-term

carbon offsets.

In some ways, carbon offsets are

the modern equivalent of religious

indulgences, as individuals and

governments continue their high

ecological and greenhouse footprint

lifestyles and practices, while doing

penance by funding tree-planting

projects.

I'm not suggesting that a more

effective public transport system,

urban tree planting and more

efficient watering systems aren't

desirable responses to climate

change. They are. But they should

primarily appear on the books as

urban services and infrastructure

expenditure.

Most greenhouse gas emissions in

the ACT come from our heavy and

increasing demand for electricity

(and gas) to heat, cool and light

buildings, and our transport system.

There is a big difference between

adaptation measures like efficient

watering systems, mitigation

measures like planting trees, and

reduction measures like retrofitting

existing buildings with better

insulation and solar hot water, and

intelligent urban design which

maximises solar access, minimises

energy demand and reduces reliance

on private vehicles. This is the ''low

hanging fruit'' that the Greens have

been urging governments to pick.

These initiatives could be funded

by long-term bond issues, repaid out

of savings from reduced energy

expenditures. This would be one

debt future generations might

actually thank us for. As it is, rising

energy demand for air-conditioners

alone (to compensate for foolish and

inefficient urban design and building

codes) threatens to swamp the

meagre emission reductions we've

achieved to date.

Despite British economist

Nicholas Stern warning that climate

change may be the greatest case of

market failure in human history,

government superannuation and

investment portfolios are still

determined solely by risk-return

calculations. Coal, oil and uranium

investments eclipse holdings in solar,

geothermal or wind power, and we

still profit from the destruction of

native forests and the sale of

cigarettes and cluster bombs.

The climate change benefits of

buying slightly more efficient buses

pale to insignificance beside the

impact of investing billions of dollars

without considering any

consequences other than financial

returns. The impacts of global

warming are accelerating. If

governments continue making

unprincipled and ultimately

irrational investment decisions, no

amount of greenwash will hide the

consequences of their failures.

Dr Deb Foskey is the ACT Greens Member

for Molonglo.