On global warming

I  haven’t written in a little while because I have been quite busy with organising things for a change in job (location, not career) and also some personal difficulties which I won’t go into just yet. But I have managed to give myself 2 weeks off work to just settle the pace in the last few months, and I have been watching some mostly mind-numbing television but also some interesting stories. One that particularly surprised me was a debate on nuclear versus fossil fuel derived energy. Here’s the link if anyone is interested in watching it.

What I found particularly interesting about the debate on fossil fuels versus nuclear energy are the premises and assumptions the debate (for both sides) are founded on. You see, every debate argues that one “thing” is better than the opponent’s “thing”, but there is also common ground – there has to be. So one opponent may say, for example, “I’m trying to do the most just thing for everyone and this ‘thing’ I represent is better for justice than the thing that my opponent is backing. The other opponent goes and makes the same argument, but proposes his thing is better for justice. The debate is interesting and relevant because it focuses on a common ground: justice. And you know what I found interesting in this fossil-fuel vs. nuclear energy debate? That the common ground that both parties were intent on protecting was climate change. Yes, here were big energy industry representatives arguing that they wish to protect the environment, prevent further climate change / global warming, and therefore nuclear energy is bad. On the opposite side of the debate were nuclear energy proponents arguing that they wish to protect the environment, prevent further climate change / global warming, and therefore fossil-fuel energy is bad (and also that other non-fossil-fuel energies are non-viable). I was fascinated not by the points of argument each team debated, but that suddenly global warming and climate change was a given, not the point of argument itself. No one was debating whether climate change was real in and of itself!

In political and legislative forums, the existence of this concept of global warming is negated by representatives of the fossil fuel industry. Now, in a debate whether on whether nuclear energy or fossil fuel energy is worse, global warming and climate change is taken as a fact – and the people arguing these both these things are almost the same people. That is what I find quite interesting. Environmentalists get invited to these events to present the debate on behalf of nuclear power companies, mining companies, and “green energy” companies (which are usually owned by the mining companies themselves). Of course, for the sake of arguments such as this, all the types of energy companies claim to have one thing at heart: the environment. In reality we all know that thing at the heart of any company are monetary profits. I mean, that is exactly the reason why mining companies invest heavily in “green energy”: because if the market happens to shift and “green energy” becomes more profitable than fossil-fuel energy, then you want to be the guy that owns this market already...

It’s all nice and interesting, but now I’m more confused. Is global warming considered a real thing or not in Australian politics? If so, then what are we (including the energy industry and other big carbon emitters) doing about it? If not, why not if even the energy industry can at times concede that it is a real thing?