CONFUSED by the debate on climate change? You're not the only one, says XAVIER DUFF

Is it just me or is any one else confused and dazed after the last few weeks of debate over climate change and the emission trading scheme?

The issue has been politicised, polarised and spun harder than a Shane Warne flipper so it is difficult to know where the reality starts and the fantasies finish.

What is the average punter to make of it all? Let's just rewind the tape a bit and recap.

Some years ago scientists alerted us to a disturbing rise in global temperatures as a result of the aptly named greenhouse effect.

Gases - predominantly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels but also methane from animals - were trapping heat, like the glass panels in a greenhouse, causing ice caps to melt and the weather to change.

Now I emphasise scientists - not former US vice presidents, not business leaders, not celebrities - came up with the global warming theory.

And scientists pretty much don't have a reason to make things up.

I don't recall anyone doubting them when they said in the 1980s that the gas in refrigerators and spray cans had caused a hole in the ozone layer exposing us to damaging UV radiation.

I don't remember anyone saying it was a corporate conspiracy to make us buy new fridges.

But the greenhouse theory has been a different kettle of fish.

This time scientists, the one profession least motivated by politics are being dismissed by some as hoaxers and fraudsters or worse - socialists.

One of the whackier theories from climate change sceptics is that global warming is a socialist conspiracy to form a world government and tax us into the dark ages.

Somewhere along the way some people have given up their faith in science.

True, there are some scientists who don't agree on global warming. But they are a minority.

Call me irrational or superstitious but when 90 per cent of the world climate experts agree on something, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The conservative in me suggests I take an each way bet. Hope for the best but plan for the worst. That is what rational human beings do.

One needs to be careful about mixing up the politics of the current ETS debate and the bigger picture of climate change.

Make no mistake, the current debate in the Coalition is not about whether or not climate change exists - it is about something far less important - political egos clashing in a petty battle for party leadership.

Keep in mind too that both ends of the political spectrum are against the ETS.

The scheme apparently is both a massive tax fraud that will bankrupt the nation - the coalition's spin - and so weak and watered down to be next to useless - the Greens' spin.

That suggests that somehow on balance the ETS might be just about right.

Be careful too about claims from those who stand to lose the most as we move to a low-carbon economy - the oil and coal sectors.

It is understandable they want to protect their interests.

But farmers should have little sympathy for that position. Farmers have had to deal with competitive markets for ever, told they must become more productive, adjust to a changing world and all that.

Well now it's the turn of energy markets to adjust. Yes, jobs will be lost from those sectors.

But there are potentially thousands of new business opportunities waiting in the wings and thousands more new jobs that will flourish from reducing carbon emissions.

Here's just one small example. A study by the Central Highland Agribusiness Forum found that if you collected all the waste material generated within 80km of Ballarat - household rubbish and green waste, forest thinnings and the like - and used it to fuel a local power station, it would provide at least a third and possibly up to half the region's energy, all renewable, all replacing coal-fired power.

Even if they are only half right it is still a staggering reduction in greenhouse gases - and all with existing technology.

Of course no one denies that change on the scale needed will cost us.

But what is the alternative?

Do nothing and hope like hell the science is wrong and that everything will be all right?

There is a chance that could be the case.

But who is confident enough a punter to bet their children's future on it?

  • Xavier Duff is a senior Weekly Times reporter