Event Report – A debate on climate action

On the day the Clean Energy Act was passed in the Australian Senate, 8 November 2011, an Oxford-style debate discussing whether any action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by Australia is irrelevant until there is a significant global agreement for action that includes China, India and the USA was held as a highlight of the CarbonExpo conference in Melbourne.

A central theme to the CarbonExpo 2011 was the link of Australia’s carbon market to its overseas counterparts. Debating whether the hotly discussed price on carbon will actually deliver a curb on carbon emissions was not only very timely, but it also provided participants an opportunity to challenge some of the conventional wisdoms in this space.

The debate featured Australian and European carbon experts and was chaired by Jack Whelan from Flora & Fauna. The affirmative team consisted of Anna Skarbek, ClimateWorks Australia; Anthony Hobley, Norton Rose Australia; and James Cameron, Climate Change Capital. The negative team brought together Mina Guli, Peony Capital; Martijn Wilder, Baker & MacKenzie; and Geoff Sinclair from Standard Bank.

The negative team started off with pointing out conventional wisdom tells us that Australia is only a very small economy that – even though it has very high per capita emissions only contributes to 1.5% of global emissions. James Cameron asked if it would not be better to fight climate change where it matters, such as countries like the US, China and India, which are the highest polluters. A come back to that argument was that there is in fact action in these countries: smart grids are being implemented, regional trading schemes exist and renewable energy projects already eclipse Australia’s wildest dreams.

The affirmative kicked off by arguing that Australia’s actions are relevant and that the country needs to go through an economic transformation for a “life after mining.” The affirmative team brought out the heavy guns with a singing intermission, showcasing “Australia you’re so vain – thinking carbon markets are about you” and stating many examples where carbon markets are already working and expanding at a high speed, once again strengthening the point that wheels have already been set in motion overseas – where the small contribution of Australian reductions won’t matter much.

The negative team pointed out that by being an early mover on climate action, Australia will create “future-proof” jobs and technology and know-how that can be exported to other countries. Looking at the broader debate question, the affirmative team under James Cameron pointed out that it will be unlikely that we will have “a” global agreement” and that “countries and regions will move independently with or without a Kyoto Protocol predecessor.”

The negative side under Geoff Sinclair made a strong point debating that there is no legally binding agreement forcing individual countries to act. Without such an agreement market forces will dominate the fight against climate change, they said. The counties that will act first will get rewarded for it by building a stronger economy.

A thoughtful adjudication by Climate Friendly’s CEO Freddie Sharpe wrapped up an excellent, high caliber debate. After long deliberations Sharpe awarded the negative team the win after an excellent summary of the debate and an audience vote.