The Last Good-bye

"What we need to achieve, is to increase the production of these beneficial greenhouse gases, and reduce the amount of harmful gases that we discharge into the atmosphere. To do that we must find a sustainable clean energy source for our domestic and industrial use."

"This, in today's political climate is impossible."

"Let's face it, while countries continue to base their economies on the indiscriminate use of fossil fuels, they will not change. To them the cost of conversion is too high and they will lose their competitive edge. This has the roll-on effect of other countries having to buy their products from these countries. Consequently their industries will be forced to close down because they can no longer remain viable. When this happens the workforce in these countries will be reduced, as will the revenue that they can contribute to the support of those unable to work, similarly be reduced, forcing governments to make strategic cuts to the services that they are able to provide. The economies of those polluting countries that reap the economic benefit from ignoring the harmful effects of their production, will continue to grow, while the other countries' economies will continue to recede."

"So what is the answer? The first thing that governments should do, I'm not saying that it can do, or will do, is to ignore the various lobby groups that tell them that it is economically bad to mandate the installation of solar collectors on every new and existing house. The argument that is given is, that as soon as the installation of solar panels is mandated the costs will rise. That can be overcome at that time, by setting a benchmark figure on the supply and installation. But this is not the real reason for the opposition. The real reason is that, in Australia at least, the domestic energy consumer subsidises the industrial consumer, and if the energy providers did not have this subsidisation they will be forced to increase the cost to the industrial consumer, and this will reduce any competitive edge that they might still have. The other reason for their reluctance to this is self-preservation. If each householder can produce more energy than they use, and the industrial consumer sees the benefits of in-house energy production, at no cost except for the installation costs of the panels, they will switch, meaning that the energy providers will no longer be necessary, they will go broke."

"Think about it, in Australia, there are vast tracts of land that receive more sunny days than not. This land could be made available to create solar farms that can provide massive amounts of renewable energy, energy that is cheaper and more cost effective than the mining and consumption of fossil fuels. Then there is wind energy, expensive to install and the victim of environmental scare mongering over the death of native birds (not proven), electro-magnetic radiation (again not proven) and sub-sonic noise pollution (yet again not proven). It is an infinite resource that will be, over time, cheaper to produce than the mining and consumption of fossil fuels. There is geo-thermal energy, again, the infrastructure can be costly, but the energy is renewable and doesn't burn fossil fuels. Tidal energy is another possibility, and let's not forget the hydro-electricity production already in existence."

"So, why doesn't the government go down this path? The answer is, as always money. One of its greatest sources of revenue for the Australian government is a Mining Tax on resources, including the production of fossil fuels, coal and natural gas, for the domestic and export markets. Without these industries, the government will soon run out of money. As the average age of the population increases, it will find it harder to maintain a positive balance between taxation revenue and expenditure, and it will soon run out of money. The government will be caught between a rock and a very hard place, with very little wriggle room. Politicians of all persuasions realise that it would be a form of political suicide to go down that path."

"What we could do in Australia is to stop sending our raw materials, such as iron ore and bauxite, overseas for other countries to push through their fossil fuel powered smelters to be converted to steel and aluminium, and through their fossil fuel burning metal stamping presses to be made into cars that we buy from them. We need to value add our raw materials in our country before exporting it. We have the technology to run continuous production smelters, that could be powered by renewable energy, to produce the steel that we can then run through a metal stamping mill to produce every body panel for every car produced in the world. The waste steel from this process is then transported by conveyor belt back to the smelter, no waste product to dispose of. And because of the automated nature of this entire production cycle we will, by reducing the energy, labour and transport costs, and by applying the resultant economies of scale, be able to produce a product cheaper than countries that currently have, and use, cheap fossil fuels and a labour cost advantage."

"But this will never happen because the countries that are taking an economic advantage of the status quo will not release their hold on that advantage, regardless of what the rest of the world will say. All that I, and others like me, can do is to continue to evaluate the opportunities and possibilities and bring them to the attention of the world in the hope that sense will eventually prevail. In the mean time, find clean air where you can, and breathe deeply, because it's a finite resource. Find clean water where you can, and drink deeply of it, because it's a finite resource." I hit the button and my final image of a clear running stream in a pristine, sunny and cloud free environment appeared, and slowly faded to reveal a smog ridden industrial environment. "Thank you for listening to me." I switched the image off and unplugged my laptop, I left the stage before any of the delegates could respond, to prepare myself for the media shit-storm that was about to happen.

I was collared by George as I returned to my seat. "Are you prepared to face the music?"

"As prepared as I'll ever be."

"Don't sit down, the executioners await." We left to face the media barrage.

"Doctor Phillips, your presentation would suggest that you do not agree with the environmentalists that are leading the push for climate change, what do you say to that?"

"What I say is that all the rhetoric in the world, all the buzz words that leap from the mission statements from these conferences, will do little to change things. They focus on the immediate, the little things, and ignore the bigger picture, and that is that there are bigger forces involved in climate change than us mere mortals, and that we should take a leaf from the animals that have survived previous ice-ages and hot dry ages, and adapt to our environment."

"So you're saying that we should do nothing?"

"Is that what I said? No, what I said was that we should get serious about the things that we can change and learn to live with those that are historically inevitable. We are approaching the plateau of global warming and will shortly, in my lifetime, enter another period of below average mean temperatures. A lot has been made that the area of arctic ice is growing smaller each year and will soon disappear. Geological records show that a thousand years ago grain was being grown in Greenland. The Kyoto Protocol cannot be a treaty to regulate all greenhouse gases, because the main greenhouse gas H2O is not included. Motor vehicle exhausts, which have been singled out as a major cause of environmental pollution, contain harmless gases carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapour as well as pollutants such as carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and PM-10 (super fine particulate matter). A modern car's catalytic converter converts 95 percent of these polluting gases to Carbon Dioxide and water vapour. Smog is made up of ozone, sulphur dioxide and PM-10. China emits more sulphur dioxide than any other country and this causes acid rain (sulphuric acid) and acid rain kills people, plants and animals. This smog cloud has at times blanketed the whole of the Northern Hemisphere, but China will not agree to cut pollution, and while they maintain that stance, the little that the rest of the world can do is but a drop in the ocean."

"Minister, do you agree with Doctor Phillips' findings?"

"I don't have to agree with his findings. His brief was to look at Climate Control from an holistic viewpoint. My government has been accused of going soft on the climate. This is not true. We have decided that taking a populist approach, one that agrees with the common viewpoint, may gain us votes, but will achieve little, and that we should gain as much knowledge of Climate Science as we can before we commit ourselves to a programme for Climate Change. The previous government has, with its disastrous home insulation scheme, shown us what happens when you rush into do things just because they look good. Changing house design and construction to make them more thermally efficient, and to reduce the need for energy based heating and cooling, should be a priority in a country such as Australia, not expensive band-aid measures that barely cover the problem. I commend Doctor Phillips for his research and his presentation of his findings. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I cannot condemn him for raising these issues. I did not employ him to agree with me, I employed him to advise me." He has played his out clause', and with this he has not committed the government to acting on my findings, although he hasn't ruled it out, Typical politician.

"Doctor Phillips, on what do you base your assumption that we will soon experience below average temperatures?"

"Historically, when the carbon dioxide level rises the temperature cools. By using a gas chromatograph and measuring the levels of carbon dioxide that existed in polar ice, we have established that there is a link between high CO2 levels immediately preceding low temperatures."

"So, what you are saying is that these conferences are merely a group of people scaremongering, and that we have nothing to worry about?"

"I did not say that we have nothing to worry about. What we need to do is to gain a better understanding of the forces at play here, and modify how we inhabit this planet so that we make the smallest possible negative impact on it. Nature is our best teacher, not someone who tells us that, just because the temperature is rising now, it will continue to rise unless we make radical changes to how we live. The effect that nature is having on climate far out ways the effect that man has, but having said that, we have every reason to change, to cut down on our dependence on finite fossil fuels in favour of clean infinitely renewable fuel. The health of all of us depends on us making these changes."

"When you say that we should modify how we inhabit this planet, just what do you mean?"

"I would have thought that was obvious. We need to modify the way that we use the resources that we have at our disposal. Modify the way that we use water in food production, modify crops to suit the environment, and don't plant crops in areas that cannot be sustained with existing resources. Use the resources that we have in abundance, even if we have to modify our eating habits. For instance, in the desert regions of Australia camels have reached plague proportions. So why don't we farm these resources for food production, and I don't mean pet food or mince for burgers, Camel meat is actually quite tasty. Another animal that is in plague proportions and an under-utilised food resource, is feral goats. This is changing with its re-badging as 'range fed' goat, but it is a slow process. There has been a shift in the types of sheep farmed in Australia, with the move away from wool producing sheep to meat breeds. These are all changes that make better use of the environment than the previous European farming practises of the past. In a country of low rainfall it is, to me, ridiculous that we are growing crops that rely on large amounts of water, crops like rice and cotton. It would be preferable to use those land and water resources in a much more efficient way. Our seafood industries are shifting away from 'wild catch' resources to farmed resources. This has led to an increase in production, a decrease in production costs, and a better product. This is the sort of thing that I am advocating, not the wholesale destruction of native rainforests to produce palm oil or hamburgers."

That concluded the press conference and, as I made my way from the media room I was confronted by a smiling Maggie. "You handled that extremely well, so well that I have decided that I can risk being seen in public with you and invite you to lunch."

"Do you think that's a good idea? After all we are both married."

"It would be worse, if I was still a single person, people would immediately jump to the wrong conclusion. We are just old friends catching up."

"I suppose there's nothing wrong with it, but don't get any ideas about it being anything other than that."

"Of course I fully expect that you will reciprocate after my presentation."

"Oh, that's right, You've used your married name, no wonder I didn't notice that you were on the list of speakers."

Lunch was great, apart from the flirting that was close to getting out of hand, and I walked back with her to the auditorium so that she could prepare for her presentation.

"Coral atolls, coral reefs, they would have to be one of the most fragile ecosystems on this planet, and yet we have through history, taken them for granted. Way back when he was charting his way up the east coast of Australia, Captain James Cook's ship the Endeavour, struck the Great Barrier Reef and her hull was holed. Our history books tell us of the amazing feat of seamanship displayed by Cook in getting his ship to a place where they could carry out repairs. She was careened, repaired and re-floated and they went on their merry way. No mention was made in the history books of the damage to the reef. And it stayed that way for centuries, ships would run aground and spill cargo and fuel over the reef yet no mention was made of the damage. What this means is that, until recent times, we had no points of reference to assess the damage that we had caused to the reef."

"Now we are more aware of the impact of various factors on this dynamic ecosystem, and we are told that unless we prevent damage from shipping, there will be no reef left in the future. That's all well and good, but what about environmental factors, what are we doing about them? What can we do about them? Take for instance, the crown of thorns starfish, what have we done to prevent the incursions of this beast into the reef habitat? Not a lot. What can we do about it? Not a lot. It would appear that the best solution to this problem is to let nature take its course, let nature introduce a biological solution into the mix, one that will kill off these ugly creatures. The same can be said for coral bleaching. It would appear that the rise in temperature of the sea water is the culprit here, but what can we do about that? Not a lot as it turns out, this is a natural phenomena caused by the ocean currents that originate way across the other side of the Pacific Ocean, and over which we have absolutely no control."

"So what can we control? We can control the impact of tourism on the reef. But that would impact on the livelihood of the tourism operators, and we can't have that. We could restrict the size and frequency of bulk carriers travelling along the reef. But this would impact on the viability of the coal exporters and cost them millions of dollars in lost revenue, and by projection our country's reputation as a supplier of high grade coal to the Asian market, especially China. A loss of this market would impact negatively on Australia's bottom line, and that's what this is all about, the balancing act the government faces between the environment and its bottom line. I would hate to be the Prime Minister that has to make that decision."

"As my colleague Doctor Phillips pointed out earlier on this morning, we are faced with a problem that has three possible solutions. There is the solution that we cannot control, and that is Mother Nature. There is the solution that we can control but for various reasons will not. And finally, there is the solution that we will implement. Not what should be done, but the least that public opinion will accept. Not the best solution, just the one that we can convince the world is the best solution under the circumstances."

"The role of Environmental science is to identify solutions to the threats to our environment, and make the general public aware of them. We can also advise our politicians on the issues and solutions and hope that they will be able to implement our recommendations. The first phase of this process is to look dispassionately at all of the factors and eliminate those that provide a short term fix, because it looks good, as opposed to a long term solution. As far as the Great barrier Reef is concerned there a three threats, a rising water temperature. This we can do little other than research ways to minimise the effects of this problem over the short term, because climate history tells us that this situation will reverse itself in the long term, and allow the reef to recover. The second problem is the crown of thorns starfish. In all probability nature will again find a solution, in this case it will most likely be biological, what we can do is to give nature a helping hand and research possible biological agents that can be introduced to combat this threat. And finally there is the threat created by man. Tourism is a huge industry in this area, but it needs to be sensitive to its impact on the ecosystem. If tourism begins to impact negatively, then it needs to be scaled back to allow the reef to recover. Then there is the commercial impact from large ships plying the pristine channels of the reef. We have seen the effect that comes from just one ship running aground on the reef and spilling fuel oil into the water. Large ships should not be allowed inside the reef at all, and even if it means sacrificing a small section of the reef to create a channel through the reef into deep water, then that should be explored. Reduce the possibility of grounding and disturbance caused by ships plying in shallow water, and we may yet save the reef."

"These solutions that I have outlined, if successful, can be expanded and used in other fragile ecosystems and minimise man's impact on his environment. It is about striking a balance between the environment and the commercial interests necessary to maintain a nation's economy. Thank you." Maggie left the stage to, at first a smattering of applause, and then an increase in enthusiasm.

Dinner was an interesting affair, There was a steady stream of interruptions from people plonking themselves uninvited at our table to ask us questions about our presentations. The common denominator in all of these interruptions was they were all from environmentalists telling us that our research was so wrong and didn't take into consideration the research that they used for their terms of reference. In short, we were wrong and they were right.

If I thought that dinner was interesting, what happened after dinner was even more interesting. "Come in for a few minutes." Maggie said as I went to walk away from her door."

"No."

"Bzzz. Wrong answer." She grabbed me and dragged me inside. Her lips planted themselves on mine.

I dragged my lips free. "No."