Albrechtsen externalises, but not on externality

Janet Albrechtsen of the Australian newspaper shamelessly channels the spirit of Edmund Burke during the French Revolution when she laments that Howard's good work on climate change is just not understood by the Australian public. :::[Now for some sensible talk on climate change]

I love the way the headline implies that the talk up to now has been insensible. There's more irony in store — what follows is barely sensible in itself:

It's easier to listen to Missy Higgins, Wolfmother and Sneaky Sound System than read a copy of the Government's report from the Task Group on Emissions Trading.

It's boring to learn that Australia's economy and abatement challenges are different from those of many other industrialised nations, particularly those in Europe. And that our natural resources and access to low-cost energy are integral to our international competitiveness. And that any model for long-term emissions reductions must take account of the need to protect that prosperity.

Her reference to "access to low-cost energy" is were the flaw in her logic lives. Fossil fuels are not low cost fuels that protect our "prosperity" if the real cost is externalised into the future, and onto the generations to come, making that prosperity short lived. Leaving a tab to be picked up by our grandchildren in the the form of a debilitated climate. Albrechtsen's argument needs to address this to have any merit. Especially since it protects those who benefit now from leaving us with a debilitated climate, and all the implications.

What's so wrong with Wolfmother, anyway?

Global Warning Climate Change Energy