Singapore, May 17

About Prof. Tim Flannery - A scientist, explorer, and conservationist, he has published more than 130 peer-reviewed papers and many books. Currently Professor in the Faculty of Science at Macquarie University, he is Chair of the Australian Government’s Coasts and Climate Change Group, represents Australasia on the National Geographic Society Research Grant Committee and is a director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy. From 2006 to 2009, he was Chair of the Copenhagen Climate Council. In 2007, he was named Australian of the Year.

Eco-business: Last week, a group of academics and lobbyists released a report that an international agreement on climate policy and emissions targets would not work. They argue that it should be replaced with a discussion around a “politically attractive” agreement based on providing cheap, non-carbon energy. Do you think this might be a better approach at summits like the forthcoming COP16 in Cancun Mexico later this year?

Professor Tim Flannery: I think you got to have both the regulation [sticks] as well as the carrots. The carrots are going to be important. We need to pick off some of the easier options [at COP16] and get some momentum going. The problem is from carbon as an externality. The beneficiaries of an externality [e.g. fossil fuel industries] have an enormous advantage. Pricing the pollution and establishment of carbon markets is going to make a big difference.

This has proven extremely difficult for countries, largely as polluters are benefiting from an externality and don’t want to give up the advantage. We just need to create a well regulated market. Government regulation can only create a favourable set of circumstances for the market, and right now we have no better tools.

EB: Would you say any traction was made at COP15 in Copenhagen?

TF: Progress at COP15 was made. It marked fundamental shift in responsibility for the issue. There was greater involvement of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. There was greater buy-in from developing countries. We have yet to see how the developed world can engage in this new scenario.

EB: Speaking of developing nations, some have criticised the failure to reach an agreement at Copenhagen was due in part to China subverting negotiations. What’s your take?

TF: They already had gone a long way to collaborating. China was disillusioned by the fragmentation of the G77 [developing nations] which excoriated them as demons instead of getting recognition for the steps they had taken as a developing country.

EB: Do you think COP16 will reach any firm agreement of any kind, or will it only result in more postponement and political impasse?

TF: Cancun will focus on solving easily agreed on issues. No one has the framework for a global coordinated effort at this point. It is a pretty big thing we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to act as a species to regulate the atmosphere.

Tim Flannery 2

Tim Flannery

EB: Have the climate skeptics endangered negotiations?

TF: The skeptics have, so far, had too big a victory. [The reality] is that climate science goes back to the 1800’s—it is a very mature science. [Over time] we have made progress and been able to reduce the potential for errors. The work of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is still the best body of data, the best guide to climate change we have going into the future. According to their projections, we will be lucky if we can keep the temperature rise down to two or three degrees. That’s the best case scenario. If the temperature goes above this, we stand to lose at least 20% of species on Earth. It is an extraordinary loss of biodiversity.

EB: Some have difficulty understanding the relationship of humans to biodiversity. How could you connect the dots for them?

TF: We are part of a global system and biodiversity captures four percent of the energy that falls on earth. If we destroy that, we are destroying the basis for everything else. This planet is a living thing. Our fate is inextricably tied to the rest of life here on earth.

EB: What would you say are the top countries taking action on climate change?

TF: Businesses throughout the world, particularly in Asia, are embarking on opportunities arising from climate change. South Korea is going to have a great lead over other countries less proactive.

EB: True, South Korea does seem to have a very strong vision, both in terms of the legislation as well as incentives for business. The political buy-in is impressive. By comparison, how could Singapore best make an impact regionally and globally?

TF: Obvious opportunities for Singapore economy include air and shipping industries. Singapore has integral part in those industries and quite influential in them. A more proactive stance to broker a deal could be very valuable. The outcomes could be significant. The country can do more in the cleantech area and expand beyond things like PV manufacturing. I hope that Singapore manages to take a leading position. It is a small and sprightly nation, and it would be a great opportunity for the country.

EB: What do you think the risks are for a country like Singapore?

TF: Climate shifts are dramatic and will destroy our economy and civilisation as we know it. Economies will simply not be able to keep up. Singapore is the epitome of a city state imbedded into the global economy like no other nation. Any threat to global economy is a threat to Singapore.

EB: Definitely, and it’s certainly not the only country facing that sort of predicament.

TF: In Australia, a one metre sea level rise merely from thermal expansion of ocean water will mean loss of at least half a million homes. Sea level rise of up to 14m globally will have huge effects on human societies. We’re a coastal species. The view [in Australia and elsewhere] is that the economy is the only thing that counts. It is a very outdated point of view. Countries that take a proactive approach will be the ones that do well.

EB: On that proactive approach, the emergent push for a “green” economy and for “sustainability” in some ways seem inadequate. Could there be a new vision for how we live on earth, rather than merely making our current economic systems merely less bad?

TF: The current economy is responsive to risk. The more we can create certainty and trust we can counter uncertainty and distrust. We can work to create equitable societies. That is the way to solve underlying problems.