The Beauty of Pessimism

I am jealous of pessimists. Life must be so easy when all you can only ever see is the downsides and the reasons why things should not be changed.

I am even more jealous of pessimists who have access to expensive PR firms and lobbyists, who can make sure that a whole country is influenced by their psyche. This week has provided some fine demonstrations of pessimism at work. The federal Government backed down on its proposed CPRS plan under pressure from all sides to help shore up its poll ratings in order not to be remembered as a ‘oncer’ government (one that only lasted a single term). The Government viewed the option of being bold and courageous with pessimism, as it considered whether the voters would come with it. Sadly, it felt like it had more to do with getting ‘one over on Malcolm’ rather than serious policy formulation.

The industry commentators on these changes provided further examples: Mitch Hooke from the Minerals Council of Australia claimed the scheme’s delay ‘amounts to little more than a temporary stay of execution for thousands of mining jobs…’; Charles Burke from the National Farmers’ Federation explained how beef farmers would go broke; and the coal industry are still furious that they only get $750m.

Pessimism works well in driving two outcomes. Firstly it is great for increasing the fear of change – if you only see the negatives then why risk moving forward. Secondly, it encourages incrementalism – like walking down a rocky path on a moonless night, it is OK to shuffle forward slowly but far too risky to take a big step or maybe even a leap. So people continue to see the world through the same lens and just tinker at the margins.

The pessimists are right in that pricing carbon will cause jobs losses in emissions intensive industries. Given the whole point is to reduce consumption of emissions intensive products, job losses will demonstrate the scheme’s success. Viewed in isolation, this is a terrible outcome. Pessimists are good at looking at things in silos. Looking back over the last 30 years, Australia has lost and exported almost all of its jobs as manufacturing shut down and globalisation took hold. Many have deplored this loss.

Pessimists are also right in that some emissions intensive investment may, in the short term, go to countries less advanced on carbon pricing. This ‘carbon leakage’ will not result in increased emissions, as all new plants will be built with an eye on future global carbon schemes, but it may result in job losses here and gains elsewhere.

Sadly I am not a pessimist. I see that the export of Australian manufacturing jobs has helped the Australian workforce increase its skills and increase the country’s financial wealth. I see emissions intensive industries moving offshore as an opportunity for Australia to start focussing on the industries of the future – the cleantech industries – and thereby loosening the shackles to those industries that will inevitably go into decline as carbon is further restricted. I see an opportunity for unions to strongly advocate for the development of the new industries and their associated cleantech skills to secure future employment for their members, rather than seeking to protect jobs in twentieth century industries.

There are, of course, serious transition issues in all of this and there will be difficulties on a local level. Stewart Taggart of Desertec-Australia comments on this transition by stating that as long as governments focus on looking after workers rather than the shareholders, this will be manageable.

Dr Sam Wells from the University of Adelaide speaks brilliantly of how paradigm changes only occur when the change is driven by the attraction to something better rather than moving away from something bad. Through cleantech, Australia will create green jobs, will create more connected communities and in the process increase both wealth and even the happiness of its people. The paradigm shift requires a change of perspective to the positives of a cleantech future rather than all the negatives of the changes to existing industries.

Luckily, the growth of cleantech is not reliant on there being a strong carbon price. Renewable energies will be driven the Renewable Energy Target and other cleantech sub-sectors will be driven by resource depletion, population growth and increasing wealth and life quality expectations. That the CPRS will be weak is irrelevant to cleantech as it will grow and prosper regardless.

Optimists can see a brighter future, but then have the significant challenges of convincing the wider community that the short term pain is worthwhile and then delivering on the vision.

Life would be easy as a pessimist!


This article was originally published in Environment Management News

Securing Cleantech Benefits for Australia

Australia has the chance to secure its long term economic security from taking a leading role in cleantech. What’s more the current financial downturn presents the perfect opportunity to make a step change to sustainable industries, replacing those emissions-intensive industries that will inevitably decline, and underwriting Australia’s GDP growth for decades. It will however take some bold and confident steps to be taken by Government and companies to fully secure these benefits.

Australia has a choice on whether it wishes to be a future technology taker or to become a global leader in clean technologies. There are many jurisdictions around the world that are seeking to establish themselves as centres of excellence for cleantech. In North America, regions such as Ontario, the North–Western States and Los Angeles have all been pushing hard to create industries of the future. In our region, the Singaporean Government have placed cleantech high on its priority list of industries for which it wants to become the ‘gateway to Asia’. Only this week, the Florida State Government issued a document titled Florida: Building a Foundation for Excellence in Clean Energy in which it considered the State’s strengths in solar, biomass, fuel cells and ocean currents and its strategy to become a global leader in each.

Australia clearly has world class natural resources in solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy. Through its lack of water, it has also been forced to innovate with some clever water management and efficiency technologies. So the question is then how does the country secure the greatest benefits from these natural advantages.
Government’s clearly have a part to play in this through targeted grants and other measures such as renewable energy targets (RET). In Australia, the RET will underwrite the roll out of mature wind technologies developed elsewhere, the Clean Energy Program (CEP) will hopefully drive some Australian innovation in solar and wave technologies and the Geothermal Drilling Program may further Australia’s leading position there. Despite protestations to the contrary, Governments alone will not do enough to guarantee success in any of these fields regardless of the quantum of grant money.

To create the best chance of success requires entrepreneurs and technology developers to collaborate and build companies and solutions that are ready to be sold to the world.

One technique that is being undertaken by a number of companies is to consolidate technology offerings. By pooling a number of similar development technologies, the chances of success for all involved are greatly improved. As part of a consortium, the individual technology developers can leverage off the greater scale to market their technology globally; investors have the opportunity to invest in a diverse portfolio of technologies rather than just backing a single product; and Australia benefits by seeing more of its technology commercialised at home and thereby builds a sustainable future for its communities.

Governments at all levels can assist in this process by providing hubs for this collaboration to occur as well as grants to help things progress, but it is those with the technologies that have the greatest influence on the success of this strategy. By choosing to become part of a group rather than being a stand-alone company changes the route to international commercialisation. Technologies are no longer the ‘babies’ of their inventors but rather become part of wider offering. Inventors must give up the need for total control and become part of a team – a team that has a greatly increased chance of success.

Two companies that I am involved with that are pursuing this strategy are GPAus and CleanFutures. GPAus is building a suite of emerging wind technologies that it can then take to global wind turbine manufacturers to enable them to accelerate their progression towards Gen-2 wind turbines. CleanFutures is assembling diverse nanotechnology-enabled environmental solutions that can be backed and commercialised as a portfolio.

Australia can be a technology exporter of future high value products that will create an advanced and sustainable manufacturing base for the country. This will occur if Governments provide the right environment and technology developers choose to work as a team to the benefit of all. It is the cleantech providers that join forces who will have the greatest chance of succeeding on a global scale and if they succeed then Australia will be the greatest beneficiary.

Companies interested in discussing participation with GPAus or CleanFutures should contact the author on john.obrien@auscleantech.com.au.

A Bio-Cleantech Future

In a recent presentation to the SA BioAngels, John O'Brien explained the cross-over points between cleantech and biotech. This included a description of which if the cleantech sub-sectors can be calssed as 'bio-cleantech' and therefore have application potential for biotech companies and techniques.

Examples of both companies and investors that have successfully combined cleantech and biotech were also presented along with thoughts on how greater future benefits can be secured.

For a copy of the slides from this presentation, please email your request to info@auscleantech.com.au

Launch of CleanFutures

South Australia continues to be a focal point for expertise in clean and sustainable technologies with the launch of new venture CleanFutures.

CleanFutures is a joint venture of NanoVentures Australia, Australian CleanTech and Bridge8 with the goal of successfully commercialising nanotechnologies that enable clean futures.

Our combination of capabilities and connections means we are able to successfully fund and commercialise technologies that enable clean futures.

By combining the IP, technology transfer and commercialisation project management skills of NanoVentures Australia (NVA), with the clean technology and investment market knowledge of Australian CleanTech and the futures work, government networks and marketing capability of Bridge8, CleanFutures plans to establish the template for the commercialisation of enabling technologies.

Dr Kristin Alford, Managing Director of foresight and science communications firm Bridge8 Pty Ltd, said “Technologies that succeed in the future will be ones that serve the community in a sustainable way. These emerging technologies will developed by combining many disciplines. Our combination of skills means we can take an innovative and integrated approach to commercialisation and makes this joint venture an attractive proposition for South Australia.”

Commenting on the launch of CleanFutures, Barry Brook, the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide, said, “There is an urgent need for innovative solutions and new technologies to address the ever more present problem of climate change. The opportunities for those that provide these solutions are huge.”

CleanFutures has commenced planning for its first three technologies:
• Carbon nanotube composites for wind turbine blades;
• Aquasens, a rapid, highly sensitive sensor probe for the detection of nitrates and phosphates in water, and sulphites in wine and food products; and
• Oxipure, a patented technology for the effective removal of contaminants including arsenic, phosphates and silicates from environmental waters.

It is believed that there are many future applications that will be brought to market through the integrated approach of nanotechnology and cleantech: an approach that appears to be a world first.

John O’Brien, Managing Director of Australian CleanTech, said “Nanotechnology provides many of the enabling mechanisms that allow cleantech companies to deliver both environmental benefits and investment returns. I am very excited about the launch of CleanFutures, as I believe it has the potential to deliver many game changing technologies with benefits for the community, the environment and the economy. These technologies will enable the future to be clean.”

Dr Peter Binks, CEO of NanoVentures Australia, said “NanoVentures Australia has a portfolio of cleantech technologies ready for market. We see great opportunities in South Australia, with its outstanding research base and strong manufacturing industry”.

CleanFutures was initiated through discussions between the partners at two recently launched industry networks: the Adelaide Cleantech Network (led by Australian CleanTech) and the Australian Nano Business Forum.

“The launch of CleanFutures is a tangible outcome of industry networking and demonstrates the benefits of meeting new colleagues and sharing interests”, said Dr Kristin Alford.

Further information about us, our technologies and our capabilities is available at http://www.cleanfutures.com.au or by emailing cleanfutures@auscleantech.com.au.

European Investors Looking for Australian Clean Technologies

Europe is a strange place at the moment. Having managed to escape the heaviest snow London has experienced for many years and come back to another Australian heatwave, and despite the extreme pessimism in the City, I am enthusiastic about the potential for securing European money to invest in Australian cleantech companies.

Whilst I was there, the front page of The Times of London showed a big picture of the Blitz with a headline saying that the economy has not been this bad since then. There are daily and significant job losses being announced, wild cat strikes over the use of Italian and Portuguese construction workers ‘taking British workers jobs’ and many in the finance community both without a job and facing significant community backlash. It makes the Australian version of the financial crisis seem mild.

The investors I met were all focussed on cleantech and were all remarkably positive and looking forward to a year of growth in 2009. Many were increasing staff levels and confident that they would be able to raise new funds during the year. It was a wonderful contrast to the feeling held by the rest of the country. There was a view that the rest of the UK may be a ‘basket case’ but that cleantech was the one area that is set to thrive.

One consequence of the financial crisis is slight change to the investment mandates. There appears to be an increased emphasis on late stage pre-IPO type capital, as opposed to seed investments, and also on sectors less dependent on carbon pricing such as waste, recycling, building materials and energy efficiency. It was felt that the volatile conditions would lead to unpredictability in carbon pricing that may lead to short term revenue issues. There is also a greater desire to see definitive sales strategies in place and to gain an understanding of exactly how and when revenues will be generated.

These investment groups have either previously raised funds that they are looking to invest or have institutional investors ready to provide further capital as required. The one common problem they seemed to face was enough high quality investment targets in which to invest these funds.

There was also a common view that Australia is an excellent source of technology research and development and that there may be many potential products and companies that would be suitable for investment. The bonus with this arrangement would be that through securing a European investment, companies may then be able to more easily access the larger European markets and thereby increase the value of the company and returns to its investors.

Some of the funds seemed keen to co-invest with local investment partners. This also provides the opportunity for Australian based investment funds to mitigate their investment risks and establish ties with European partners.

It seems as though many in Australia have been looking to the big venture capital funds from Silicon Valley to secure international investment and that there have been limited ties to date with European investors. This feels like a big opportunity that we have been ignoring. A number of the European funds are currently actively looking for Australian investments and are keen to hear of any suitable opportunities.

The investment opportunities for Australian cleantech companies have been clear for some time. My recent trip to Europe has not only reinforced this opinion in a global context but also highlighted the potential to secure additional sources of investment and access to new markets. The future for Australian clean technologies seems even brighter than before.


This article was originally published in Environment Management News

Three Shades of Green

In a recent interview, the Chief Scientist of Great Britain, John Beddington, stated that the biggest obstacle to moving towards a sustainable future was the actions of committed environmentalists. As a committed advocate to creating solutions to climate change, this seems like an interesting position. However, his vision of future driven by technological adaption, by cleantech, stands in contrast to the anti-consumption rhetoric of traditional environmentalists. It also stands against the incremental greening of many large industrial companies who provide token support for environmental issues whilst still operating unsustainable businesses. Cleantech provides a shade of green that is both sustainable and attractive.

In late October, the Queensland Government held its Sustainability Awards on the Gold Coast. That the dinner was held in one of the least sustainable developments in the country was not lost on many of the attendees. There were many awards for good work being undertaken by companies in varied industries. Improved agricultural practices, smart battery technology and the climate change campaign by the Courier Mail were all feted. There were however many examples of heavy industrial companies merely greening around the edges. The evening started with an acknowledgement of Xtrata’s $3m support for hairy nose wombats. In a wonderful display of cognitive dissonance, the company movie showed rescued wombats without any acknowledgement of the damage the company’s coal mining does to the natural environment. One guest commented that it was like celebrating a tobacco company’s donation to lung cancer research!

Following this dinner, I was lucky enough to spend a few days in Byron Bay. On the local radio and in the local rag, we were encouraged to embrace the ‘counter-culture’ of the region and save the world by reducing consumption, eschewing technology and going back to basics. In the profit centre of Byron this felt as much of an oxymoron as sustainability on the Gold Coast. John Beddington would not have felt comfortable sipping his latte on Jonson Street.

Cleantech offers so much more: far more than greening around the edges and so much more attractive than heading into the mountains in rags. Cleantech provides technologies that enable ongoing development in a way that improves the planet’s ecosystems – it does not require sacrifice and it is more forward looking than mere ‘end of the pipe’ or incremental solutions. It does, however, require new ways of thinking, an ability and willingness to view the world through a different lens and a commitment to the making of lateral connections that have not been made before.

An article in the Time magazine of October 2008, Michael Grunwald profiled Arnold Schwartzenegger as one of the world’s Heroes of the Environment. Arnie has been a driving force behind cleantech development adopting the ethos that ‘you don’t have to be a girly-man to help save the planet’. The article tells us that ‘[he] ridicules traditional environmentalists as prohibitionists scolds who want us to drive wimpy cars and live like monks; he’s selling a future of a clean environment and a booming green-tech economy with all the gizmos that anyone could want.’

Incumbent emissions intensive companies, who fear that change and technological innovation will lead to a decrease in profits, are the obvious opponents of cleantech. What many in the cleantech world may not yet have realised is the danger posed by the self proclaimed ‘pure’ greenies of Byron Bay and elsewhere.

In a three way fight for the ascendancy between greening, greenies and cleantech, the smart money can only be on cleantech. In the end, ‘greenwash’ will always be seen as the superficial marketing exercise it truly is. The attraction towards a positive message will always be stronger than negative messages that prohibit what is harmful. To quote Arnie in his drive to cement California as a global cleantech leader ‘guilt doesn’t work’. To develop sustainability does not require counter-cultures or clever marketing: rather than rebelling, we can enable a great future through adopting cleantech solutions.

This article was originally published in Environmental Management News in December 2008

How Nanotech is Driving Cleantech Growth

South Australia Cements Leadership Position in both Cleantech and Nanotechnology

An Adelaide seminar on 8 December heard how nanotechnologies are being harnessed to deliver clean technology solutions for Australia and the world.

The high level seminar, titled ‘How Nanotechnology is Driving CleanTech Growth’ was organised by the Adelaide Cleantech Network, the only organisation of its kind in Australia. The conference brought together 80 representatives of business, finance, government and academia to promote collaboration across these groups and stimulate the growth of cleantech companies.

The Adelaide Cleantech Network is the initiative of Australian CleanTech which provides research services and investment analysis of the cleantech sector.

Commenting on the event, John O’Brien, Managing Director of Australian CleanTech said that Australia will adapt quickly to a future of low emissions by providing an environment for new companies and technologies to flourish. “Maintaining and protecting existing industries is important in the short term, but it does not result in a leadership position in the long run,” he said.

“Adelaide is leading the way in demonstrating how the collaboration between business, finance, government and academia can produce sustainable companies providing investment returns and economic development.”

The seminar was held in conjunction with the Australian Nano Business Forum. The Australian Nano Business Forum is the peak national body representing and promoting Australian industries and companies involved in nanotechnology. The ANBF provides a collective voice for member organisations engaged in this emerging technology, as well as facilitating links between other key stakeholders.

The seminar examined the bridge between nanotechnologies and clean technologies through both overview presentations and specific case studies. The panellists explained the potential that nanotechnology has to deliver environmentally friendly development in many varied ways.

The case studies come from Australian organisations that are leading the world:
• Dyesol Ltd is commercializing thin film solar photovoltaic materials that can be integrated into roof or window materials;
• Flinders University is undertaking ground breaking research into biofuels; and
• NanoVic is developing wind turbine blades from carbon nanotubes.


Professor Tanya Monro from the University of Adelaide started the afternoon with an overview of the potential for nanotechnology to drive cleantech growth.

The growth of nanotechnologies and clean technologies is being driven by much more than just climate change and government emissions trading. “Increasing wealth, increasing populations and decreasing natural resources require the world to adapt to cleaner technologies”, Mr O’Brien said

Australian CleanTech has estimated that, if the Australian growth matches the global forecasts, annual revenue for the Australian cleantech sector could exceed $40Bn within the next 10 years.

This seminar is a first for Australia and cements South Australia’s position as a leader in both cleantech and nanotechnology.

For information on future Adelaide Cleantech Network events please email acn@auscleantech.com.au

Environmental Entrepreneurs: the Missing Link on the Road to a Carbon Constrained World

Engineers are at the forefront of the transition to a carbon constrained world. New technologies are needed that will allow the world to adapt whilst ensuring a good quality of life for all its inhabitants. Only through the innovation and entrepreneurship that engineers can provide will these technologies be conceived and delivered.

However it must be recognised that a vital link is required to facilitate the work of engineers. Connections between the technical and financial communities are essential to achieve desired outcomes. Through an understanding of both new sustainable technologies and the world of finance, the ‘environmental entrepreneur’ can make connections and innovations in how technologies are financed and adopted by the community. The paper considers the theory of innovation cultures and how this can be applied to assist the transition to a carbon constrained world.

The full paper for this abstract was publsihed in the Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 5 No.1- Special Issue on Leadership, Business and Management, Engineers Australia.

Please contact info@auscleantech.com.au for a full version of the article.

Cleantech: Investing in the future

Cleantech: it’s one of those words that once you see it for the first time, it seems to turn up in every newspaper. Although a reasonably common term in US venture capital circles for several years, ‘cleantech’ has until recently been relatively unheard of in Australia.

But what exactly is ‘cleantech’ and why does the definition seem to change depending on where you look?

An example of the guiding principles behind cleantech is provided by the US firm Clean Edge:

A diverse range of products, services and processes that harness renewable materials and energy sources, dramatically reduce the use of natural resources and cut or eliminate emissions and wastes.

Broadly, the term seems to encompass companies that have both environmental and economic benefits.
Cleantech however tends to be a more amorphous industry group than, say, environmental services, and a less rigid investment asset class than, say, financial services.

Sectors that appear to fit into the definition of cleantech without dispute include:

• Renewable energy – wind, solar thermal and photovoltaics, wave, tidal, hydro, geothermal, biomass and biogas;
• Water technologies that increase efficiency;
• Energy efficiency, green buildings and biomaterials;
• Waste management and recycling;
• Energy storage and fuel cell technologies;
• Low emission vehicle technologies; and
• Environmental Services

Other sectors are controversial with some including them within cleantech by reason of their environmental benefits whilst others reject them because of insufficient positive environmental benefits or too many perceived negative impacts. Examples include:

• Biofuels are seen by some as the saviour to high oil prices and energy security issues but by others as the cause of rising food prices, food riots and increasing monoculture.
• Carbon Trading is clearly driving much of the investment behaviour in cleantech, but it is questionable whether the act of trading has any direct environmental benefits.
• ‘Clean’ fossil fuels, including natural gas, coal seam methane, underground coal gasification, gas to liquids, carbon capture and storage and clean coal technologies, have reduced emissions profiles but, as fossil fuels are, at best, only transition resources.
• Nuclear power, along with its associated uranium production and treatment, clearly has a lower emissions profile than the fossil fuel equivalent but deep concerns remain over the environmental and social impacts of uranium transport, usage and waste storage.
• Agri-Businesses are often included in many measures of environmental performance due to their clear interaction with the environment, even though this interaction is not always a positive one for the environment and the communities involved.

It is clear that decisions on what is included as being part of cleantech depends on the viewpoint and vested interest held. Lobby groups, investment fund managers and participating companies all have desired outcomes that help shape their arguments on the definition.

Despite this, cleantech is not is just another term for Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) or Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance. Cleantech is a term which embraces organisations whose essence, whose raison d’être, is to provide environmental benefits. SRI and ESG look at incremental improvements in company performance and can be seen as ‘operational hygiene’ measures that find the best in class. Cleantech is about doing ‘more good’ rather than ‘less bad’.

Regardless of the definition and of any environmental benefits that may ensue, the question remains as to whether the sector is one that should be of interest to investors.

Some commentators have dismissed the cleantech phenomenon as being a mere ‘green bubble’, similar to the IT bubble or the current leveraged debt bubble that is currently exploding. However the drivers behind cleantech’s growth are significantly different. Firstly, there are many real assets being constructed to provide core services such as power, water, waste and recycling. Secondly, the demand for these core services is growing due to population growth and increasing wealth. Thirdly, as the world continues to use and deplete its natural resources there is increasing pressure on communities to act sustainably. Finally there is the recognition of climate change and consequent regulatory regimes. This is a separate driver from those above and, whilst it will result in additional growth in some cleantech sub-sectors, it does not underpin the cleantech sector as a whole. As a result, the growth of cleantech as a whole appears to be unstoppable.

The question then is which technologies and which stocks are likely to outperform the cleantech sector benchmarks. Many cleantech companies are early stage and therefore have high levels of risk. Some of these risky companies have the potential to be world leaders and this may be of interest for the speculative investor. Some of the sub-sectors, however, such as water and waste, are more mature and have companies with steady and growing revenues which will be of interest to conservative investors.

Despite the lack of clarity on the definition of cleantech, it therefore seems to offer a range of investment options with the common thread that the investee companies are all working towards environmentally positive outcomes. Given the strength of the drivers behind the cleantech sector, it is an opportunity to invest in the future.

This article was originally published in the ASX monthly newsletter.

Cleantech Leadership Threatened by Ignorance

Australia has the opportunity to be a global leader in cleantech. A strong and robust Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will facilitate the investment and innovation required to enable many companies to commercialise their clean technologies. However, the Federal Government appears to be heading towards a decision to appease the emissions intensive industries, a disastrous short term approach that would sabotage this leadership opportunity. It is essential that all those who want to see Australia build a long term future understand this issue and make their feelings known.

Every indication from the Government is that it will honour its election commitment to introduce the CPRS in 2010. However, as the potential impacts of the scheme become more fully understood, pressure has been building to ensure a soft start. This softness might be obtained by the setting of very modest targets and the provision of many free permits. An alternative approach would be to fix or cap the price of permits in the market for a number of years to remove volatility. Fixed price permits would merely act as a tax. Emissions would not be seen as carrying any intrinsic value and few tradeable assets could be created by those reducing emissions. Thus the introduction of fixed priced permits or capped prices is a particularly obnoxious and dangerous threat to Australia’s aim to be a leader in the carbon constrained world ahead.

At last month’s Carbon Market Expo, held on the Gold Coast, speaker after speaker implored the Federal Government not to adopt a fixed price or capped permit scheme even if it is pressured into the adoption of a soft start approach. The reasoning behind these arguments put forward by Australian and international investors, traders, cleantech companies and environmental NGOs was that a fixed price would stifle investment. Without investment technologies will not be commercialised and Australia will languish as the rest of the world invents and profits from the technologies of the future. It is true that this may provide a benefit to some of the old emissions intensive industries, but it is no way to build strong foundations for Australia’s future.

Much of the danger lies in the understanding, or lack thereof, by the general public. Lobbying and community engagement by the emissions intensive industries has been well funded and effective. Stories of the future benefits that would be betrayed by a soft policy decision have not gained wide coverage. It appears that the public has been persuaded that a fixed price is the low risk option. What has not been communicated is that a decision to adopt a fixed or capped price is a decision to be a follower rather than a leader in global carbon markets. It is a decision not to build the foundations of a smart country.

I am reminded of two widely discussed public issues, the outcomes of which would no doubt have been different if the issues had been subject to informed and rational debate. The national referendum on whether Australia should become a republic was cleverly manipulated to achieve the outcome desired by the then Prime Minister. Tactics of fear and confusion were used to great effect, together with an emphasis on divisions between republicans. Voters were denied the opportunity simply to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the concept of a republic. If such a straight forward question had been posed, most commentators seem convinced that a ‘yes’ vote would have resulted.

The defeated town referendum on the indirect potable recycled water scheme in Toowoomba again shows how the introduction of fear and confusion into a debate can work extremely well for those opposing change.
In both of these, the outcome was not what the voters would have chosen if they had been fully informed and not been led to fear change. The old adage of ‘better the devil you know’ is often applied without reason. Common sense too often faces defeat by the ignorance engendered by a poorly communicated debate.

Australians now stand at a turning point. We can choose to fear change and let the Government be persuaded to make Australia a technology taker by adopting fixed or capped carbon price. Alternatively, we could choose to build the foundations of cleantech leadership through investment and innovation.

The absence of an official referendum should not cloud the great power of the community, of the readers of this column. The Australian Federal Government is influenced by community opinion. It is incumbent on all of us to explain our position clearly and loudly.

This article was originally published in Environmental Management News on 6 November 2008.