Greenhouse gas emissions and “pollution” are now used interchangeably. “Polluters give the PM their views,” trumpeted The Age on March 25, 2007. The article, interestingly, citing statements made by companies to an emissions-trading taskforce set up by Prime Minister John Howard, discussed how “Australia’s biggest polluters show business is past arguing over whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon and has begun debating the shape of future regulation.”

Motivated by risk-management in its widest sense, the world’s largest mining company, Australia’s BHP Billiton, energy conglomerate AGL, and Alcoa’s Australian subsidiary have all publicly accepted that, in Australia, the issue of global warming has moved beyond questioning its existence to what to do about it. They have accepted the “scientific consensus” that it is real, if not man-made.

But in a harbinger of things to come elsewhere, especially in the U.S., the ideologically driven debate has generated three other major issues.

First, while industry and politicians “give at the church” of environmentalism (so integral to the liberal policies in Australia), they seem to understand the enormous cost of sequestering carbon dioxide emissions, or even of severely cutting them back. So they opt for the next best thing, the quackery and convenience of “trading” the “carbon footprint.” The proposed trading is often a landmark – at best, of creative accounting, at worst, of preposterous intellectual acrobatics.

Second, barely below the surface, is the obvious: Australia is loaded with resources. Enormous reserves of natural gas remain under-explored, particularly in frontier offshore areas. An August 2006 government report announced “measures to further develop our energy resources and help underpin the nation’s long-term energy security.”

Lurking close-by is not just the nation’s energy security, but also its well-being and wealth. China with its insatiable energy appetite is a straight shot north. It was only three years ago that CNOOC, one of China’s largest oil companies, signed a multi-billion dollar deal to import Australian LNG. Many other countries and companies are eying Australian natural gas, and there is a veritable rush of companies from all over the globe to build a position in upstream western Australian oil and gas. And the country itself is hungry for new oil supplies.

The third hot issue, directly linked to the global warming noise, is what to do with Australian uranium. The country has 40 percent of the world’s deposits, and in April 2006, signed one of the largest deals ever: to supply 20,000 metric tons of uranium to China each year, beginning in 2010.

Last December, an MP, Geoff Prosser, said the Australian Parliament “has reached a unanimous and bipartisan position on the need to remove all impediments to the further development of Australia’s uranium resources.” He went on to say: “Nuclear is the only proven technology for baseload power supply that does not release substantial amounts of CO2. By virtue of its immense uranium resource endowment Australia should throw the world a climate lifeline through the expanded production and export of this greenhouse-friendly fuel.”

So there you have it. In Australia, not only is Al Gore’s “science all in,” but also the associated businesses that go with it. Greenhouse gas rhetoric is generating an entire slew of new business opportunities – some real, some clearly manufactured. The ongoing experimentation in Australia is likely to prove an interesting learning experience for much of the developed world, headed by the until-now reluctant United States. The Australians have taken a decisive general direction, even if the actual concept of what to do is a mess of confusion. The key questions are: what will it cost, and what shape will it take? What is certain is that the price is bound to be painful, whether direct, through government subsidies and regulations, or indirect, through changing lifestyles and standards of living.