If Australia taking dramatic action on climate change is merely symbolic, what are we to make of our commitment to the fight again Islamic State forces? Adam Lockyer writes.

By now the Abbott Government’s rationale against taking dramatic action to combat climate change is familiar to most Australians. Its logic follows four steps:

1) Australia’s contribution is just a drop in the ocean; 2) As such, any action Australia takes will largely be symbolic; 3) As such, we can put to one side any assessment of how serious the original threat is and concentrate on whether we should make a symbolic gesture to this global problem; 4) Hence, the choice becomes: what is going to be the economic cost to Australia for this merely symbolic gesture?

We can largely limit the costs of our involvement to the dollar sum (and potentially the loss of our soldiers’ lives). Confronted by a “budget emergency”, is $500 million (and this a is conservative sum) worth symbolism? I would argue that Australia’s small symbolic contribution to fighting IS is a luxury that we, as a nation, can currently do without purchasing.

There is, however, one significant difference between climate change and the fight against IS. That is, even if Australia was to cut its emissions to zero, it would not significantly affect global temperatures. It would be a positive symbolic gesture and show moral leadership, but have no practical difference. In contrast, there is no reason why the Abbott Government needs to keep Australia’s contribution to the fight against IS at mere symbolic levels.

Unlike climate change, Australia could make a significant contribution to the course of the war against IS. Hypothetically, if IS was as big a threat to Australia as the political hyperbole suggests, then the Government could throw three regular brigades at IS, call up its reserves, introduce conscription and raise Defence’s share of GDP to World War II levels.

However, this level of commitment to the war against IS is completely unrealistic. So, we are left with a simple question: is half a billion dollars a year over an indefinite period worth mere symbolism?