Climate change
The Coalition’s troubles – symptoms of deeper flaws
Anyone following the agonising machinations of the last few weeks as the Liberals and Nationals try to establish a policy to take to Glasgow, would know that there are no more than 5 or 6 hard-line Nationals holding up an agreement to sign up to at least the bare minimum of net zero emissions by 2050. Writing in The Conversation Geoff Cockfield of the University of Southern Queensland describes the Coalition’s progress towards consensus: The net-zero bandwagon is gathering steam, and resistant MPs are about to be run over.
Besides these few Nationals there is probably a small handful of recalcitrants on the Labor side as well, but it’s a fair bet that at least 140 of the 151 people we have elected to the House of Representatives want to see strong action on climate change.
There is something very wrong with our democracy.
The fault lies in a model we have inherited from another country in another era, the winner-take-all “Westminster” system. Fortunately it is not hard-wired into our constitution, but it has become an assumed model. The Liberal Party has tried to work within this model since it was founded 77 years ago by forming a hard coalition with the Country Party, later to become the National Party. That has been a coalition between two parties with little in common apart from the label “conservative”. All that really holds them together is a desire to keep Labor out of office. That coalition between a party with liberal free-enterprise roots and a party that has morphed from a platform of bucolic socialism to become a voice for the mining industry, has been a long-standing and serious impediment to structural reform.
The public are well ahead of the politicians
The Australia Institute’s report Climate of the Nation 2021 is “a comprehensive account of changing Australian beliefs and attitudes towards climate change, and its causes, impacts and solutions”.
It reveals high levels of public concern about climate change, high levels of support for policies that would see a rapid switch to renewable energy, and a willingness by people to play their own part in reducing emissions. The report provides detailed results of time-series surveys, revealing growing levels of concern and desire for action.
There are partisan differences in attitudes between Coalition, Labor, and Green supporters, but these are only about of degrees of concern. Unlike in the US they are not markers of partisan identity.
One impediment to action identified in the report is the public’s over-estimation of the economic significance of the fossil fuel industry. It blooms large in the public mind. For example, when asked about the coal industry’s proportion of the workforce, the average of public estimates is 9.8 percent, while the actual figure is 0.4 percent. It’s understandable that the industry has over-stated its importance, but that over-statement has serious consequences in terms of public policy.
Pauline conversions
What an extraordinary coincidence! Within a few days, Scott Morrison, the Murdoch media, and the Business Council of Australia have all announced their commitment to net zero greenhouse emissions. The BCA believes that we can achieve a reduction of 46 to 50 percent by 2030. (That’s a reasonable proposition provided it is not thwarted by policies hostile to renewable energy.)
Besides the simultaneous timing, leading one to ask who’s calling the shots, the announcements have an Orwellian ring about them. In the dystopia described in Nineteen Eighty-Four Oceania is in a close alliance with Eurasia. It has always been in alliance with Eurasia, even though Winston Smith remembers that just recently they were deadly enemies.
No admission of conversion, no contrition for years of deceitful campaigns waged against Labor over many years.
Lest we believe the Coalition is really on board, on Monday night’s Late Night Live Phillip Adams interviewed Tim Buckley, of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis – Getting to Glasgow. Buckley reminds us that words are cheap: Morrison is adept at making announcements, but within the Coalition there are moves to keep the fossil fuel industry alive. Most notably Resources Minister Keith Pitt (LNP member for Hinkler) has a proposal for a $250 billion fund to subsidise the fossil fuel industry – a subsidy that Buckley points out would pass through to the Chinese Government that has substantial equity in Australian coal mines. Buckley’s main point is that there is a worldwide flight of capital from fossil fuels and that in Australia, conditioned by propaganda from the fossil fuel industry, we have been oblivious to the significance of this flight of capital. (19 minutes)
What would a tough stance on emissions look like?
Net zero by 2050 means eliminating fossil fuels from the grid by 2035 is how Giles Parkinson puts it in Renew Economy. He uses the BCA analysis to show that a rapid run-down of fossil fuels in our electricity mix would be necessary to achieve meaningful action by 2035.
We can get there sooner in fact, with investment in the grid, taking advantage of our geography (roaring forties in the south, trade winds in the north, and more than enough sunshine in between), but we need to connect up these sources with one another and with customers. The Australian Energy Market Operator will release an update to its Integrated System Plan later this year, almost certainly revealing that with investment in the grid we can meet targets in our energy systems earlier than in previous iterations of the plan. And of course, investors need “a clear signal and some leadership from the federal government” (presumably something more reliable than a half-hearted compromise worked out with the grudging consent of the National Party).
We’re not getting that signal, however.
The ABC’s Tom Lowrey reports, in a (deliberately?) contradictory headline, that the Coalition is promising a “great future” for coal and gas as Cabinet considers net zero by 2050 plan.
Once again the Coalition is making promises about preserving jobs that cannot be kept, raising expectations among those who still have faith in their utterances. They’re not the only ones ducking hard issues. There are economists on the other side of the debate who point to high-level economic models that predict there will be X jobs lost in mining and Y jobs gained in renewable energy, and so long as Y>X all will be well.
Without firm plans in place it won’t all be well, however. Structural adjustment is a difficult process, requiring a great effort by all concerned. Unless people in these fossil-fuel based communities see a genuine commitment to that process – tangible action rather than press announcements, appointments to committees, and budgetary appropriations to consultants – they will do all they can to defend the existing order.
The call from Morrison’s beloved Britain
One defining feature of the Liberal Party, demonstrated by Morrison’s enthusiasm to align with the UK government against the French in the AUKUS deal, is its loyalty to Britain, regardless of Australia’s national interest.
So it must have come as a shock when a senior member of that country’s royal family, the Prince of Wales (next in line for the throne), dropped the ever-so-obvious hint that Morrison should go to Glasgow for the COP26 summit.
The BBC has a recording of the prince’s 15-minute peripatetic interview in the grounds of Scotland’s Balmoral Castle. The specific reference to the Glasgow summit is in the last 5 minutes: the prince seems surprised to know that Morrison wasn’t going to Glasgow (but there is no reason to expect him to be across the political details of a country on the other side of the world with little relevance to his country).
If you have the time to spare the whole interview is worth following. The prince is about to turn 73, but he comes across with the same passion as Greta Thunberg in his concern for those who will have to live with the decisions present political leaders are making.