Glasgow
“The Australian way”: make a proclamation and do nothing
Morrison’s approach to climate change is a re-run of his approach to vaccination. Make an announcement, produce a supporting document, and do nothing concrete.
“We will do this the Australian way. Through technology, not taxes. By respecting people's choices and not enforcing mandates on what people can do and buy. By keeping our industries and regions running and household power bills down by ensuring energy is affordable and reliable.” That’s how Morrison explains it in a press statement The Australian way, saying more about what Australia won’t do than what Australia will do. There will be no mandates, no price on carbon, no legislation, no new appropriations – in fact nothing that the government isn’t already doing, which is very little.
Morrison’s statement is backed up by a paper Australia’s long-term emissions reduction plan. Like the vaccine rollout plan, it has plenty about what should happen if Australia is to reach net-zero by 2050, but nothing about any initiatives to achieve those outcomes. It simply re-presents a list of existing programs administered by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Clean Energy Regulator – without mentioning that the government has generally been at loggerheads with these institutions. The only suggestion of a new commitment is a statement that there will be “more than $20 billion of government investment in low emissions technology to 2030”, but how does spending $20 billion align with the “technology, not taxes” policy? Where will that $20 billion come from if not through taxes? Things are supposed to happen somehow, but not through the market mechanism of a carbon price, as recommended by the IMF and most economists. What is Morrison counting on – divine intervention, a miracle? Or is this all just spin to take to Glasgow and to an election?
There is modelling behind the government’s “plan” somewhere – it gets a mention on page 34 of the government’s document – but the government has refused to release it. All we know from that document is that “the analysis shows that it is possible for Australia to get to net zero emissions by 2050 and that the costs will be significantly lower if we adopt a technology-based approach to reducing emissions”. Lower than what? And of course any approach will involve technology, so why mention technology as a distinctive feature?
All we are given is economic and policy drivel: it is hardly surprising that the Treasury Department has distanced itself from the modelling. Michael Mazengarb of Renew Economy is in no doubt that the modelling is corrupted by partisan politics: Modeller used to attack Labor policies hired to “verify” Taylor’s net zero modelling. In another article Mazengarb, citing Morrison’s promise that there was to be “no substantial change to government policy and no new legislation” called the plan a ‘joke’.
Mind the gap in Glasgow
Although Morrison will probably be sitting in the back row with delegates from Russia and Saudi Arabia, the Glasgow conference is an important event, as explained by Shelly Inglis of the University of Dayton, writing in The Conversation: What is COP26? Here’s how global climate negotiations work and what’s expected from the Glasgow summit. National governments will be called on to update their climate action plans, and specifically to present more ambitious targets for 2030. (Morrison has nothing to offer on either of these requirements.)
On last week’s Saturday Extra Geraldine Doogue interviewed Anna Åberg of Britain’s Chatham House about what we can expect from COP26. Åberg explained its history in the context of previous meetings and agreements, particularly the milestone 2015 COP21 in Paris. The important issue for this meeting is the need for urgent action by 2030.
Writing in Inside Story, Michael Jacobs of the University of Sheffield, UK, explains the limitations of the COP26 process: The Glasgow paradox. He points out that two important issues – the gap between nations’ commitments and what is needed to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, and the need to finance “developing” countries through their transitions – are not formally on the agenda, but they will be raised through side negotiations. He also explains the limits to the practice by which polluting countries, including Australia, buy permits from others without attending to their own pollution.
On the eve of the Glasgow meeting, the UN has repeated its warning that governments’ fossil fuel production plans are dangerously out of sync with Paris limits. Yes – they’re talking about us. It refers again to its Production Gap Report (See last week’s roundup) where Australia is identified as one of the world’s most significant contributors to emissions.
By his stubbornness Morrison has staked his ground. His appeal is to Australian exceptionalism: “the Australian way”, and “We won’t be lectured by others who do not understand Australia”. His responsibility does not extend to protecting the world or even his own nation from the consequences of global warming. His masters are gas and coal industries – the people who gave him a lump of coal to take to Parliament. Damien Cave, writing in the New York Times, pretty well summarises how the rest of the world sees Morrison’s role in Glasgow. He sounds at times as if he is already campaigning for next year’s election, writes Cave: Australia pledges ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050. Its plan makes that hard to believe.
If we had a government committed to responsible economic management and to policy principles that extended beyond keeping itself in office, Australia would have a great deal to contribute at Glasgow. The challenge of climate change presents huge opportunities for Australia to invest in a clean energy future and to become a truly “developed” nation rather than a supplier of raw materials subject to diminishing demand. All that the Morrison government’s stubbornness and exceptionalism can bring us is a few more years of prosperity before we slowly slide into poverty while other countries in our region prosper.