Call the emissions reduction fund a ‘climate solutions’ fund if you like, but it doesn’t mean it is
 |
| ‘Monday’s climate policy pivot reflects Morrison’s limited options.’ Photograph: David Crosling/AAP |
Compared with where we’ve been, a Liberal prime minister standing up at a podium, accepting the science of climate change and making the case for action, is progress.
We need to acknowledge it.
But this isn’t, ultimately, a test of talking points.
It has to be a test of substance, and a test of whether or not you are prepared to be a grown-up government facing up to a significant policy problem – and the truth is the Coalition has been here before.
Right on this spot.
John Howard had a very similar epiphany in 2007, delivering a speech in Melbourne within sight of an election in much the same way Morrison did on Monday. Like Morrison, Howard knew the Coalition needed to switch course on climate policy because Australians then, like now, were fretting about extreme weather and the droughts that never seemed to end.
Howard signed the Liberal party up to emissions trading during his 2007 pivot. But after he lost the election to Kevin Rudd, madness descended inside the Coalition, and raged in full public view for a decade, with that madness killing most of the optimal policy solutions for dealing with emissions reduction.
Morrison needed to put forward a serious policy program that is an implicit apology for past misdeeds. He didn'tWhile Morrison would like us to think that was all a bit of a bad dream, and the Coalition has actually been tremendous on climate policy despite all the compelling evidence to the contrary, the truth is the madness still defines the parameters of the policy.
Monday’s climate policy pivot reflects Morrison’s limited options. He’s unveiled a reboot of Tony Abbott’s Direct Action policy, kicking in more cash to the emissions reduction fund (although the cash only pans out at $200m a year), and giving it a new business card.
This mechanism will deliver some abatement, a significant chunk according to the government’s own projections, but the persistent question over the ERF as a mechanism (apart from why taxpayers have to pay, as opposed to big polluters) has always been whether it delivers any abatement beyond what would have happened anyway.
To put it simply: you can call the ERF a Climate Solutions Fund if you like, but giving it a reassuring sounding new name does not transform it into a mechanism designed to do the heavy lifting on emissions reduction that really needs to happen.
I could call myself Beyoncé too if I wanted to. It wouldn’t make me Beyoncé, sadly.
Other elements of the putative reboot include (probably) helping to build an interconnector between Tasmania and the mainland to maximise the potential of hydro (which is a useful development), and (presumably) pressing ahead with the Snowy 2.0 project that has been ready to go since last December. Despite not yet signing up to the expansion, the government has already built Snowy into its projections for meeting the Paris target. Nifty, huh?
There’s also something coming on electric vehicles, but there is no sign yet of an emissions standard for vehicles that would have any prospect of reducing pollution meaningfully from the transport sector. Flag that sort of thing and Nationals start rhapsodising about man’s inviolable right to his SUV.
The government is also failing to bite the bullet in other ways. We are building a big chunk of carry-over credits into our projections for meeting the Paris target, which you might be more sanguine about if there was evidence of a real emissions reduction plan, with real teeth, lined up against a bit of creative accounting to ameliorate some of the short to medium-term dislocation associated with transitioning a carbon intensive economy such as Australia’s to a low-emissions economy.
Just one more problem. You also have to line up Monday’s “climate solutions” pivot with the climate problem the government will create for itself if it proceeds to lock in more coal-fired power to Australia’s energy grid, underwritten by taxpayers, which is what the energy minister, Angus Taylor, keeps hinting he wants to do.
In order to hit reset on climate policy in a way that has some prospect of cutting through with the cohort of voters inclined to desert the government over this issue, and this issue alone, Morrison needed to do two things on Monday.
He needed to say sorry for all of that insanity. He needed to say I don’t know what came over us, but we aren’t going to do that again.
Prime ministers can do that in two ways. The first is to just say it, but that’s very hard for risk-averse politicians who equate public acts of humility with public acts of weakness.
The second is do it by implication: put forward a serious policy program that is an implicit apology for past misdeeds, and in so doing, project that you are prepared to stare down any internal brinkmanship that ensues.
That didn’t happen on Monday, and it didn’t happen on Monday because we all know what happens when the Coalition hits these particular tipping points.
Just ask Malcolm Turnbull.
Links
- Scott Morrison to reboot Tony Abbott's emissions reduction fund with $2bn
- Critics decry Coalition's 'fig leaf' climate pledge
- Industry calls for Morrison to go further on climate policy
- Climate Solutions Fund driven by 'big corporate interest'
- PM's fence-sitting on climate change leaves him exposed
- Missed opportunity: farm sector sceptical of PM's climate policy
- The emissions reduction fund was deeply flawed – and no rebranding will change this
- Are Australia's Paris 2030 emissions reductions on track thanks to 'loophole'?
- Emissions increases approved by regulator may wipe out $260m of Direct Action cuts
- Australia's coal future under threat as more changes hit fossil fuels globally
- Emissions reduction fund to pay for fossil fuel plant that would be built anyway
No comments :
Post a Comment