Climate Institute - John Connor*
It is fair to say that people are getting fairly tired of the climate change debate in Australia.
Whenever the issue emerges, all you see and hear is heated disagreement.
Usually name calling then ensues - "environment evangelists", "big
polluters" and political "sell outs" become all too common catch
phrases. These are points that avoid addressing the fundamentals of what
we are trying to achieve.
That is, to make effective, pragmatic decisions and to take action now
that will address the economic and safety challenges climate change is
confronting us with. It's not a difficult concept. And we have to play a
credible part in assisting the rest of the world to do this.
Yet, over the last week, we have seen tiresome name calling return after
the Climate Change Authority - the Parliament's climate change advisory
group - released a report that suggested a fresh approach to these
decisions and actions.
It was asked to outline a pathway for the current Parliament to agree on
a policy framework that would actually stop Australia's emissions from
continuing to increase, so they would start to fall, in line with the
international commitments Australia has made under the Paris climate
agreement last year. This is an agreement around 180 countries of the
world have entered into in an historic attempt to deliver economic
prosperity and safety to all of us.
This report was quickly followed by a dissenting report from two of the
Authority's own members, which stated that the Climate Change Authority
had not gone far enough and had made compromises for political
expediency. They said it had failed in its own mandate to provide
rigorous independent science-based advice to the Australian community.
The merry go round continued. Once again we fell into discussing the
merits of "emissions intensity schemes" and other arcane policy
solutions.
Once again, the real discussion about the fundamentals we are trying to
achieve, and the ability of the Climate Change Authority's proposals to
achieve them, was drowned out by contentious debate.
Where was the discussion about their effectiveness in helping us deliver
the future we would all like to see come to fruition? Does the proposal
allow for us to reduce emissions in line with avoiding the very severe
climate impacts on our families, communities and economies? Did it set a
clear and timely direction for replacing our aging coal-burning
electricity generators with clean energy? Does it allow us to stand up
proudly with the rest of the international community and do what we said
we would do at the Paris conference last year? These are the
fundamentals.
We have failed to learn the mistakes of the past. People want to
understand the outcomes of the policy, not its details. This was a major
undoing of the previous carbon mechanism. Yes, people had concerns
about its impact on the cost of living, but they also did not understand
what they were paying for - lower emissions and more renewable energy
that would help us stop temperatures from continuing to climb so we can
limit global warming. To do this, the world has agreed we need to get to
net zero emissions.
The Climate Institute did raise concerns about the Climate Change
Authority's report. The reality is that, despite some useful
suggestions, its proposals do not deal with these fundamental issues.
In just over a few years time the government, on our behalf, will be
asked to stand with the USA, China, and the rest of international
community, to demonstrate how we are on a path to zero net emissions.
Yet, the Authority has ignored this. It does not put forward proposals
that give us the option of boosting greater renewable energy, combined
with other climate change solutions, that would mean we could meet this
goal.
Similarly, the dissenting report may be based in science, but many of
the policy proposals it puts forward are not realistic in the
short-term.
We must stop acting as if there has to be a trade-off between being
science-based and developing policies that can address the political and
economic constraints we know exist in tackling climate change.
Power companies, local communities, environmental groups and unions all
want a clear plan to replace our aging coal-burning power stations. The
shift to clean energy is now unstoppable but we can't plan for the
future unless we have clarity on the path we are going down. The market,
by itself, is not fit to deal with this challenge and the changes
required for workers and the community.
So here we are yet again. The release of the reports over the last week
has been another great missed opportunity to bring the debate into the
space of principled pragmatism. People are understandably fed up with it
all. Unfortunately, while we shake our heads and argue, our emissions
continue to rise, and we continue to miss out on the economic
opportunities that effective action would bring while the rest of the
world is getting on with it.
*John Connor is CEO of The Climate Institute. Whilst qualified as a
lawyer, John has spent over twenty years working in a variety of policy
and advocacy roles with organisations including World Vision, Make
Poverty History, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the NSW
Nature Conservation Council.
No comments :
Post a Comment