 |
| Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg. Andrew Meares |
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg says his goal in Marrakesh is to maintain the momentum established in Paris last year that he describes as a "watershed agreement" given more than 190 countries agreed to reduce their emissions.
More than 100 of them have now ratified the Paris agreement with Australia doing so last week in the immediate aftermath of the US election.
Frydenberg concedes "a Trump presidency has raised real issues about how the US will handle climate change issues".
 |
| Environmental activist Bethany Hindmarsh, 26, cries during a protest against President-elect Donald Trump at the Climate Conference, known as COP22, in Marrakesh, Morocco, last week. AP |
"No doubt top of mind
will be a discussion about the US election and comments by Donald Trump
about energy policy," he says, while insisting he remains hopeful about
the momentum continuing.
Yet the power shift in
the US is already complicating internal Coalition politics in Australia,
given the antagonism of many in the party to any commitments on
emissions reductions and the transition to much greater use of renewable
energy.
Craig Kelly, chairman of the parliamentary committee for energy and environment, greeted the election of Donald Trump with a typically blunt prediction, for example: "Paris is cactus".
As the government's standard bearer, Frydenberg's role is to try to divert that sort of simmering Coalition sentiment by increasing his attacks on the risks to jobs and to the economy of Labor's policy. That includes Bill Shorten's commitment to a much higher renewable energy target than the government – 50 per cent by 2030.
And there's no more talk of Trump as a dropkick. Instead, he politely points out it takes four years for a country to formally remove itself from the Paris agreement. "Even though the US produces 16 per cent of the world's emissions, the second largest emitter after China (at 22 per cent), no single country can unilaterally end the agreement," he says. "What will be critical will be to see how China, India, Japan and others react to what America may or may not do."
Craig Kelly, chairman of the parliamentary committee for energy and environment, greeted the election of Donald Trump with a typically blunt prediction, for example: "Paris is cactus".
As the government's standard bearer, Frydenberg's role is to try to divert that sort of simmering Coalition sentiment by increasing his attacks on the risks to jobs and to the economy of Labor's policy. That includes Bill Shorten's commitment to a much higher renewable energy target than the government – 50 per cent by 2030.
And there's no more talk of Trump as a dropkick. Instead, he politely points out it takes four years for a country to formally remove itself from the Paris agreement. "Even though the US produces 16 per cent of the world's emissions, the second largest emitter after China (at 22 per cent), no single country can unilaterally end the agreement," he says. "What will be critical will be to see how China, India, Japan and others react to what America may or may not do."
Of course, just what a
Trump White House will do – as opposed to what candidate Trump said –
remains the big global question mark.
Trump's 100 day "plan" includes getting rid of his predecessor's "Climate Action Plan" and environment regulations, stopping payments to various United Nations programs aimed at tackling global warming and "cancelling" the Paris agreement.
China will certainly be watching the results closely. Xi Jin Ping and Barack Obama made much of their 2014 climate change agreement whereby the Chinese government promised to make its best efforts to "peak" its emissions by 2030 and have 20 per cent of its energy needs from renewables by 2020. The US had promised to cut emissions by 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2025, in large part by regulation and restrictions on coal-fired power.
Most China experts believe it is in China's interests to maintain and perhaps even strengthen its own commitments – and indeed to use a Trump presidency to demonstrate China is a more responsible global leader than the US.
Trump's 100 day "plan" includes getting rid of his predecessor's "Climate Action Plan" and environment regulations, stopping payments to various United Nations programs aimed at tackling global warming and "cancelling" the Paris agreement.
China will certainly be watching the results closely. Xi Jin Ping and Barack Obama made much of their 2014 climate change agreement whereby the Chinese government promised to make its best efforts to "peak" its emissions by 2030 and have 20 per cent of its energy needs from renewables by 2020. The US had promised to cut emissions by 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2025, in large part by regulation and restrictions on coal-fired power.
Most China experts believe it is in China's interests to maintain and perhaps even strengthen its own commitments – and indeed to use a Trump presidency to demonstrate China is a more responsible global leader than the US.
That prospect alone may
help moderate Trump's campaign views by the time he takes office in
January. But he is certainly promising to be a strong supporter of the
fossil fuel industry, especially coal, to abolish Obama's style of
environmental regulations and to maintain low energy prices as vital for
bringing back US manufacturing jobs.
Frydenberg's domestic game plan includes promoting the Coalition approach as a balanced policy that delivers environmental results and the transition to a low carbon future but also guarantees energy security at affordable cost.
That means the political angle is to condemn Labor for being willing to jeopardise existing jobs in the coal and manufacturing industries while risking the stability of the system due to pushing in too much renewable energy too quickly.
"Coal will continue to be a critical component of the energy mix domestically and globally for years to come," he says.
Frydenberg's domestic game plan includes promoting the Coalition approach as a balanced policy that delivers environmental results and the transition to a low carbon future but also guarantees energy security at affordable cost.
That means the political angle is to condemn Labor for being willing to jeopardise existing jobs in the coal and manufacturing industries while risking the stability of the system due to pushing in too much renewable energy too quickly.
"Coal will continue to be a critical component of the energy mix domestically and globally for years to come," he says.
The government believes
the national debate has changed after the South Australian blackout and
the announced closure of coal-fired generator Hazelwood in Victoria.
That's still a tricky message to articulate given the popularity of
renewable energy.
So Frydenberg seized on Bill Shorten's declaration that Labor will heed the lessons of places like Detroit and focus on the need to "buy Australian, build Australian and employ Australians". He accuses the Opposition Leader of trying to have it both ways.
"On the one hand, [he is] pretending to support Australian industry and on the other pushing policies that drive energy prices higher by 'encouraging' the closure of coal-fired power stations and committing to a 50 per cent renewable energy target that costs jobs and investment," Frydenberg insists. "His selling-out of blue collar workers in the regions in order to win green votes in the city will come back to haunt him."
Frydenberg instead sells the bipartisan policy of a 23.5 per cent renewable energy target by 2020 as well as the commitment to reduce emissions by 26 per cent to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
So Frydenberg seized on Bill Shorten's declaration that Labor will heed the lessons of places like Detroit and focus on the need to "buy Australian, build Australian and employ Australians". He accuses the Opposition Leader of trying to have it both ways.
"On the one hand, [he is] pretending to support Australian industry and on the other pushing policies that drive energy prices higher by 'encouraging' the closure of coal-fired power stations and committing to a 50 per cent renewable energy target that costs jobs and investment," Frydenberg insists. "His selling-out of blue collar workers in the regions in order to win green votes in the city will come back to haunt him."
Frydenberg instead sells the bipartisan policy of a 23.5 per cent renewable energy target by 2020 as well as the commitment to reduce emissions by 26 per cent to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
Even reaching that 2020
renewable energy target will be a "stretch", he says, due to the
relatively low level of investment in new generation so far.
But that leads directly to widespread criticism of the lack of a national energy plan. Frydenberg established the Finkel review, reporting next year, to try to get agreement with the states on consistent policies rather than the current mishmash, compounded by different ambitious Labor state government renewable energy targets.
Australia, he says, takes its national targets seriously but wants to reach them at the lowest cost. The political cost remains a daily tussle.
But that leads directly to widespread criticism of the lack of a national energy plan. Frydenberg established the Finkel review, reporting next year, to try to get agreement with the states on consistent policies rather than the current mishmash, compounded by different ambitious Labor state government renewable energy targets.
Australia, he says, takes its national targets seriously but wants to reach them at the lowest cost. The political cost remains a daily tussle.
No comments :
Post a Comment