Fairfax - Tony Walker
Let's start with the smelly, dead chicken the Turnbull government is seeking to hang around the Shorten opposition's neck.
In
a variation of the children's party game, pass the parcel, or, should
we say, pass the chicken, Malcolm Turnbull and his Energy Minister, Josh
Frydenberg, are seeking to impose on their political opponents
responsibility for an energy mess, including crippling power bills.
 |
| The public could care less about the source of power as long as the lights remain on. Photo: Liam Driver |
This is self-serving politics.
Culpability for two decades of
policy paralysis going back to the Howard government's failure to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol – setting the tone for an aimless debate on climate
and energy – rests with the political class of all stripes, including
the hapless Greens.
In their failure back in 2009 to support reasonable proposals for an
emissions trading scheme known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
(CPRS), the Greens scarred the Rudd prime ministership, contributed to
Turnbull's demise as opposition leader and helped prolong a lost decade
in energy policy.
Our purpose is not to
argue the merits, or otherwise, of the case for sustaining AGL's Liddell
power station in the Hunter Valley beyond a five-year shelf life, but
to ask a simple question.
How did we get into this mess, and how do we get out of it?
In answering this question, history is important.
As far back
as the 1990's the Coalition debated in its internal processes the merits
of an emissions trading scheme as a means of setting a price on carbon,
thereby constructing a rational energy policy for the 21st century.
Several proposals were discussed in cabinet, one in 2000 and the other
in 2003.
Neither made it past the opposition of cabinet climate sceptics, including then prime minister John Howard himself.
However, by 2007 with defeat in prospect, Howard capitulated.
On
July 17, 2007 he said: "Implementing an emissions trading scheme and
setting a long-term goal for reducing emissions will be the most
momentous decision Australia will take in the next decade."
More
than a decade later, Howard's forecast remains stillborn, ensnared by
rancid politics in which Kevin Rudd squibbed an opportunity for a double
dissolution election on the Senate's rejection of his CPRS.
To
her great cost, Julia Gillard introduced a carbon tax after having
pledged not do so. Then Tony Abbott replaced it with a Direct Action
plan to compensate emitters who reduced their carbon footprint, or got
out of the emitting business altogether.
In one of politics'
ironies, the problematical Direct Action plan – described by Turnbull in
2009 as "bullshit" – is subject to an internal review by the government
with a result due by the end of the year.
Perhaps nothing has
confused Turnbull's credentials more as an environmentally-responsible
small 'l' liberal centrist than his positions on energy and climate
policy under a Coalition agreement struck with the Nationals after he
deposed Abbott.
Basically, Turnbull fell into line with his
predecessor's policies on climate change, carbon taxes and emissions
reduction targets.
Implicit in all of this was support for the coal industry.
On
occasions, Turnbull has sought to edge away from these commitments such
as when his energy minister talked about an emissions intensity target.
Under fire from his right flank over this heresy, Turnbull quickly disavowed any such idea.
In
this latest period, we are witnessing an intense bout of blame-shifting
in light of the most politically sensitive of cost of living issues –
power prices.
The Turnbull government is also seeking to shield
itself from the fury that would surely follow a summer of power outages
due to insufficient baseload power.
In the debate about baseload
power provided by coal-fired power stations versus renewables, the
public could care less about the source of power, as long as the lights
remain on.
What all this points to is a failure by successive
Federal governments, Labor and conservative, to develop a national
energy policy that provides a reasonable balance between conventional
coal and gas-fired sources and renewables within a framework that
satisfies Australia's international emissions-reduction obligations.
Speaking
of gas, one of the more surprising aspects of the current debate is the
lack of focus on gas as a cleaner energy alternative to coal. According
to chief scientist Alan Finkel's National Electricity Market report,
gas accounts for just 10 per cent of the country's power generation.
That
could be increased significantly using existing modified infrastructure
at a much lower emissions cost than coal: gas emits around 400kg/MWh
compared with 1272kg/MWh for the highest emitting coal-fired plants.
One
might have thought the country's secure energy future lies in a mix of
gas and renewables, with Australia's ageing coal-fired plants being
phased out over time, leaving aside the government vacillation on a
Clean Energy Target recommended by Finkel.
Turnbull might serve
the national interest more effectively by putting aside politics for a
moment and listening to expert advice – from Finkel and the power
generation industry itself – about the best energy mix.
Bullying
corporate representatives in the manner of an early NSW governor named
Bligh may serve a political purpose, but it hardly solves the problem.
Links
