Fairfax - Peter Hartcher
When Tony Abbott was prime minister, he ordered more Australian strike
aircraft and troops into Iraq. Not because Australia was big enough to
turn the tide of battle against the barbarians of Daesh, so-called
Islamic State or ISIL. But because he believed in the fight.
 |
| Climate is no longer a lefty concern. Illustration: Jim Pavlidis |
"It's absolutely vital that the world sees and sees quickly that the
ISIL death cult can be beaten," he said in 2014. Australia's commitment
ultimately made up less than 1 per cent of the combined effort against
the terrorist thugs but it was early and firm. Abbott described it as
"an important global concern" and he was right. And, with more than 60
countries co-operating, it was a success.
When
it came to another important global concern, Abbott argued a very
different case. He and like-minded Coalition conservatives have long
maintained that Australian action against climate change was futile:
"Even if carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring trace gas that’s
necessary for life, really is the main climate change villain,
Australia’s contribution to mankind’s emissions is scarcely more than 1
per cent," Abbott said last year.
On terrorism, Abbott argued for
Australian leadership. On climate change, he argued for wilful
helplessness. Australia is a 1 per cent contributor in both cases. In
one case, it used its 1 per cent to show leadership and effective
action. On the other, it used its 1 per cent as an excuse for inaction.
The
defining difference, of course, is will. Specifically, political will.
Australia is at another decision point on climate change as it heads to
the May 18 election.
All indications are
that Australia is heartily sick of the "climate war". In the decade
that the "war" has raged between the political parties, the country has
been harmed and opportunity lost. Australia, an energy superpower, now
has the most expensive electricity in the world.
The
power grid has become so unstable that the energy market operator says
it is intervening in the market every day "to keep the lights on". If it
handn't, we would have celebrated Australia Day with mass blackouts
across Victoria and South Australia.
And no, despite the public
impression of such things, it wouldn't have been because of renewable
energy. "The contribution from coal generation was significantly less
than expected and renewables was slightly more than expected" thanks
partly to breakdowns in Australia's ageing coal-fired generator fleet,
in the words of the Australian Energy Market Operator.
Solar
cell technology invented at the University of NSW was taken offshore
and helped make China the world's leading exporter of solar panels. That
technology now accounts for half of global solar panel output worth
$US10 billion in sales in 2017. Its annual sales are projected to be
$US1 trillion in 2040.
We can
buy them back one panel at a time – Aldi supermarkets had a special on
solar photovoltaic panels in their Australian stores on April 6 for $179
each. Revelling in the adrenaline thrill of political battle and
clutching abjectly to lumps of coal from the industrial revolution of
the past, Australia is missing the industrial revolution of the future.
The
electricity industry would like an energy policy. After six years in
office, the Coalition hasn't been able to come up with one. Business
would like a steady, affordable electricity supply so it can keep
running the Morrison government's fabled "strong economy". Big investors
would like enough policy certainty to put major sums into new
Australian projects.
The "climate war" is not some sort of
inevitability – recall that John Howard and Kevin Rudd both agreed on
the need for an emissions trading scheme to curb Australia's carbon
emissions.
We
got into this endless war as a matter of political choice. The broad
bipartisan consensus was shattered when two politicians – first the
Nationals' Barnaby Joyce and then Tony Abbott – decided that they had
more to gain by exploiting the problem than exploring a solution.
That's
not to say Abbott is solely to blame. None of Australia's political
parties has a clean record. If Labor under Rudd had held its nerve, and
the Greens had been interested in cutting carbon emissions instead of
striking a pose, the national outcome could have been very different.
So,
what's next? There is every sign that a great reckoning is coming.
Public opinion on climate change has moved against the Coalition. A
record hot summer, and record extreme weather events, have helped
crystallise the electorate's concerns. It's been a long time since it
was a lefty fringe preoccupation.
The Reserve Bank deputy
governor, Guy Debelle, last month called for immediate action on climate
change to avert an "abrupt, disorderly" economic transition.
Only
13 per cent of voters consider the Coalition to be doing a "good" job
of dealing with climate change, according to an Ipsos poll this month.
In a head-to-head comparison, 42 per cent of voters prefer Labor's
climate policy and 25 per cent prefer the Coalition's. This is a
decisive margin.
Internal
Liberal polling shows that it is one of the party's biggest liabilities,
together with its chaotic handling of its leadership. And Abbott, one
of the original warriors of the "climate war", is likely to become one
of its latest casualties under challenge from independent Zali Steggall,
who decided to go into politics because of her concern over climate
change.
Scott Morrison's actions show that he's fully aware of the
problem. The guy famous for holding a lump of coal aloft in the House
as treasurer has announced as Prime Minister billions in funding for the
Snowy 2.0 hydro scheme, a Tasmanian hydro "battery of the nation"
project, and an extra $2 billion for the Abbott-era emissions reduction
fund. These are not a comprehensive policy, of course. But they are
talking points for his candidates to get them through the campaign.
And
Morrison is doing pretty well in the argument so far, despite the
Coalition government's dismal record. This week he managed to drag Bill
Shorten into the old dead-end argument over the cost of Labor's climate
change policy. The Liberals can't believe their luck – it's the same
dead end that the Coalition lures Labor into every time, and every time
they give Labor a beating.
This week's argument was over the cost
of Labor's plan for a lower-carbon economy. Both Labor and Liberal were
quoting figures from the same report to support their arguments.
Labor
has a policy to cut carbon emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, and the
Coalition by 26-28 per cent. A study for the Coalition by the
well-regarded economist Warwick McKibbin found that the economy would
continue to grow under both plans, but that Labor's more ambitious
target would cut about $60 billion more from national GDP in the year
2030 than the Coalition's.
 |
Prime Minister Scott
Morrison performs a reading during Good Friday Easter services at St
Charbel's Catholic Maronite Church at Punchbowl on Friday. Credit: AAP
|
"Relative
to what the size of the economy would be," about $2 trillion, "the
impact is a small fraction," McKibbin said this week. But $60 billion
sounds like a dauntingly large sum.
Of
course, there are two much bigger questions. Instead of allowing itself
to be pinned down on cost, Labor might want to look at the question of
opportunity.
How much new investment went into renewable energy in
Australia last year? The total for projects under way or completed was
$26 billion in 2018, double the previous year's, according to the Clean
Energy Council.
And
the eminent economist Ross Garnaut points out that there is
mind-boggling potential for Australia's post-carbon economy. Australia,
says Garnaut, could be the world's "renewable energy superpower" because
of the abundance of its resource.
 |
| Bill and Chloe Shorten help to serve food during a visit to the Salvation Army's Lighthouse Cafe in Melbourne on Good Friday.
Credit: Alex Ellinghausen |
Beyond
that, whole new areas of competitive advantage would open up for
Australia as a result. Australia would also be the natural location for
the world's fastest-growing materials industry, pure silicon for
computers and other electronics, as well as the global hub for
steel-making, aluminium smelting and other industries where Australia
today struggles to hold on to the last vestiges of its capacity.
This
potential is almost entirely unmentioned in the Australian debate.
Garnaut is delivering a series of lectures to develop the idea in the
coming weeks.
And the second big question is the cost of inaction
on climate change. The hothouse of Australian politics is nothing
compared to the hothouse that carbon emissions are preparing for the
planet. Britain's
Financial Times this month reported on a new
frontier of climate research that explores the prospect of a tipping
point where the atmosphere not only heats up, but doesn't stop heating
up.
"Some
have warned of the risk of a sudden shift to a new 'hothouse' version
of the earth," writes the FT's Matthew Green. "In this alien home, it is
unclear how organised human life would survive."
To deliver the
opportunity, and avoid the worst, Australia needs more investment. That
means more ambitious policy and a steadier political commitment to
change. The Coalition over six years has proven that it doesn't believe
in the fight. But so far Morrison is doing a pretty good job of
distracting Labor into showing that it's not up to it, either.
The Coalition may not believe in the fight on climate change, but it has ample will to defeat Labor.
Links
