21/05/2019

It Was Supposed To Be Australia’s Climate Change Election. What Happened?

New York TimesDamien Cave

A farmer feeding his cattle with purchased cotton seeds in the face of a crippling drought in Narrabri, New South Wales, Australia. David Maurice Smith for The New York Times
SYDNEY, Australia — The polls said this would be Australia’s climate change election, when voters confronted harsh reality and elected leaders who would tackle the problem.
And in some districts, it was true: Tony Abbott, the former prime minister who stymied climate policy for years, lost to an independent who campaigned on the issue. A few other new candidates prioritizing climate change also won.
But over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. On Saturday, in a result that stunned most analysts, they re-elected the conservative coalition that has long resisted plans to sharply cut down on carbon emissions and coal.
What it could mean is that the world’s climate wars — already raging for years — are likely to intensify. Left-leaning candidates elsewhere, like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, may learn to avoid making climate a campaign issue, while here in Australia, conservatives face more enraged opponents and a more divided public.
“There has to be a reckoning within the coalition about where they stand,” said Amanda McKenzie, chief executive of the Climate Council, an Australian nonprofit. “I think it’s increasingly difficult for them to maintain a position where they don’t talk about climate change.”
Even for skeptics, the effects of climate change are becoming harder to deny. Australia just experienced its hottest summer on record. The country’s tropics are spreading south, bringing storms and mosquito-borne illnesses like dengue fever to places unprepared for such problems, while water shortages have led to major fish die-offs in drying rivers.
Lucas Dow, the chief executive of Adani Australia, in front of conservative campaign signs in Clermont, Queensland, on Tuesday. The town was the site of a violent clash last month over a proposed Adani coal mine. Anna Maria Antoinette D'Addario for The New York Times
“This is all playing out in real time, right now,” said JoĆ«lle Gergis, an award-winning climate scientist and writer from the Australian National University. “We are one of the most vulnerable nations in the developed world when it comes to climate change.”
And yet the path to victory for Scott Morrison, the incumbent prime minister, will make agreeing on a response more difficult. He and his Liberal-National coalition won thanks not just to their base of older, suburban economic conservatives, but also to a surge of support in Queensland, the rural, coal-producing, sparsely populated state sometimes compared to the American South.
The coalition successfully made cost the dominant issue in the climate change debate. One economic model estimated that the 45 percent reduction in carbon emissions proposed by the opposition Labor Party would cost the economy 167,000 jobs and 264 billion Australian dollars, or $181 billion. Though a Labor spokesman called the model “dodgy,” Mr. Morrison and his allies used it to argue against extending Australia’s existing efforts to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy.
The message resonated strongly in Queensland, where the proposed Carmichael coal mine would be among the largest in the world if it is approved.
The Adani Group, the Indian conglomerate behind the mine project, says it will provide thousands of jobs in nearby towns marked by empty houses and rife unemployment. But in other parts of Australia, particularly among the urban educated left, it faces fierce opposition. “Stop Adani” is a mantra for many, promoted by organizations like Greenpeace and shared with pride on social media, signs and T-shirts.
Even Mr. Abbott, the former prime minister, seemed to grasp this growing political divide.
“It’s clear that in what might be described as ‘working seats,’ we are doing so much better,” he said in his concession speech. “It’s also clear that in at least some of what might be described as ‘wealthy seats,’ we are doing it tough, and the Green left is doing better.”
Neither side seems open to compromise. In some ways, the election was foreshadowed last month in the Queensland town of Clermont, where environmentalists protesting the Carmichael mine were met by pro-coal activists, including a man on a horse who rode into the crowd and knocked a woman unconscious.
Over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. Social Media/Reuters
In some ways it was a clash of cultures as well as political views.
“I feel like there’s quite a lot of scorn about the way Queenslanders feel about environmental issues, and that doesn’t help,” said Susan Harris-Rimmer, a law professor at Griffith University in Queensland. “The predominant Queensland characteristic is pride and you can’t pour scorn on them.”
She said doing so was a strategic mistake for politicians comparable to Hillary Clinton’s description of some Donald Trump supporters as “deplorables” during the 2016 United States presidential election.
“You can’t trigger the pride response,” Ms. Harris-Rimmer said.
Scholars of Australian populism agree, arguing that the weakening of the major parties and the country’s tilt to the right have been driven mainly by class envy and alienation, including the belief that the elite do not understand the needs and values of the working class.
Despite his Sydney upbringing and former career in advertising, Mr. Morrison, 51, won in part by presenting himself as an Australian everyman — a rugby-crazed beer drinker who was the first prime minister to campaign in a baseball hat.
Mr. Morrison’s coalition also benefited from deals with two right-wing groups: One Nation, the anti-immigration party led by the Queensland senator Pauline Hanson, and the United Australia Party led by the mining billionaire Clive Palmer, who spent tens of millions of dollars on a populist campaign with the slogan “Make Australia Great.”
Under Australia’s preferential voting system, votes for candidates from minor parties can be used to help allies reach a clear majority in the lower house of Parliament. Nationally, United Australia secured 3.4 percent of the vote, while One Nation picked up 3 percent.
Neither One Nation nor United Australia did as well as similar parties recently in countries like Italy, Hungary and Brazil. But for Australia, where compulsory voting encourages moderate election outcomes, the results defied expectations and made clear that the country remains deeply conservative and open to the far right on a variety of issues.
The question that now confronts the new government is how much sway to give the forces that led to victory. Climate change may be the first battle in the long war that is reshaping democracy all over the world.

Links

In Coal We Trust: Australia's Voters Back PM Morrison's Faith In Fossil Fuel

ReutersSonali Paul

MELBOURNE - Australia’s re-elected Prime Minister Scott Morrison once brandished a lump of coal in parliament, crying, “This is coal - don’t be afraid!” His surprise win in what some dubbed the ‘climate election’ may have stunned the country, but voters should know what comes next in energy policy - big coal.
A reclaimer places coal in stockpiles at the coal port in Newcastle, Australia, June 6, 2012. REUTERS/Daniel Munoz/File Photo
Battered by extended droughts, damaging floods, and more bushfires, Australian voters had been expected to hand a mandate to the Labor party to pursue its ambitious targets for renewable energy and carbon emissions cuts.
Instead, Saturday’s election left them on course to re-elect the Liberal-led center-right coalition headed by Morrison, a devout Pentecostal churchgoer who thanked fellow worshippers for his win at a Sydney church early on Sunday.
The same coalition government last year scrapped a bipartisan national energy plan and dumped then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull because he was viewed as anti-coal.
Power companies and big energy users, who last year rallied behind the national energy plan to end a decade of policy flip-flops, said on Sunday they wanted to work with the coalition anew to find ways to cut energy bills and boost power and gas supply.
“We just need this chaotic environment to stop and give us some real direction,” said Andrew Richards, chief executive of the Energy Users Association of Australia, which represents many of the country’s largest industrial energy users.
The country’s power producers - led by AGL Energy, Origin Energy and EnergyAustralia, owned by Hong Kong’s CLP Holdings - want the government to set long-term goals to give them the confidence to invest an estimated A$25 billion ($17 billion) needed for new power supply.
“Customers are looking to energy companies and the government to get bills down and secure our energy supplies,” said EnergyAustralia Managing Director Catherine Tanna.
“We have an opportunity now to reset our relationships and recommit to working toward a clear, stable and long-term energy policy,” she said in comments emailed to Reuters after Saturday’s election.
At Origin Energy, Chief Executive Officer Frank Calabria said in emailed comments he would be looking for appropriate policy that would allow the company to invest in a pumped hydro project and gas exploration in the Northern Territory.

Divisive Debate
Australia has endured years of divisive debate on energy policy, with attacks by the Liberal-led coalition on Labor’s “carbon tax” policy helping to bring down the government of then-leader Julia Gillard in 2013.
Despite top companies, from global miner BHP Group to Australia’s biggest independent gas producer Woodside Petroleum, calling for the country to put a price on carbon emissions, the Liberal-led coalition killed the carbon price mechanism in 2014.
Its own attempts to fashion a bipartisan national energy policy foundered amid fierce opposition from coal supporters and climate skeptics on its right-wing.
Its policy now is focused on driving down power prices and beefing up power supply. For the moment that includes underwriting one new coal-fired power plant and providing A$1.38 billion toward a A$4 billion energy storage expansion at state-owned hydropower scheme Snowy Hydro, designed to back up wind and solar power..
While the coalition stuck to an official target to cut carbon emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels by 2030, the United Nations warned last year Australia was unlikely to meet this goal.
The opposition Labor party campaigned on more aggressive targets, aiming to cut carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030 and reach 50 percent renewable power by 2030. The re-elected Liberal-led coalition has no renewable energy target beyond 2020.

Adani Jobs = Votes For Coalition
In the election, stopping a coal mine in the northern state of Queensland proposed by Indian conglomerate Adani Enterprises was the catchword for inner city voters in the south pressing for tough action on climate change.
Labor, torn between its traditional union base and its urban environmentally conscious supporters, made no commitments on the Adani mine. The move backfired in the mining heartland of Queensland, where voters with jobs in mind handed the Liberal-led coalition crucial seats in the election.
Adani’s mining chief Lucas Dow was not available on Sunday to comment on whether the election outcome might speed up approvals for the long delayed mine.
“There is now a clear mandate for resources projects that have lawful approvals to proceed, such as the Adani coal mine,” the Minerals Council of Australia’s chief executive Tania Constable said in a statement on Sunday.
Energy users and the power industry, however, see the transition to cleaner energy as inevitable, with states pushing ambitious targets out of line with the national government.
At the same time, Australia, the world’s second-largest exporter of coal for power, faces falling demand for coal as its biggest customers - Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan and India - are shifting toward cleaner energy, said Tim Buckley, a director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
“I would expect the coalition to fight a rearguard action that will slow the transition, but they can’t stall it,” he said.

Links

Election 2019: What Happened To The Climate Change Vote We Heard About?

ABC News - Matt McDonald*

Scott Morrison's Coalition Government was re-elected despite offering limited ambition on emissions reductions. ABC News: Taryn Southcombe
It was supposed to be the big issue of the 2019 Australian federal election: climate change.
A range of polls and surveys had left many analysts, myself included, with the sense that this would be a crucial issue at the ballot box.
The annual Lowy Institute Poll demonstrated stronger support for climate change action in Australia in 2019 than in any previous survey since 2006.
In the survey more than 60 per cent of Australians agreed with the sentiment that "Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant cost".
And while a self-selecting sample, those filling out the ABC's Vote Compass survey consistently emphasised climate change as a crucial issue for them at the election.


How Bob Brown handed victory to the LNP
If there's one thing Queenslanders don't like, it's being told what to do, so when Bob Brown's anti-Adani convoy demanded voters shun coal in Adani country, it led to Bill Shorten's undoing, writes Allyson Horn.

Crucially, those identifying it as the most important issue had risen from 9 per cent in 2016 to 29 per cent in 2019.
Advocacy groups and even media outlets also encouraged the view that 2019 was, and should be, Australia's climate election.
This was prominent in pre-election statements from NGOs like ACF and Oxfam. GetUp! ran this argument strongly before and during the campaign, and The Guardian's editorial on the eve of the election exhorted all Australians to view the election as an opportunity to vote for substantive action on climate change.
But in the end, we saw a decline in the primary vote for the Labor Opposition, who had announced a more significant reduction target than the Government and a suite of measures — from investment in renewable energy to an energy guarantee — to get there.
And we saw a rise of only around 0.5 per cent of the primary vote for the party with the most progressive and ambitious climate policy: the Greens. More consequentially, of course, we saw the re-election of a Government with limited ambition on emissions reductions.
Federal election 2019: Live results
How did this happen?
While it's too early for fine-grained analysis, we can draw a few conclusions at this point.
First, the seats where climate change was significant as an issue at the election tells us something. As the most significant political issue for Greens supporters in the election, climate change clearly played a role in the re-election of Adam Bandt in Melbourne, and in strong primary votes for the Greens in nearby electorates of Higgins, Kooyong and Macnamara.
In Sydney, it was clearly prominent in Wentworth (undecided at the time of writing), and most prominently Warringah where Zali Steggall won the seat from Tony Abbott.
In Warringah, not only was the LNP's position on climate change inconsistent with the views of most in this constituency, but Mr Abbott was (rightly) seen as the chief architect of an extended period of climate inaction in Australia.



Simply put, he was (in Opposition, in Government and in public debate) the chief contributor to the toxic politics of climate change in this country over the past decade.


What's happening in my electorate?
Search all electorates and set favourites to keep up-to-date on the vote count.

Mr Abbott's re-election was, in short, a bridge too far for his constituency.
But in this case and in other inner-city seats, support for climate action looks broadly consistent with a 'post-materialist' sensibility.
Here the emphasis on quality of life over immediate economic and physical needs encourages a focus on issues like climate change. But this is a sensibility that speaks to those in higher socio-economic brackets, and principally with higher levels of education.
It isn't particularly applicable to regional Queensland, for example, especially when constituents in the latter view large scale mining operations as a crucial potential source of income and employment.


A protest convoy aimed at stopping the Adani coal mine, united agriculture and mining sectors. ABC News

Voters feared climate policy more than climate change
Second, the Lowy Institute polling data also tells us something about when climate support rises and falls.
Simply put, climate concern is at its highest in Australia when there's a perception (eg 2006, 2019) that the government isn't doing anything about the issue and isn't taking it seriously. Conversely, climate concern has been at its lowest as the Government began to pursue substantive climate action, bottoming out when the so-called carbon tax was legislated in 2012.
In this election, Australians were suddenly faced with a prospective Labor Government ready with a suite of measures to tackle climate change.
And they were presented with an account of these measures as a devastating economic blow to Australian prosperity and growth.
However discredited much of this modelling ultimately was, and the broader fear campaign about everything from electricity prices to the end of petrol-based cars, it raised the spectre of immediate economic sacrifice for Australians.
Coalition policies have limited ambition on emissions reductions. ABC News: Ian Cutmore
We're already in a climate emergency
So what would it take to make climate change a major political concern in Australia, and a crucial issue in future Australian elections?
A climate emergency, perhaps? The problem with this argument is that by most accounts, we're in one.
The five hottest years on record have been the past five, natural disasters have increased in intensity and frequency, we're in the midst of an extinction crisis and the average global temperatures suggest that we've almost reached the agreed Paris target for warming: no more than 1.5 degrees.
So the issue is not whether there's a problem. Rather, it's how to get Australian policy makers and voters to recognise and respond to it credibly and seriously. It should be easier to do.
We're confronted more than ever with manifestations of climate change.
Parties claiming to represent rural voters are presiding over policies that make the droughts and their effects more severe and undermine agricultural viability.
And the case for economics and jobs over the environment is getting harder and harder to make on cost-benefit grounds given the costs of climate change itself and the danger of stranded mining assets in particular.
The key for policy makers will ultimately be to effectively challenge the economics/environment justification for inaction, and build communities of concern that genuinely extend beyond the inner cities to those communities (paradoxically) most vulnerable to manifestations of climate change.
Clearly, it's long past time this happened.

*Matt McDonald is an associate professor in the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland.

Links