There was a telling moment bound up in an awkward pause during a parliamentary hearing on Friday into a climate change bill proposed by the independent MP Zali Steggall.
Liberal MP Trent Zimmerman asked a witness – Dr Angela Frimberger, a biologist turned climate activist – whether it was reasonable for a government to direct independent expert advisers to not provide them with advice that they did not want to hear and had no intention of acting upon.
|
|
Zali Steggall’s proposed climate change bill has broad support,
but is very unlikely to become law. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
|
Zimmerman’s point was, should such a commission be created, why shouldn’t the government of the day order it not to provide advice over the reinstitution of a price on carbon, given neither party wanted to pursue such a policy?
“I would have thought it was not an unreasonable proposition to say that a government could indicate to a commission the parameters it was prepared to consider so [the commission] did not go down the path of providing advice that would have no functional reality in policy,” Zimmerman said.
|
|
Australia leading world with record renewable take-up, new data
finds
|
“But if carbon pricing was the most effective mechanism to achieve the outcome, then shouldn’t the government take advice from the independent body whose sole purpose is to provide that advice?” responded Frimberger after a beat or two.
“If the majority of the political spectrum has already made a determination that it is not prepared to go down that path, then it is meaningless in some ways,” said Zimmerman, ceding no ground.
Frimberger tried again: “But shouldn’t the majority of the political spectrum take expert advice?”
At this point the chairman stepped in and put the debate out of its misery, with Zimmerman presumably still certain of the primacy of “functional reality” and Frimberger still apparently more concerned with, well, reality.
Functional reality has retarded climate action in Australia – longer than it has in comparable nations – in large part because we create our wealth not just by the use of fossil fuel but by its export. But around the world, functional reality is being rapidly overwhelmed by climate reality.
|
|
Scott Morrison goaded the Labor Party with a lump of coal in
Parliament in 2017. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen |
Last week the world’s largest investor, BlackRock, with more than $10 trillion in funds under management, reaffirmed that climate change and associated risk management would remain at the heart of its investment strategy.
|
|
General Motors aiming to eliminate petrol and diesel cars by
2035
|
In an opinion piece published in the Financial Times over the weekend entitled Wall Street’s new mantra: green is good, the financial journalist and author Gillian Tett writes she has identified a significant shift in attitudes towards so-called environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria – the standards companies set for their operations that can be tested and measured by the market.
Not long ago ESG was ring-fenced from general operations, used as a tool to signal good intentions to investor activists who wanted to change the world.
|
|
Morrison eyeing more ambitious climate target of net zero by
2050
|
Today, argues Tett, it is at the heart of operations, used by companies seeking to “avoid reputational risks, retain customers and employees, and sidestep losses”.
Tett quotes Anne Finucane, vice-chair of Bank of America, who estimates that of $US110 trillion in assets under professional management today, about 40 per cent have some sort of ESG consideration.
If green is now good according to global financial markets, how long will both parties back brown industries at the cost of rapid emissions reduction?
The support for Steggall’s bill suggests that, outside Parliament, the desire for rapid reductions is broad. It has been backed not just by groups such as the Clean Energy Council – which represents Australia’s renewable energy industry – but by the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, the Planning Institute of Australia and the Property Council of Australia.
|
|
What's a 'just transition' and can you switch to green energy
without sacking coal workers? |
Despite this, both major parties remain home to supporters of old industries that scientists – and markets – believe must be abandoned.
Announcing a new climate spokesman in Chris Bowen, Labor plans to focus on the message that addressing climate change will prove to be a boon rather than a burden to the economy. It is betting that this message will be echoed in the markets too.
It is hoping that the functional reality – which is to say the political reality – and the scientific reality have finally converged.
Links
- (AU) Business Council Of Australia Supports Zali Steggall’s Climate Change Bills
- Zali Steggall's climate bill gets broad backing from industry groups and investors
- Business Council of Australia backs Zali Steggall's climate change bill for 2050 net zero target
- Australian faces major climate change reality check
- Spinning emissions: Australia's climate projections are not what they seem
- Coalition quietly adds fossil fuel industry leaders to emissions reduction panel
- Australia leading world with record renewable take-up, new data finds
- Morrison eyeing more ambitious climate target of net zero by 2050
- What's a 'just transition' and can you switch to green energy without sacking coal workers?
- What 2C of warming will look like in Australia
- Morrison’s tech roadmap flags more investment in carbon capture and storage
- UN climate summit president thanks Australian states – but not Morrison government – for backing net zero
- Climate change targets 2021-2030
- Australia needs to cut emissions by at least 50% by 2030 to meet Paris goals, experts say
- Chris Bowen will use jobs deal and ‘roadmap to net zero’ to sell climate action to voters
- We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN
No comments:
Post a Comment