12/05/2021

(AU ICIJ) How Climate Change Skepticism Held A Government Captive

International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

In her new book, reporter Marian Wilkinson uncovers the network of politicians, business leaders and others who have wielded huge influence over Australia’s climate policy for more than two decades.

Australia’s then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (center) takes part in a press conference with Scott Morrison (left) and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg at the Parliament House in Canberra on August 20, 2018. SEAN DAVEY/AFP via Getty Images

Author
Marian Wilkinson is an Australian journalist and author. She has won two Walkley Awards, and was the first female executive producer of Four Corners. She has been a deputy editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, a Washington correspondent for The National Times, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, as well as a senior reporter for The Australian.
In late April this year, at a global summit arranged to coincide with Earth Day, United States President Joe Biden announced ambitious new goals for tackling climate change, and set a challenge for all other nations to do the same.
One country that did not meet that challenge at the Earth Day summit was Australia, whose prime minister, Scott Morrison, reiterated previous commitments, but did not bow to pressure to increase targets.

According to The Carbon Club, a new book by Australian reporter Marian Wilkinson, the Morrison government is continuing a pattern of resistance and inaction that has plagued Australia’s climate change policy for two decades.

Wilkinson, who is a member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, has spent years uncovering a network of business leaders, politicians, climate sceptic scientists and right wing think tanks that have fought to destroy Australia’s climate change policies, joining an international campaign to undermine confidence in climate science and derail global action to combat climate change.

This edited extract from The Carbon Club covers the political events in Australia in 2018 when the then-prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was torn down in a party coup aided by climate skeptics who wanted to blow up his climate and energy policy. 

Sacrificing Goats

Australia’s former prime minister, Tony Abbott, arrived in London pretty pleased with himself. After helping to kill off the Clean Energy Target, he was now being welcomed as an honoured guest of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The United Kingdom-based climate-skeptic think tank founded by former chancellor, Nigel Lawson, had invited Abbott to give its annual lecture in October 2017.

Abbott was following in the footsteps of his heroes ex-Prime Minister John Howard and Cardinal George Pell, who had both stood at this podium before him. His lecture had the cautious title “Daring to doubt,” but even he admitted it would best be remembered as his “Sacrificing goats” speech.

In a provocative attack on climate policies, Abbott compared efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change as akin to animal sacrifice by ancient priests. “Primitive people once killed goats to appease the volcano gods,” he told the audience. “We’re more sophisticated now but are still sacrificing our industries and our living standards to the climate gods to little more effect.” Abbott went on to roundly criticise the scientific consensus on climate science. “Beware the pronouncement ‘the science is settled,’” he warned. “It’s the spirit of the Inquisition, the thought-police down the ages.”

But beneath the hyperbole, Abbott used his U.K. lecture for a more strategic purpose. With the death of Australia’s proposed Clean Energy Target, the energy minister Josh Frydenberg was working on a new policy to put to the Liberal-National Party coalition government’s party room. Abbott was spelling out the demands of climate-sceptic Members of Parliament that he wanted met. First, he said, no subsidies for renewable energy. Second, he wanted the federal government to fund a new coal plant. “Given the nervousness of private investors, there must be a government-built coal-fired power station to overcome political risk,” Abbott demanded.

This was politically impossible for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. If Turnbull agreed to build a new coal-fired power station in Australia, it would destroy his political credibility. But Abbott would press this demand and rally his allies against Turnbull.

In July 2018, Abbott turned up the pressure. Echoing President Donald Trump, he called on Turnbull’s government to pull out of the Paris Agreement. He was soon backed up by the right-wing think tank, The Institute of Public Affairs and its skeptic stalwarts, iron ore billionaire, Gina Rinehart and mining entrepreneur, Hugh Morgan who still held huge sway in the Liberal Party. That month had delivered a big problem for Turnbull and Frydenberg. On July 28, five federal by-elections were held across the country and, in a huge setback for Turnbull, the government failed to win even one of them.

The losses entrenched the view in the Queensland members of the Coalition that Turnbull was no longer a winner. If the result was repeated at the next election, the Coalition would be wiped out in that state. At this point, Turnbull lost the support of his influential home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, who had little interest in climate policy, but did hold a marginal seat in Queensland.

For Turnbull’s ally, Craig Laundy, the by-election losses were the beginning of the end. Enough numbers in the party room were moving to put Turnbull’s leadership in play: “When you add all the Liberal Party members and senators in Queensland who have been spooked to the rump of [the parliamentary pro-coal lobby] the Monash Forum, you get to mid- to high twenties without blinking. Then what happens? Sky News kicks on inside Parliament House and they are just obsessed and infatuated with two agendas. One, tear down Malcolm. And two, use climate change to do it.”

The Turnbull government’s new climate and energy policy, the National Energy Guarantee or NEG quickly turned into the vehicle to destabilize Turnbull. Reports appeared that Abbott and the climate-skeptic rebels would cross the floor if Frydenberg tried to bring the NEG into parliament for a vote. Turnbull and Frydenberg at first tried to stare the rebels down, arguing the policy had been signed off by cabinet and supported in the party room.

“Abbott was trenchantly opposed, but certainly the feedback that Josh was giving us was that, apart from Tony, we probably wouldn’t have any floor-crossers. That was his view,” Turnbull recalled. “The opposition that blew up in the last week or so of my prime ministership was well beyond anything that Josh had anticipated, or at least in so far as I was aware. And it was being whipped up and supported in the media by the usual suspects in the traditional way.” By this stage, numbers men for Home Affairs Minister Dutton and Treasurer Scott Morrison were already head-counting. In a series of humiliating backdowns to appease the rebels, Turnbull and Frydenberg finally ended up ditching their greenhouse emissions target from the NEG legislation altogether, stunning the government’s business allies and state energy ministers. That week, Abbott watched Turnbull buckling and saw his leadership bleeding away.

“There was the first major adjustment to the NEG,” said Abbott, recalling Turnbull’s retreat. “He’d told the party room that the emissions reduction targets were going to be put into legislation to stop the Labor Party increasing them and then he suddenly announced, for God knows what reason, on the Friday night that was no longer going to be the case. [On Monday] Malcolm went into the prime ministerial courtyard and dumped the whole policy because, while he might have been able to get it through the parliament with the Labor Party support, he couldn’t get the support of the Coalition party room for it.

“The NEG was fatal to his leadership,” Abbott said bluntly. “Dropping it was fatal. But keeping it would have been fatal too.”

Jay Weatherill, who had lost the premiership of South Australia four months earlier, looked in despair at the triumph, yet again, of the climate sceptics, in the Coalition party room: “Everyone has been dancing in circles around a bunch of climate deniers. But until you actually stand in the middle of Martin Place and say ‘I am a climate denier’ they are not going to be satisfied,” he said later.

“It was never about energy policy, it was about killing Malcolm. Malcolm didn’t realise he was dealing with political terrorists. They were never interested in negotiating a result. There was only one result they were interested in and that was killing him. And the way they killed him was to destroy his credibility.”

In a final attempt to save his job, Turnbull moved a surprise leadership spill on August 21. Abbott was sitting next to Dutton: “I said to Dutts, ‘Someone’s got to run,’ and Dutts said, ‘Well I’m going to.’” Dutton lost, 35 votes to 48, but Turnbull was mortally wounded. The next day his top cabinet ministers began to defect. Mathias Cormann, the finance minister, was counting Dutton’s numbers, and Morrison’s backers were also hard at work.

Turnbull couldn’t comprehend how the climate and energy policy had been used to undermine him when it had been supported by every cabinet minister. “Mathias was strongly in favour of the NEG, as was Scott. No dissent in cabinet. There was no one running interference in cabinet,” Turnbull recalled. “Mathias and I worked closely together. His conduct was never explained by him.”

In the final ballot for the Liberal leadership, Scott Morrison emerged the victor after key Turnbull supporters swung his way to block Dutton. At his last press conference at Parliament House, Turnbull blamed those he called “the wreckers” for bringing him down. “So, insofar as there has been chaos this week, it has been created by the wreckers,” he told reporters. “I have done everything I can to maintain the stability of government and the stability of the Party. But, of course, if people are determined to wreck, then we know they will continue to do so.” With his family at his side, Turnbull walked away from parliament house. The Liberal Party leader who had argued long and loud for climate science was gone. Whether he fought the climate skeptics head-on, as he did as opposition leader, or tried to appease them, as he did as prime minister, he could never defeat them.  Climate and energy policy would remain hostage to the Coalition’s skeptics and their allies for now. After all, the new prime minister had famously held aloft a lump of coal in parliament.

Extract from The Carbon Club by Marian Wilkinson, published by Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2020.

Links

(UK The Independent) Sir David Attenborough Warns Of ‘Crippling’ Climate Breakdown After Being Handed Cop26 Role

The IndependentTed Hennessey

‘Crucial’ nations come to together find solution, says TV naturalist


Sir David Attenborough has warned of the “crippling problems” the world faces because of climate change, after being given a role at the Cop26 summit later this year.

The veteran broadcaster, 95, says in a short video message it is “crucial” global leaders find a solution to environmental issues, which will become “greater” in the next few years.

The UN’s Cop26 climate conference is due to be held in Glasgow this November, aiming to bring together world leaders to agree a plan to tackle climate change.

Sir David has been named the summit’s ‘People’s Advocate’ and will make an address to political leaders about why immediate climate action is important.

In the video message, Sir David said: “I am greatly honoured to be given the role of People’s Advocate. There could not be a more important moment that we should have international agreement.

“The epidemic has shown us how crucial it is to find agreement among nations if we are to solve such worldwide problems. But the problems that await us within the next five to 10 years are even greater.

“It is crucial that these meetings in Glasgow, Cop26, have success, and that at last the nations will come together to solve the crippling problems that the world now faces.”

He will also make a speech at the G7 leaders’ summit in Cornwall next month, where environmental issues will be at the heart of discussions.

Sir David Attenborough UN Cop26 climate conference ‘People’s Advocate’

Prime minister Boris Johnson said: “Sir David Attenborough has already inspired millions of people in the UK and around the world with his passion and knowledge to act on climate change and protect the planet for future generations.

“There is no better person to build momentum for further change as we approach the Cop26 climate summit in November. I am hugely grateful to Sir David for agreeing to be our People’s Advocate.”

Cop26 president-designate, Alok Sharma, said: “Climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity and the stakes could not be higher for our planet.

“The next decade will be make, or break, for cutting global emissions sufficiently to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

“That is why I am delighted to be working with Sir David, a hero for our country and our planet, to inspire action ahead of Cop26.”

David Attenborough's best TV moments

Links

(AU RMIT/ABC Fact Check) Kevin Rudd And Malcolm Turnbull Said 70 Per Cent Of Our Trade Is With Nations Committed To Net-Zero Emissions. Is That Correct?

RMIT ABC Fact Check

The former prime ministers warned that Australia was "dangerously at risk". (AAP)

The claim

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has so far refused to bow to pressure to adopt a clear timeline for reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

The reluctance to firmly commit to a target has led to speculation that Australia could face "carbon-border taxes", imposed on the exports of countries deemed to be climate laggards.

In an opinion article published in The Guardian, former prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull warned that Australia "remains dangerously at risk of the economic and environmental consequences that will come from the climate crisis barrelling towards us".

"With more than 70 per cent of Australia's trade now with countries committed to net zero, the prospect of carbon-border taxes being introduced — beginning with the European Union — also leaves us economically exposed," the pair wrote.

Is it correct that more than 70 per cent of Australia's trade takes place with countries committed to cutting their emissions to zero in net terms?

RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

The verdict

Mr Morrison was one of 40 world leaders at last month's Earth Day summit. (Reuters)

Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull made a fair call.

At the time the article was published, 20 of Australia's 30 biggest trading partners had already committed to reaching net-zero emissions.

Together, these 20 countries account for 71.6 per cent of Australia's total two-way trade (all exports and imports).

Measured by exports alone, the proportion is even higher.

Of Australia's top 30 export destinations, 17 countries have announced commitments to net-zero emissions, accounting for 74.2 per cent of the total.

On both measures, the numbers are slightly higher again once smaller trade partners — those inside the European Union but outside the top 30 — are included.

What are 'net-zero' emissions?

Climate experts say immediate cuts to emissions are as important as longer-term targets. (Reuters: Thomas Peter)

According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), net-zero emissions are achieved when human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases are matched by the removal from the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, through human intervention, over a specified period.

In assessing whether countries have committed to net zero, Fact Check has not considered the adequacy of current policies for meeting such targets.

Some climate scientists caution that net-zero pledges risk placing the focus too heavily on distant targets and unproven technological solutions, when what is needed to keep emissions in check are large, sustained cuts to emissions in the shorter term.

What makes a commitment?

A number of Australia's trading partners have passed legislation to cut emissions to zero in net terms. This includes the UKFranceDenmark and Sweden.

New Zealand has also legislated a net-zero target, though it does not cover all greenhouse gases.

European Union nations have set ambitious targets for cutting emissions. (Getty Images: Sylvain Sonnet)

Other jurisdictions, including the European UnionCanada and Ireland, have proposed new laws, while others, including the USChina and Japan, have set the target as formal policies.

According to experts, to be regarded as being "committed" to net-zero emissions a country must clearly state its policy to cut emissions to zero by a specific date — either in legislation, in a policy document or as a formal statement to the international community.

Professor Tim Stephens, an expert in international law at the University of Sydney Law School, said a commitment to achieving net-zero emissions must be stated by a government to the international community as a clear policy goal.

"They are most credible when formally communicated to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as a Nationally Determined Contribution," Professor Stephens told Fact Check.

Ideally, he said, any commitment to net zero would also be backed by credible national policies and comprehensive legislation, as with the UK's Climate Change Act.

Professor Mark Howden, director of the ANU's Climate Change Institute, said he considered a commitment to be "some sort of official statement by the national government that they were aiming for this emissions' target by a specified date".

"Normally, a commitment would also have a broad plan for achievement," he said, adding that any target must also be calculated in accordance with the inventory guidelines of the IPCC.

This means it would apply to absolute emissions, rather than emissions per capita or emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP), and take into account sequestration or carbon sinks.

Should China's commitment count?

Although President Xi's climate promises are "noteworthy", they are yet to become Chinese law. (AP: Andy Wong)

In a September 2020 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China would scale up its efforts to cut emissions with "more vigorous policies and measures", promising to reach carbon neutrality "before 2060".

Both Professor Stephens and Professor Howden said China should be included in the list of committed countries.

"It appears to be a clear statement by the national leadership with both an emission-reduction goal and a timeframe (and something of a plan) to achieve this," Professor Howden wrote in an email.

Likewise, Professor Stephens said President Xi's comments had amounted to a specific promise.

Indeed, China reiterated the promise at the recent climate summit convened by US President Joe Biden.

"We can anticipate that it will be included in China's updated NDC [Nationally Determined Contribution] in due course," Professor Stephens said.

However, not everyone considers China's promise to be a commitment.

For example, the World Resources Institute pointed out that China's net-zero target had not been enshrined in law or an official policy document, although it described the speech as "noteworthy".

Given China made an unambiguous commitment to achieve carbon neutrality (a phrase the IPCC defines as "net-zero" emissions) before 2060, Fact Check has chosen to include China in its list of countries.

It is, however, important to note that China accounts for 28.8 per cent of Australia's two-way trade, or 35.3 per cent of Australia's exports.

The accuracy of the claim made by Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull, therefore, relies on whether China's pledge is real and should be included among the countries committed to net-zero emissions.

Australia's position

The Prime Minister spoke of Australia's net-zero goal for 2050 at the National Press Club. (ABC News: Matt Roberts)

While the Government's rhetoric has ramped up in recent months, it has stopped short of announcing a formal target of net-zero emissions, or putting a specific time frame on achieving such a target.

Rather, in a February 1 address to the National Press Club, Mr Morrison said Australia's "goal" was to reach net-zero emissions "preferably by 2050".

"But when we get there … whether in Australia or anywhere else, that will depend on the advances made in science and technology," he said.

And in an April 19 address to business leaders in Sydney, Mr Morrison said he was "increasing in confidence" that Australia would be able to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

10 years of climate policy inertia
Ten years ago one man's plan blew apart Australia's two great parties irrevocably just as they teetered toward consensus on climate change, the most divisive issue of the Australian political century. Read more

He also told the Biden Administration's April 22 climate summit the question for Australia was not "if" or "when" Australia reached net-zero emissions, but rather "how".

"Australia is on the pathway to net zero," Mr Morrison said. "Our goal is to get there as soon as we possibly can, through technology that enables and transforms our industries."

Australia's states and territories, meanwhile, have individually committed to reaching net-zero emissions, which the Climate Council says amounts to a national "de facto net-zero target".

However, experts do not regard Australia as having committed to net-zero emissions, as the Federal Government has not said when it intends to get there, nor has it included such a target in an official policy document or legislation.

Professor Stephens said the Government had been deliberately unclear as to when Australia's emissions might fall to zero in net terms.

Also citing the lack of a specified timeframe, Professor Howden told Fact Check that Mr Morrison's language to date did not equate to a "commitment".

Australia's trade

Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull referred to 70 per cent of "Australia's trade". Fact Check takes this to mean two-way trade, which combines exports and imports.

However, their article also referred to "the prospect of carbon border taxes", an economic risk that would particularly affect exports.

Consequently, Fact Check has also assessed the former PMs' claim on the basis of exports alone.

Using the Australian Bureau of Statistics as its source, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade publishes figures on both, showing the volume of trade between Australia and individual countries.

Fact Check analysed the department's latest data for Australia's 30 biggest trade partners, plus the European Union, covering the 2019-20 financial year.

Two-way trade

China is Australia's largest two-way trading partner, with an almost 29 per cent share. (Reuters: Jason Lee)



Fact Check's analysis found that 20 of Australia's 30 biggest trading partners had committed to reaching net zero by 2050 or earlier, while China was committed to net- zero emissions by 2060.

Together, these countries accounted for 71.6 per cent of Australia's total two-way trade in 2019-20.

This is consistent with Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull's claim.



This figure takes in some, but not all, members of the European Union, which in March 2021 resolved to design a "carbon border adjustment mechanism".

A statement issued by EU parliamentarians explained that such a mechanism would "place a carbon price on imports of certain goods from outside the EU, if these countries are not ambitious enough about climate change".

In total, EU countries (excluding Poland, which does not currently support a net-zero target) accounted for 8.8 per cent of Australian two-way trade. This included EU members already counted in the top 30 (7.6 per cent of trade) as well as remaining EU countries (1.2 per cent).

Including all European trading partners in the count would take the portion of Australian two-way trade covered by net-zero commitments to at least 72.8 per cent.

Trade with Taiwan, which accounts for a further 2.1 per cent of total trade, has not been included.

However, the day after Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull made their claim, the Taiwanese government announced that it, too, would begin looking at how it could reach net zero by 2050.

Australia's exports

Fact Check also examined Australia's 30 biggest export destinations, along with the European Union.

Measured this way, 17 of Australia's 30 biggest trading partners were committed to net-zero emissions, accounting for 74.2 per cent of total exports.

EU nations not included in the top 30 trading countries added a further 1.3 per cent — for a total of 75.5 per cent of Australia's exports

Again, this is consistent with the claim made by Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull.



As with the two-way trade figures, countries that announced net-zero targets after the date of the claim have not been included.

During the Biden-led April 22 summit, the Brazilian government said it would achieve climate neutrality by 2050, though days earlier it also said doing so would require $US10 billion ($12.7 billion) a year in foreign aid.

Principal researchers: David Campbell and Josh Gordon, Economics and Finance Editor factcheck@rmit.edu.au

Links