3 Ways CEOs Can Tackle Climate Change And Build A Net-Zero Economy

World Economic Forum - Nicole Systrom

Some CEOs are optimistic about their ability to become net-zero, but less sure about how to achieve it. Image: Freepik

Author Nicole Systrom is founder of the Sutro Energy Group, which partners with philanthropists, investors and entrepreneurs to accelerate high-impact climate and clean technology solutions. Article Overview Urgency to mitigate climate change by 2030 requires public-private collaboration. Many CEOs are taking action but huge challenges remain to achieve ambitious climate targets. We outline three keys ways companies can use their influence and acumen to get to net-zero. Note The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

A growing number of CEOs get it: they have an obligation to address climate change.

Advocates and environmentalists everywhere are cheering commitments by big companies that demonstrate the various ways they are taking on climate change, from asset manager BlackRock’s push for portfolio companies to disclose net-zero plans to IBM’s commitment to hit net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

As the US rejoins the Paris Climate Agreement and we approach the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow this November, we’ll likely see a steady drumbeat of announcements in the months to come. But can companies really get there?

While many leaders I’ve spoken to are optimistic about their ability to use cleaner sources of energy, reduce buildings emissions and improve energy efficiency, making commitments is one thing; meeting them is quite another.

As one energy utility CEO told me, he thought 80% of getting to net-zero was achievable.

The hard part was the remaining 20%, because of everything from the intermittency of renewable technology to the high cost of energy storage to the challenge of upgrading our grid infrastructure, “The last mile” as this CEO called it.

So even though we’re just starting the race, it’s that last mile that we need to keep in mind. Here’s three key things companies can do to make it to the finish line:

1. Support early-stage entrepreneurs and scale solutions

Large corporations generally have the infrastructure, networks and the resources to scale technologies that startups don’t. But we can’t expect a successful company to abandon a corporate culture developed over decades to suddenly launch a quixotic quest for blue-sky innovation.

Fortunately, corporations are showing a greater interest in supporting climate entrepreneurship – and government is playing a part as well. The Department of Energy offers Lab-Embedded Entrepreneurship Programs, in which top scientists and engineers are assigned to US national laboratories where they perform early-stage research and development and train to be entrepreneurs.

Providing scientists with entrepreneurial acumen and skills gives them a better chance to succeed in the innovation ecosystem and seize commercial and investment opportunities. Using balance sheets or corporate philanthropy, the private sector can and should partner with government and the NGO community to support promising new developments.

And it’s not just about championing the little guy. Microsoft, for example, has committed to being carbon negative by 2030 and water positive with net-zero waste.

At the same time, its Climate Innovation Fund focuses on investing in developed climate solutions that require capital to scale in the market. The company prioritizes technologies that are relevant to its core business and help suppliers and customers reduce their carbon footprints.

  LARGE IMAGE

2. Lend climate innovators political capital

Big companies have no problem making their voice heard in policy debates – even those outside their areas of expertise or narrow self-interest, as we saw last spring when CEOs endorsed police reform during racial justice protests.

At the same time, early-stage entrepreneurs lack the capacity and expertise to engage with policymakers, which has led to a fundamental misunderstanding of how early-stage innovation works in many parts of government.

One way to bridge that gap would be for corporates to lend their lobbying expertise to climate innovators to ensure the trillions of dollars President Biden promises to invest, as part of his Build Back Better plan, are effective in incentivizing entrepreneurs and scientists.

At a mini, corporations should swear off lobbying against climate change regulation, which often undermines them.

What's the World Economic Forum doing about the transition to clean energy? Moving to clean energy is key to combating climate change, yet in the past five years, the energy transition has stagnated. Energy consumption and production contribute to two-thirds of global emissions, and 81% of the global energy system is still based on fossil fuels, the same percentage as 30 years ago. Plus, improvements in the energy intensity of the global economy (the amount of energy used per unit of economic activity) are slowing. In 2018 energy intensity improved by 1.2%, the slowest rate since 2010. Effective policies, private-sector action and public-private cooperation are needed to create a more inclusive, sustainable, affordable and secure global energy system. Benchmarking progress is essential to a successful transition. The World Economic Forum’s Energy Transition Index, which ranks 115 economies on how well they balance energy security and access with environmental sustainability and affordability, shows that the biggest challenge facing energy transition is the lack of readiness among the world’s largest emitters, including US, China, India and Russia. The 10 countries that score the highest in terms of readiness account for only 2.6% of global annual emissions. LARGE IMAGE To future-proof the global energy system, the Forum’s Shaping the Future of Energy and Materials Platform is working on initiatives including, Systemic Efficiency, Innovation and Clean Energy and the Global Battery Alliance to encourage and enable innovative energy investments, technologies and solutions. Additionally, the Mission Possible Platform (MPP) is working to assemble public and private partners to further the industry transition to set heavy industry and mobility sectors on the pathway towards net-zero emissions. MPP is an initiative created by the World Economic Forum and the Energy Tansitions Commission.

3. Make net-zero part of a business strategy

A goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 is a laudable one. But achieving it will require a full-scale review of a company’s business strategy, including products, operations, vendors and supply chains. The good news is that while 60% of the 100 CEOs at large companies surveyed recently said they have already taken that important step, four in 10 of these companies haven’t. The more companies with a net-zero strategy, the clearer the demand for “last mile” innovation will be.

Regarding climate, Jesper Brodin, the CEO of Ingka Group, which owns IKEA, put it simply: “We have definitely shifted the dialogue from the ‘why’ and are now focused fully on the ‘how.’” We need more leaders who are ready to ask: how does my company reach net-zero? If current technology doesn't get us there, how can we support the research and startups that could?

Getting there won’t be easy. But after developing lifesaving vaccines faster than ever, there’s no reason we can’t apply the same urgency and commitment to problem-solving to addressing climate change. And we have to start now.



Links

• Corporate action on climate change needed more than ever
• How the institutional response to COVID-19 can prepare us for climate change
• 4 questions CEOs must answer this year to achieve net zero
• (AU) Corporate Watchdog Puts Climate Change Warnings Into Action
• AU) Corporate Climate Risk Disclosures Must Show More: IGCC
• If We’re Bailing Out Corporations, They Should Bail Out The Planet
• (AU) No More Room For Excuses On Climate
• What Kenneth Hayne Says About Climate Change - Transcript
• (AU) Hayne Rebukes Directors On Climate Risk Failure
• Business Lobby Groups Accused Of 'Undermining' Climate Change Policy
• ASIC Issues Updated Guidance For Directors Seeking To Avoid Climate Lawsuits
• Directors Are In The Crosshairs Of Corporate Climate Litigation

(AU The Guardian) Australia Has Wasted So Many Years When It Comes To Climate Change

The Guardian - Greg Jericho

The first mention in parliament of ‘greenhouse gas’ occurred in 1986 - decades later the government is still not proposing anything near appropriate

‘Over 35 years nothing has really changed – no urgency and no real policy.’ Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

So many wasted years.

The first mention in parliament of “greenhouse gas” occurred in 1986 when the ALP’s Barry Jones took a question on whether the government was concerned about the greenhouse effect and reports that it “will raise ambient temperature to such an extent that sea levels will rise and flood coastal cities?”

Jones set the tone for climate-change policy ever since by suggesting calm and replying that he “must emphasise that the consequences, at least for the next 50 years … are not likely to be either catastrophic or even dramatic”.

He did however note that the issue did require “appropriate preventive long term action.”

Here we are 35 years later, not even close to a government proposing anything near appropriate.

Instead this week the prime minister effectively announced a coal industry subsidy program disguised very poorly as a climate change policy.

He also showed himself to be completely out of step with the leaders of other nations at US president Joe Biden’s Leadership Climate Summit by failing to commit to any further cuts and instead praising “Australian companies like Fortescue, led by Dr Andrew Forrest, Visy, BHP, Rio Tinto, AGL”.

He did however commit $275m for hydrogen hubs over five years and $263.7m for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects and hubs over the next decade.

Ahh, CCS, that glorious amalgam of policy and boondoggle.

It too has a long history.

Clean coal production has from the beginning been governments’ go-to response to deal with climate change.

The first mention of “clean coal” in question time should have been warning enough for what would follow.

In 1990, the Hawke government’s minister for primary industries and energy, John Kerin, was asked about the impact of the “decision to adopt targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on the Australian coal industry?”

Kerin cited the Australian Coal Association, which he noted “places a very high priority on the reduction of greenhouse gases generated by coal production and combustion”. He then suggested that “it goes without saying, of course, that the coal industry has been working on this question for quite some time”.

Well, quite.

He concluded by noting that the industry “is already taking steps to reduce the level of emissions from that industry by promoting clean coal technology.”

Ahh bless.

Thirty-one years later and those steps are apparently still being taken.

Such a long walk for so little distance covered.

Clean coal and carbon capture and storage reached its peak policy popularity in the mid-late 2000s.


The first person to mention “carbon capture and storage” in the House of Representatives was Alexander Downer in 2005 when he suggested of a new “Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate” that “we have identified many areas for potential technology cooperation, including clean coal, agriculture, carbon capture and storage”.

Perhaps back then one could be forgiven for thinking that that “potential technology” might save us, but now you would need to be wilfully ignorant to suggest such a thing.

CCS became supremely popular during the Rudd government years because while it retained its handy “pro-coal” bias, it was also a policy that – like others aspects such as nuclear power – only made the slightest bit of sense with a price on carbon.

As early as 2006, Lenore Taylor, then writing for the AFR, noted even the Australian Coal Association was saying “carbon capture will only happen when there is an emissions trading scheme so that electricity generators can recoup their investment.”

Oddly there was no mention of that this week by Scott Morrison.

Of course, it’s obvious the Morrison government doesn’t even believe its own spin.

When the government was confronted with the reality of the pandemic and massive job losses it committed $130bn in one year for the jobkeeper program.

If the government truly thought carbon capture and storage was the solution to allowing our mining sector to thrive while also combatting climate change, would they really only commit 0.2% of that amount?

$26m a year to develop a technology that has been promised and failed to deliver for over 30 years?

It’s a policy only a climate change denier would bother pretending is worthy; and even the pretence is pretty meagre.

And so this week we realise that over 35 years nothing has really changed – no urgency and no real policy. All that has differed is the addition of more wasted years.

Links

• The US climate target blows Australia’s out of the water - Frank Jotzo
• Australia has been talking up its climate credentials – but do the claims stack up?
• (AU) ‘Uniquely Unsuited’: Government Accused Of Stacking Climate Body With Fossil Interests
• (AU) Wake Up, Mr Morrison: Australia’s Slack Climate Effort Leaves Our Children 10 Times More Work To Do
• (AU) Councils Across NSW And Queensland Join Forces To Demand Climate Action From Morrison Government
• (AU) Joe Biden's Climate Envoy Admits US And Australia Not On 'Same Page'
• (AU) Energy Policy Paralysed As Nationals Firm Up Demands
• (AU) Procrasti-nation: How Australia’s Government Is Filibustering The Climate Emergency

(AU SMH) Australia Left Behind As Global Climate Action Gathers Pace

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley

Scott Morrison’s climate address to world leaders began as most online exchanges do, with a technical glitch, an awkward pause and blank stares.

“Mr Prime Minister I’m not sure we are hearing you here,” said the United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken after half a minute or so of the PM’s animated silence.

On the Pacific island of Abaiang, people must use a boat to cross from one side of a village to another at high tide as the sea creeps further in. Credit: Justin McManus

To Professor Malte Meinshausen, director of the Climate & Energy College at the University of Melbourne, a researcher with years of climate policy experience in Australia and Germany under his belt, the moment was illustrative of the entire address.

In his view the speech was out of step with those of other leaders in tone and content.

As expected the announcements made before and during the summit left Australia further isolated on climate from its closest friends, with the Prime Minister declining to raise the nation’s emission reduction target of 26-28 per cent by 2030 based on 2005 levels.

National baselines vary, but Australia’s ambition is now around half that of the US and a third that of the UK. This is particularly significant as when Australia set that target it was in lockstep with the US. And crucially, Morrison emphasised that Australia disagreed with its peers on the significance of timing.

″For Australia, it is not a question of if or even by when for net zero, but importantly how,” he said.

For the rest of the world the “when” is vital. The urgency of the crisis means emission reductions must begin at once and increase rapidly.

A key purpose of the summit was to accelerate the pace of action and shift global attention from 2050 to 2030.


PM avoids putting timeframe on zero emissions target at virtual summit.

“This is the decade we must make decisions that will avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis,“Biden  said in his address.

In Meinshausen’s view, this element of the Prime Minister’s speech amounted to a dismissal of global efforts and was a “diplomatic affront”.

Nonetheless, he views the summit as a resounding success.

The United States, he notes, demonstrated that after four years of diplomatic isolation on climate change it still has a staggering power to convene.

That the US was able to secure not only the presence of Chinese leader Xi Jinping – despite increasing tensions between the nations – and to have him reiterate China’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2060 was an achievement in its own right, Meinshausen says.

Policy director for the Investor Group on Climate Change Erwin Jackson agrees.

“I’ve never seen anything like it and I have been in this game for 30 years,” he said.

In his view the summit marked a turning point from how leaders and negotiators typically emphasised what actions they could not take rather than those they could.

Due to a combination of the overwhelming tide of evidence about the rapid pace of climate change, the emergence of new clean and cheap energy technologies and the new commitment of investors and businesses, as well as governments and civil society groups, he sees a “race to the top” emerging.

This is not to say actions undertaken or even committed to by the world are sufficient to meet the challenge, but that momentum is rapidly shifting, Meinshausen says.

Biden’s own climate envoy, John Kerry was blunt about this point too.

“Is it doable? Will we probably exceed it? I expect yes,” John Kerry said of the new US goal. “Is it enough? No. But it’s the best we can do today.”

Former Kiribati president Anote Tong, a veteran climate campaigner on behalf of his low-lying Pacific nation, welcomed the gathering momentum but he was disappointed by Australia’s apparent lack of conviction.

There are some people in the world, he told the Herald and the Age, who believe climate change will not have a direct impact on them, and are therefore unwilling to take significant action to ameliorate it.

He said he was glad Morrison had referred again to Australia’s “Pacific family”.

“I think the thing with family is that you take care of each other, you don’t do something you know is detrimental to the welfare of members of your family.”

Links

• As Australia tiptoes to 2050 climate targets, the world moves on 2030
• Morrison’s long walk to net zero
• World’s oceans changing as currents show new patterns
• The feds have ditched us on climate change, it’s time we ditch them too
• ‘There are no jobs on a dead planet’, Sharan Burrow tells Biden’s summit
• Australia left behind as global climate action gathers pace
• Scott Morrison is out of sync with the world on climate policy
• Shenhua coal deal points to mining policy on the run

(AU Video) ABC 7.30 Special: Climate Emergency

ABC 7.30 - Andy Park

From the Torres Strait, to Mallacoota, Perth and across the country, Andy Park presents 7.30's special four-part series on the climate emergency and the action Australia can take to make a difference.

   

Part One - Climate Emergency
Australia on the frontline of climate change
10mins 36secs
Transcript

For generations, Indigenous Australians have thrived on the islands in the Torres Strait but rising sea levels, more extreme weather and coastal erosion are devouring some of the 17 inhabited islands in the region and threatening their way of life.

---

Part Two - Climate Emergency

How disasters could become serious national security challenges
11mins 52secs

Transcript

The Black Summer bushfires gave us a taste of what we can expect if the world warms 1.5 degrees. The science tells us that every fraction of a degree that global temperatures rise will make future cyclones, floods and bushfires more severe.

---

     Part Three - Climate Emergency
Is carbon neutrality an economic reality?
11mins 58secs

Transcript

The Federal Government is pledging more than half a billion dollars for new energy projects in an attempt to create jobs and cut Australia's carbon emissions. The money will go towards so-called 'clean hydrogen' projects and investing in carbon capture and storage technology for existing coal-fired power plants.

---

Part Four - Climate emergency

Mounting global pressure on Australia to do more

12mins 40secs

Transcript

For decades now, the clear warnings from scientists that the world must rapidly cut carbon emissions or face catastrophic climate change have been met with inertia and inaction but that is rapidly changing and under President Joe Biden the US has dramatically scaled up its reduction targets and is using its considerable diplomatic weight to push other countries to do the same.

---

Links

• (VIDEO) Climate Change: The Facts - Sir David Attenborough
• (VIDEOS) Sir David Attenborough And United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres On Climate Change
• (VIDEO) Keira Knightley Calls For Action In ‘Climate Crisis, And Why We Should Panic’
• BBC Climate Change Videos
• Climate Scientist Katharine Hayhoe's 'Global Weirding' Videos
• Rising Voices: Young People Fight For Climate Action – Video

(AU The Guardian) Morrison Government Flags $540m For Hydrogen And Carbon Capture Ahead Of Biden Summit

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy | Adam Morton

The extra technology roadmap funding comes as critics say the Coalition is increasingly isolated due to a lack of climate ambition

Scott Morrison participating in the virtual Quad leaders meeting with Joe Biden and others in March 2021. This week the prime minister will attend a global climate action summit hosted by the US president. Photograph: Dean Lewins/AP

The Morrison government has flagged increased investment in regional hydrogen hubs and carbon capture and storage projects ahead of a global climate action summit to be hosted by the United States president, Joe Biden, at the end of this week.

The Australian government says the looming May budget will include an additional $539.2m for hydrogen and CCS, building on investments promised during last year’s budget of $70m over five years for hydrogen and $50m for CCS. The spending on CCS will increase to $263.7m.

Australia will spruik the additional expenditure at the virtual Biden summit, which the prime minister, Scott Morrison, will attend.

While Morrison continues to signal a favourable disposition towards Australia adopting a net zero target by 2050, the Coalition is not expected to make a concrete commitment at the summit, or unveil any change to its medium-term emissions reduction targets.

The additional funding under the technology roadmap comes as two former Australian prime ministers, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull, have warned the Morrison government has been left “effectively isolated in the western world” by its refusal to increase its climate commitments over the next decade or to adopt a firm timeline for the country to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

In a joint opinion piece for Guardian Australia, the former prime ministers say Biden’s election in the US had been a “massive shot in the arm” for international climate action on a scale beyond what was expected.

It had galvanised new commitments from several other countries leaving Australia fairly behind.

Rudd and Turnbull say the Biden administration is expected to this week announce a 2030 pledge twice as deep as Australia’s as the president hosts 40 world leaders at the virtual summit.

New announcements are also expected from Japan, Canada and South Korea, with the possibility of China following later this year ahead of a major climate conference in Glasgow in November.

“Our country, however, continues to bury its head in the sand, despite the fact that Australia remains dangerously at risk of the economic and environmental consequences that will come from the climate crisis barrelling towards us,” the ex-PMs say.

Rudd and Turnbull say Australia’s 2030 emissions target - a 26-28% cut compared with 2005 levels - is now “woefully inadequate” and was always intended under the Paris agreement to be increased this year.

“The main thing holding back Australia’s climate ambition is politics: a toxic coalition of the Murdoch press, the right wing of the Liberal and National parties, and vested interests in the fossil fuel sector,” Rudd and Turnbull say.

Morrison used a speech to the Business Council of Australia on Monday night to begin to frame the inevitable transition to the low emissions economy as a boon for regional Australia, in a departure from the “Whyalla wipe out” hyperbole of the Abbott era.

The prime minister noted the transition would be “won” in places like “the Pilbara, the Hunter, Gladstone, Portland, Whyalla, Bell Bay, the Riverina”, some of which are potential sites for the new hydrogen hubs or CCS projects.

But Morrison also invited controversy by declaring that Australia would not “achieve net zero in the cafes, dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities”.

The shadow climate change minister, Chris Bowen, said on Tuesday that Morrison needed to set Australia up for a significant economic transformation, not engage in more “cynical identity politics” pitting metropolitan and regional Australians against one another.

Bowen said Morrison should focus on uniting Australians “around a national objective”.

In a statement about the new investments in hydrogen and CCS, Morrison noted the world was changing rapidly.

He said Australia would “need to be competitive in a new energy economy to support the jobs of Australians, especially in our heavy industries and regional areas that depend on affordable and reliable energy”.

“We cannot pretend the world is not changing,” Morrison said. “If we do, we run the risk of stranding jobs in this country, especially in regional areas.”

The new funding will support five hydrogen hubs that could be operational by 2022.

The government says potential locations for CCS hubs include Moomba in South Australia, Gladstone in Queensland, the Darling Basin in NSW, the North West Shelf and Bonaparte Basin in Western Australia and Darwin.

Links

• Scott Morrison seeks international partners to develop low-emissions technology at Biden climate summit
• Coalition told it must hugely increase clean energy investment beyond hydrogen, carbon storage promise
• Morrison government guilty of 'absolute failure' in electric vehicles policy
• Scott Morrison refuses to commit to net zero emissions target by 2050
• Australia's carbon emissions fall just 0.3% as industrial pollution surges
• Morrison government has not ruled out supporting coal, energy minister says
• Australian government backs coal in defiance of IPCC climate warning
• Coalition votes to allow Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in carbon capture

(AU The Conversation) As Morrison Struggles With 2050, Climate Leaders Up The Ante For 2030

The Conversation - Michelle Grattan

Lukas Coch/AAP

Author Michelle Grattan is Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

We shouldn’t be surprised at the Kevin Rudd-Malcolm Turnbull bromance. After all, we saw the same with Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam.

The stronger the earlier political antipathy, it seems, the closer the later collaboration. Rudd’s fury over Turnbull’s refusal to back him for United Nations secretary-general might never have existed.

With Whitlam and Fraser, the republican cause and media issues were unifiers.

With Rudd and Turnbull, a mutual commitment to action on climate change and a passionate hatred of the Murdoch media provide the glue.

Each of them, in his ascendancy, regarded the Murdoch empire more benignly than now. But they’ve both been consistent on climate change, an issue central in Turnbull losing his leadership twice, and important in Rudd’s 2010 ousting from the prime ministership.

This week, ahead of US President Joe Biden’s (virtual) climate summit, the duo co-authored an article in The Guardian, in which they argued: “The main thing holding back Australia’s climate ambition is politics: a toxic coalition of the Murdoch press, the right wing of the Liberal and National parties, and vested interests in the fossil fuel sector.”

Despite community concern about the issue, until recently the government, post Turnbull, judged it could slough off criticisms of Australia’s inadequate climate policy. After all, wasn’t Labor the side with the problem?

Now that’s changed. There are multiple reasons but most immediately the election of Biden, who has put climate change at the heart of his international agenda, has left Australia without a fig leaf and with nowhere to hide.

It has to account for itself at high-profile international occasions. After the Biden summit comes the June G7 meeting in the United Kingdom, to which Australia has been invited. Then there’s the November United Nations climate change conference in Glasgow.

Scott Morrison understands he must pivot the government’s climate policy – specifically, that sometime this year he needs to formally embrace the widely accepted target of net-zero emissions by 2050. In his Thursday night speech to the summit he said Australia would update its strategy for Glasgow.

He knows market forces are driving much of the pace on climate policy. Climate risk is increasingly significant in investment decisions.

And, in trading terms, other countries could disadvantage Australia for being a laggard. The European Union is preparing a plan for a price on the carbon content of imported goods. This is due to be tabled this year and, after consultations, imposed in 2023.

As he manoeuvres on climate policy, Morrison is rather like the boy on the skateboard trying to navigate an awkward change of direction.

He insists the government’s approach will be based on “technology not taxes”. By stressing advances in technology, he’s preparing the way to sign up later to the 2050 target.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel takes part in the virtual international climate summit with US President Joe Biden and other world leaders. Picture: Getty Images

Ahead of the Biden summit, the government announced more than $1 billion in funding (spread over a decade) to support the development of technology. Morrison’s rhetoric casts Australia as an international leader on that front.

According to his current mantra, “‘when’ is not the question [in climate policy] anymore. ‘How’ is the question.”

But climate leaders are very much focused on the “when”. With Britain and the United States upping their medium-term ambitions, the debate is about toughening 2030 targets, and the paucity of Australia’s position is further exposed.

As Morrison inches towards the 2050 commitment, international attention is shifting to what should be done 20 years before that. But Morrison had no revised medium-term Australian target to put on Biden’s summit table.

If Morrison had been dealing with this challenge in late 2019, after his unexpected election triumph, it would be a whole lot easier. He’d have had maximum authority to make shifts of policy.

But the PM’s authority, while still substantial, has been eroded, especially by the setbacks in the vaccine roll-out. Within his own ranks, there’s more criticism, and it’s no longer assumed he couldn’t lose next year’s election.

The government’s parliamentary numbers are on a knife edge after the exit of Craig Kelly to sit as an independent.

Morrison is acutely aware he has to keep his ranks solid – hence his failure to demand Queensland Liberal Andrew Laming be forced to the crossbench.

Resistance to a meaningful shift in climate policy is strongest among the rebels in the Nationals, including the outspoken Queensland senator Matt Canavan, a big spruiker for coal. These are the people who’d seize any excuse to move on Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack. The last thing Morrison wants is a destabilising stoush within the Coalition’s minor partner.

The dilemma faced by Australia – and Morrison – was bluntly called out in a pre-summit briefing given by Biden administration officials.

Asked where Australia’s policy was, and what the US expected in increased ambition, one briefer pointed to the “very difficult political conversation” in Australia about “how much ambition is there”.

“I think that our colleagues in Australia recognise that there’s going to have to be a shift,” the official said. “It’s insufficient to follow the existing trajectory and hope that they will be on a course to deep decarbonisation and getting to net-zero emissions by mid-century.

"I think the differences are very largely about what the trajectory is and how do you get on it. One view of the world says, ‘Don’t worry, technology will solve the problem.’ The other view of the world says, ‘At the end of the day, technology will contribute but is insufficient on its own to solve the problem, and you have to have a set of policies, you have to have national intent, you have to follow up with actions and commitments.’

"I think that there’s movement. […] We are hopeful [Morrison] will come to the summit and make announcements around both and commit the country to next steps that we think would be critical.”

With the message that technology is not enough to deal with the climate challenge, the US official pricked the balloon into which Morrison had been assiduously blowing as much air as he could.

Links

• Morrison wants to focus on the 'how' rather than the 'when' in climate debate
• 'Insufficient on its own': US warns Morrison about relying on technology to achieve net zero emissions
  
• Dan Jervis-Bardy: As the world gets ambitious, Morrison get defensive
• John Hewson: Morrison is being exposed by Biden on climate action
• Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap
• Scott Morrison can’t spin this one: Australia’s climate pledges at this week’s summit won’t convince the world we’re serious
• Q+A: Joe Biden’s Earth Day summit – what could it achieve for action on climate change?

(AU The Conversation) Spot The Difference: As World Leaders Rose To The Occasion At The Biden Climate Summit, Morrison Faltered

The Conversation - Lesley Hughes | Will Steffen

Mick Tsikas/AAP

Authors Lesley Hughes is Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University Will Steffen is Emeritus Professor, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison overnight addressed a much anticipated virtual climate summit convened by US President Joe Biden, claiming future generations “will thank us not for what we have promised, but what we deliver”.

But what will his government actually deliver?

Morrison’s speech was notable for its stark lack of ambition and a defensive tone at odds with the urgent, front-footed approach of other world leaders.

He resisted the peer pressure to enter the global fold on climate action by setting clear goals, saying Australia made only “bankable” emissions-reduction commitments.

Morrison instead pointed to Australia’s “transformative technology targets”. As we will explain below, those targets are small, vague and certainly not “bankable”. And the spending commitments pale in comparison to the past and future cost of extreme weather in Australia.

Expectations of Australia heading into the summit were low – a fact perhaps reflected in the summit’s agenda. Morrison’s address was way down in the running order – he was 21st of 27 speakers. Biden was reportedly not in the room when Morrison spoke. And in an unfortunate glitch, Morrison’s microphone was on mute at the start of his speech.

The summit did deliver some major gains. There was palpable relief as Biden brought the US back to the table on global climate efforts, committing to an emissions-reduction target twice the ambition of Australia’s. Other nations including Japan, Canada and Britain also outlined major new commitments.

But sadly for Australians, the summit revealed the stark contrast in climate policy leadership between Morrison and his international peers.

The contrast on climate policy leadership between Scott Morrison and Joe Biden was on display at the summit. Mick Tsikas/AAP

The world steps up

Biden opened the summit by emphasising the urgent need to keep global warming below 1.5℃ This century. Failing to do so, he said, would bring:

More frequent and intense fires, floods, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes tearing through communities, ripping away lives and livelihoods, increasingly dire impacts to our public health […] We can’t resign ourselves to that future. We have to take action, all of us.

Biden committed the US to a 50-52% emissions reduction by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Other notable emissions-reduction pledges included:

• Japan: 46-50% by 2030 (from 2013 levels)
• European Union: 55% cut by 2030 (from 1990 levels)
• Canada: 40-45% by 2030 (from 2005 levels)
• United Kingdom: 78% by 2035 (from 1990 levels).

There were hopes Morrison would use the summit to announce Australia would finally join more than 100 countries to set an emissions target of net-zero by 2050. (Australia’s current emissions trajectory has us on track to get to net-zero in the year 2167).

But Morrison dashed those hopes early, telling world leaders: “For Australia, it is not a question of if or even by when for net-zero, but importantly how”.

He pointed to the government’s Technology Investment Roadmap, including A$20 billion to bring down the cost of clean hydrogen, green steel, energy storage and carbon capture. He also spoke of a goal to produce clean hydrogen for A$2 a kilogram, and his dream that Australia’s hydrogen industry would one day rival the scale of California’s Silicon Valley.

Morrison spruiked Australia’s high uptake of rooftop solar. Shutterstock

Will technology save us? Not likely

Earlier this week, Morrison set the scene for his address by announcing a suite of technology funding commitments. Let’s take a closer look at them.

On Wednesday Morrison announced A$540 million for regional hydrogen hubs and carbon-capture and storage (CCS) projects. Some A$275 million will be committed to seven hydrogen hubs in regional areas over five years – that’s about A$7.8 million per hub each year.

It’s hard to see this buying much more than a plan on a piece of paper. Further, there’s little detail on how much will be spent on clean vs dirty hydrogen – that is, hydrogen generated from renewables vs fossil fuels. However the proposed location of some of these hubs in fossil-fuel rich areas, such as the Latrobe Valley and Hunter Valley, does not bode well.

A further A$263.7 million over ten years will fund CCS projects. Since 2003, the Australian government has spent more than A$1 billion on CCS projects, with very little to show for it.

Globally, CCS has been criticised as unproven and expensive, simply designed to extend the life of fossil fuel industries.

CCS critics say it is simply a move to prop up fossil fuel industries. Shutterstock

The third tranche of funding, announced on Thursday, is A$566 million for research partnerships with other countries for new technology such as green steel, small modular nuclear reactors and soil carbon storage. There was little detail in the announcement, so for now it remains rather hypothetical.

In sum, the government will spend a relatively small amount on hydrogen production and CCS, spread wafer thin in various regional areas (and at least some of it subsidising fossil fuels), plus hypothetical funding for research.

Compare this to the A$35 billion cost of extreme weather disasters in Australia between 2010 and 2019, as detailed in this Climate Council report.

More recently, the New South Wales government estimated the potential cost of last month’s devastating floods at A$2 billion. A report by the NSW Treasury estimated by 2061, future economic costs of climate impacts in four key risk areas (bushfires, sea level rise, heatwaves and agricultural production) could reach up to A$17.2 billion a year – and this is just for NSW.

The recent NSW floods caused $2 billion in damage, the state government says. James Gourley/AAP

A tale of two leaders

Morrison told world leaders Australia would update its emissions-reduction target ahead of the Glasgow climate summit later this year. The current target – a 26-28% cut by 2030, based on 2005 levels – is broadly viewed as woefully inadequate.

Any increased ambition would be long overdue. However, more broadly, the contrast on climate policy between Morrison and Biden could not be clearer. Biden used the summit to tell world leaders:

Your leadership on this issue is a statement to the people of your nation and to the people of every nation, especially our young people, that we’re ready to meet this moment […] We really have no choice. We have to get this done.

Morrison, depressingly, showed little sign of hearing that message.

Links

• Scott Morrison can't spin this one: Australia's climate pledges at this week's summit won't convince the world we're serious
• The US climate target blows Australia’s out of the water
• Morrison tells climate summit future generations will ‘thank us’ despite no emissions pledge – video 
• VIDEO: PM defends his 'technology not taxes' approach to cutting emissions
• Australia left behind as global climate action gathers pace
• Australia has been talking up its climate credentials – but do the claims stack up?
• Solar stocks soar after Biden unveils plan to cut carbon emissions in half by 2030
• 'Failure is not an option': after a lost decade on climate action, the 2020s offer one last chance
• Cyclone Seroja just demolished parts of WA – and our warming world will bring more of the same