Climate Change: John Hewson Accuses Coalition Of 'National Disgrace'

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

Former Liberal leader says climate should be dominant issue of election campaign rather than ‘short-term politicking’ 

The former Liberal leader and Wentworth MP John Hewson says the wider community is ‘way ahead’ of political and business leaders on climate change. Photograph: Michael Slezak for the Guardian

The former Liberal leader John Hewson addressed an estimated 2000 people protesting in the Sydney suburb of Double Bay – minutes from Malcolm Turnbull’s harbourside mansion – calling on the prime minister to take stronger action on climate change.
Speaking at the same time as Turnbull addressed the party faithful at the Coalition’s campaign launch, Hewson told protesters the Coalition’s lack of action on climate change was a “national disgrace”.
“I think climate change should be the dominant issue of this campaign – it should have been for quite some time,” said Hewson, who was once the local member for the seat of Wentworth, which includes Double Bay.
He said “short-term politicking” from both sides left targets that were inadequate and policies that were not going to meet those targets.
“The one thing that hasn’t failed is people like yourselves,” he said. “The community is way ahead of the political leaders and the business leaders on this issue.”
He urged the crowd to push political leaders for a bipartisan approach to climate change. “Enough is enough, it’s time to act,” Hewson said.
A spokesperson from GetUp, which organised the protest in coalition with three other environment groups, estimated there were about 2000 people in the crowd.
Protesters were given placards in the shape of coral, which were coloured on one side, and white on the other, which symbolised the devastating bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. They turned them around for the cameras, while chanting “Choose the reef, not coal”.

Protestors in fancy dress at the #climatefizza rally. Photograph: Michael Slezak for the Guardian

Robert Shelly, who lives in Vaucluse, attended the protest with his two-year-old daughter, Ariella, and her dog. “We come from a family with a big environmental conscience. It’s a very important issue and it’s been completely ignored by the mainstream,” he said.
Paula Brook, who lives in Woollahra, said she was motivated to come to the protest after seeing the Australian Conservation Foundation’s scorecard, which said the Coalition’s environmental policies were “woefully inadequate”.
“The Coalition was really far down, and this is Malcolm Turnbull’s electorate and so it was important to show him that people care about environmental issues,” she said.

A sizeable crowd in Malcolm Turnbull's electorate calling for stronger action on climate change. Photograph: Michael Slezak for the Guardian

The crowd was also addressed by Dr Kate Charlesworth, who was until recently a Wentworth resident and previously worked at the sustainable development unit at the National Health Service in the UK. She said although climate change was a great risk to human health, and a health emergency, actions that would mitigate climate change had the potential to be a great boost to human health.
“Things like active transport – walking and cycling – improved diets with more plant based foods; looking at the causes of air pollution; reducing traffic congestion; healthier cities with more green space and tree cover. All these things will have tremendous benefits to human health,” she said.
Michael Borgas, a climate scientist at the CSIRO also addressed the crowd, calling on the government to fund climate science, following the news that the CSIRO was making significant cuts to its climate research.

Message to Malcolm Turnbull at rally in Wentworth. Photograph: Michael Slezak for the Guardian

Tony Fontes, a Great Barrier Reef diving instructor, also spoke, calling for stronger climate action to protect the reef. “We’ve just seen the greatest, most devastating bleaching event in the history of the reef and we’re going to see more.”
Lyndon Schneiders, the national director for the Wilderness Society, which helped organise the protest, said: “Malcolm Turnbull must do more to address climate change. The Great Barrier Reef is dying on Mr Turnbull’s watch and yet his government sticks to its inadequate Direct Action policy.”
Nikola Casule from Greenpeace – another organiser of the protest – said Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions were growing and forecast to increase until 2030. “The science is clear – the world needs to stop emitting greenhouse gases but our emissions are going in the other direction.”

Protesters turn their coral around to symbolize its bleaching.  Photograph: Michael Slezak for the Guardian

The protest caps three days of protesting in Turnbull’s electorate.
On Friday Greenpeace activists hung a banner from Turnbull’s electorate office in Edgecliff, saying: “Turnbull’s Legacy: bleaching – brought to you by Malcolm’s mates in the coal industry.”
And on Saturday, a group of 50 pacific islanders kayaked from Blues Point to Lady Martin’s beach, mere metres from Turnbull’s harbourside mansion, raising awareness of climate change and sea level rise.

Links

• Business and academic leaders urge new conversation about coal-free future
• How the Coalition is using clean energy financing as an election slush fund
• Climate change: Australia's big banks urged to reject new loans for coal projects
• Saving Great Barrier Reef from climate change should be central election issue, says Tim Flannery
• Labor proposes two emissions trading schemes costing $355.9m

Coalition's 'War On Solar' Has Sector Cutting Back, Industry Groups Say

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Australia's solar energy sector is facing further job losses amid falling numbers of new rooftop installations amid a lack of support during the Abbott-Turnbull governments, industry representatives say.
New investment in household and small businesses installing systems with less than 100-kilowatt capacity has dropped to a seven-year low, with Coalition policies largely to blame, John Grimes, chief executive of the Australian Solar Council, said.

Setting sun on solar?: Industry highlights drop in new installations. Photo: Justin McManus

"The sunburnt country has burnt its solar industry," Mr Grimes said. "Thousands of jobs have been lost and hundreds of small businesses have closed their doors."
Mr Grimes cited a range of policies during the past three years, such as the failed bids by the Abbott government to eliminate the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), and the broken promise to support 1 million additional solar-powered homes, that amounted to a "ideological war on solar".
Even after September's change in prime minister to Malcolm Turnbull, the Coalition still had no solar target, no target for renewable energy beyond 2020, and had "not provided one supportive policy" for the industry, Mr Grimes said.
(See chart below of new installations according to the Clean Energy Regulator, including figures for the first four months of 2016.)
Darren Gladman, solar policy manager at the Clean Energy Council, attributed the drop of solar installations in part to the winding back of generous state schemes.
He noted, though, that unease among investors over the Abbott government's handling of the review of the 2020 Renewable Energy Target had also dented demand for small-scale solar.
While solar panel penetration had reached saturation point in some parts of the country, Labor and the Greens were both offering policies worth about $100 million to open up new areas of demand such as among renters and low-income houses, Mr Gladman said.
"If you're not able to access solar, you're paying more for electricity than you otherwise could," he said.
According to the Clean Energy Council's Annual Report, the drop in installations has occurred in most states and territories since the peak year of 2011. (See chart below.)
Kobad Bhavnagri, head of Bloomberg New Energy Finance in Australia, said "the government has basically not touched the rooftop sector".
While ditching the pre-2013 election pledge of 1 million additional solar homes amounted to a broken promise by the Coalition, "it was pretty rational to not introduce further subsidies to a well-supported sector which is already economical", Mr Bhavnagri said.
Under the existing renewable energy target, households get a reduction in the up-front capital costs of a new system of about 30 per cent.
According to Bloomberg NEF data, last year a typical household could expect savings on their electricity bills to pay off the cost of their systems in six years. By 2030, further advances in technology should lower that to five years.
The cost of batteries, which have the potential to bolster solar panels' appeal, now have a payoff period of about 19 years but that should drop to eight years by 2030, Bloomberg predicts.
(See Bloomberg chart below showing solar module costs in US dollars diving 80 per cent since 2008.)
While the residential market is struggling, the industry is increasingly turning to commercial customers, Mr Gladwell said. These now account for about 30 per cent of sales by capacity.
The industry is also looking to large-scale solar farms as a growth area as uncertainty over the 2020 Renewable Energy Target recedes. Earlier this month, the NSW government gave planning approval for four new plants that would double the state's existing solar farm capacity.

Links

• UNSW researchers break world record for solar cell efficiency
• NSW to double existing solar farm capacity with four new plants approved
• Solar surge to leave large power companies in the shade
• Australia 10th In Global Solar Capacity As Industry Looks Ahead To Sunnier Times

This Chart Perfectly Explains What’s At Stake In The Quest To Stop Climate Change

Washington Post - Chris Mooney

This image provided by NASA shows Arctic sea ice at it maximum, the lowest on record. The winter maximum level of Arctic sea ice shrank to the smallest on record, thanks to extraordinarily warm temperatures, federal scientists said. The National Snow and Ice Data Center says sea ice spread to a maximum of 5.607 million square miles in 2016. That's 5,000 square miles less than the old record set in 2015, a difference slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut. (NASA via AP)

Here at the Energy and Environment blog, we cover, regularly, the tipping points of climate change — how, for instance, the glaciers of West Antarctica may already have passed a key threshold that leads to unstoppable melt.
We cover the history of the Earth's climate — including why the Holocene era, which began some 11,700 years ago and we lived in up until fairly recently (when many researchers believe an "Anthropocene" began), was so stable and conducive to human civilization.
And of course we cover the quest to keep warming below the Paris climate targets, 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees Celsius, and the scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions that might be capable of doing that — and also those that can't.
But these are all complicated, nuanced stories, and the idea that they can all be pulled together into one analysis — much less one figure — is hard to believe.
Nonetheless, I think three researchers from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have done precisely that with the image below, which is part of an optimistic essay they just published in Nature Climate Change, suggesting that the recently negotiated Paris climate agreement has what it takes to stabilize climate change. In the process, the researchers deliver the sort of rare big picture analysis that we mortals need now and again to understand why scientists are generally so freaked about a warming climate, and also why, in this case, they're feeling a shard of hope.
Here's the image, with unpacking to follow:

Schellnhuber et al., Nature Climate Change. The figure shows, according to the authors, the "global mean surface temperature evolution from the Last Glacial maximum through the Holocene," combined with the temperature range aspired to in the Paris climate agreement, possible temperature rises for different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP8.5, and so on), and the tipping point thresholds for various major planetary changes.

"Earth system science has come of age and can provide robust evidence for the intuitive assumption that it is not a good idea to leave the 'safe operating space' of humanity, and that this space is well within the Paris confines," Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Stefan Rahmstorf and Ricarda Winkelmann of the Potsdam Institute write in the study that contains the image. "The sustenance of Holocene climate conditions under which Homo sapiens thrived while the Neolithic Revolution established human civilization was an early key argument in favour of the 2 °C guardrail," they further note. Both quotations summarize the key point of the image: The Paris agreement, if implemented successfully with its targets respected — and especially the lower boundary, 1.5 degrees C —  gives hope of keeping us from exceeding tipping points that would erase the key climatic parameters that sustained our very development.
That's a pretty big deal.
To show this, the graphic blends together four key elements — where current temperatures are in the context of the last 22,000 years, including the stable period that fostered modern humanity; where the Paris climate agreement aspires to hold temperatures and how that fits into this context; how high temperatures could rise under various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios; and which major parts of the climate system could be "tipped" at different temperature ranges.
"This graphic is really based basically on the advances made by the entire climate research community over I would say the last two decades," Winkelmann said in an interview. It "sort of summarizes what we know right now about tipping elements, and how the risk increases with increasing global warming to tip one of these major, major parts of the climate system. And you can really see the tipping elements as the major Achilles heel of the climate system."
The authors' argument is not, of course, that we'll be perfectly safe if the Paris agreement is successfully implemented. We're already seeing devastating losses to coral reefs — which, the image suggests, are the single most vulnerable element in the entire system — a plunge in Arctic sea ice, and, many scientists think, a tipping point for West Antarctica.
These are among the most sensitive elements of the Earth's climate system, and as the figure shows, we start fiddling with them even before we enter the Paris temperature range between 1.5 and 2 degrees C.
Nonetheless, if we exceed the Paris boundaries, we appear increasingly likely to commit to irreversible changes in these areas. "Beyond 2 °C the course would be set for a complete deglaciation of the Northern Hemisphere, threatening the survival of many coastal cities and island nations," they write.
And blundering further, we could subject ourselves to many other risks. Those include, in the figure above, shutting down the ocean's "thermohaline" or overturning circulation (THC), changing the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in favor of more dominant El Nino conditions, and also tipping the gigantic ice mass of East Antarctica (EAIS). (For a full description of these tipping points or "elements," see here.)
"There are some that could possibly already be switched within the Paris range, and then there's another cluster of tipping elements, where we have the chance to avoid tipping those for even higher temperatures," Winkelmann said. She notes that many of the tipping elements involve a feedback process: Greenland's ice sheet, for instance, will lose elevation as it melts, subjecting it to warmer temperatures in the lower atmosphere, which will cause more melt. And so on.
Granted, in any given case, some scientists might fear or suspect that some of these tipping points are closer to us than the diagram above suggests. The Amazon, the boreal or northern forest, the Atlantic ocean's circulation, northern permafrost and East Antarctica are already showing signs of changes. But the researchers think these systems might nonetheless be more resilient.
Energy and Environment newsletter The science and policy of environmental issues. They go on to argue a more difficult point — that we just might see an "exponential" growth of wind and solar that is sufficient to, in turn, trigger an "implosion" of the fossil fuel industry and thus help keep within the Paris targets. Something at least this dynamic would be needed to get the world to stop emitting fast enough to stay within the temperature "guardrail" above, without relying on pie-in-the-sky technological fixes like so-called negative carbon emissions.
The truth is that renewables are growing very rapidly right now, but from a low level of penetration, and the precise technological evolution of our energy system remains unclear.
Still, nobody can claim that scientists haven't made clear what's at stake.
"One could basically say that what we're doing today with greenhouse gas emissions — which is just basically in a moment when you look at the geophysical timescales — that has consequences for decades, centuries, millennia," Winkelmann said.

Links

• The math the planet relies on isn't adding up right now
• As Greenland melts, one of its most famous glaciers is creating terrifying tsunamis
• Virgin Atlantic just used behavioral science to 'nudge' its pilots into using less fuel. It worked
• Obama's advisers just dismantled a key myth about the future of clean energy

Scientists Call On Australia To Save World’s Reefs

The Marshalltown - Helen Clark

As the largest international gathering of coral reef experts comes to a close, scientists have sent a letter to Australian officials calling for action to save the world’s reefs, which are being rapidly damaged.
The letter was sent Saturday to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull imploring his government to do more to conserve the nation’s reefs and curb fossil fuel consumption.
The letter, signed by past and present presidents of the International Society for Reef Studies on behalf of the 2,000 attendees of the International Coral Reef Symposium that was held in Honolulu this week, urged the Australian government to prioritize its Great Barrier Reef.
“This year has seen the worst mass bleaching in history, threatening many coral reefs around the world including the whole of the northern Great Barrier Reef, the biggest and best-known of all reefs,” the letter said. “The damage to this Australian icon has already been devastating. In addition to damage from greenhouse gasses, port dredging and shipping of fossil fuels across the Great Barrier Reef contravene Australia’s responsibilities for stewardship of the Reef under the World Heritage Convention.”
Leaders from the scientific community at the convention in Honolulu said Friday that the “unprecedented” letter was critical to the conservation of the fragile reef habitat.
Scientists are not known for their political activism, said James Cook University professor Terry Hughes, but they felt this crisis warranted such action.
“We are not ready to write the obituary for coral reefs,” said Hughes, who is also the president of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Australia.
A call to action from three Pacific island nations whose reefs are in the crosshairs of the largest and longest-lasting coral bleaching event in recorded history was presented Friday at the conclusion of the International Coral Reef Symposium in Honolulu. The Associated Press was given advance access to the call for action and the scientific community’s response.
The heads of state from Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands attended the conference and will provide a plan to help save their ailing coral reefs, which are major contributors to their local economies and the daily sustenance of their people. The call to action, signed by the three presidents, asked for better collaboration between the scientific community and local governments, saying there needs to be more funding and a strengthened commitment to protecting the reefs.
“If our coral reefs are further degraded, then our reef-dependent communities will suffer and be displaced,” the letter said. They also called for more integration of “traditional knowledge, customary practices and scientific research” in building a comprehensive coral reef policy.
In response to the letter, the scientific community at the conference said: “We pledge to take up the 13th ICRS Leaders’ Call to Action, and will work together with national leaders of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the world to curb the continued loss of coral reefs.”
Bleaching is a process where corals, stressed by hot ocean waters and other environmental changes, lose their colour as the symbiotic algae that lives within them is released. Severe or concurrent years of bleaching can kill coral reefs, as has been documented over the past two years in oceans around the world. Scientists expect a third year of bleaching to last through the end of 2016.
In the northern third of the Great Barrier Reef, close to half of the corals have died in the past three months, said Hughes, who focuses his research there. The area of the reef that suffered most is extremely remote, he said, with no pollution, very little fishing pressure and no coastal development.
“That’s an absolute catastrophe,” Hughes said. “There’s nowhere to hide from climate change.”
But the panel of scientists emphasized the progress they have made over the past 30 years and stressed that good research and management programs for coral reefs are available. The scientists said they just need the proper funding and political will to enact them.
The researchers focused on the economic and social benefits coral reefs contribute to communities across the globe, saying the critical habitats generate trillions of dollars annually but conservation efforts are not proportionately or adequately funded.
In the United States, the budget for the federal coral reef conservation program is set at about $27 million a year, said Bob Richmond, director of the University of Hawaii’s Kewalo Marine Laboratory and convener of this year’s International Coral Reef Symposium.
In Hawaii, he said, the reefs are valued at $34 billion, and the return to the state’s economy is about $360 million annually — meaning the entire nation’s budget for coral reef conservation is less than 10 per cent of the annual return in that one state alone.
Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands also have ailing reefs under the budget.
The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, which aimed to protect coral reefs and create programs to manage their conservation, has been plagued by political resistance and a severe lack of funding, said Robert Richmond, former president of the International Society for Reef Studies.

Links

• 7100 Cities Collaborate to Deal with Climate Change
• Why cities are forming a global alliance to curb climate change
• A catastrophic collision of human hunters and climate change killed off the Ice Age giants

Ducking The Climate Challenge

Asia & the Pacific Policy Society - John Hewson

Both major parties are ignoring the electorate’s mood for a greater focus on climate change, writes John Hewson.

Australia's 'elephant in the room' PHOTO: UniversityBlogSpot

One of the most disturbing aspects of this very long election campaign is that climate change hasn’t been a more significant issue.
As the 2016 Lowy Survey revealed recently, concern about global warming continues to trend upwards: 53 per cent of Australians say ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem (and) we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’ (up 17 points since 2012).
Further, 88 per cent agree that ‘the use of fossil fuels is in decline and Australia should invest more in alternative energy sources’, and most say ‘we should reduce our reliance on them to help combat climate change’ (79 per cent).
Given this degree of electoral support, and the election mantra of “Jobs and growth”, and given that the renewable energy sector is the most “shovel ready” sector to provide very significant, new businesses, new investment, and new jobs, it is staggering that these opportunities have not been grabbed and emphasized more by the two major parties.
The Lowy Survey also provides some explanation, by noting the somewhat schizophrenic nature of the electorate on the climate issue, in the sense that a majority also express support for continuing coal exports to ‘developing countries, to help them grow and reduce poverty’ (66 per cent) and ‘to keep our economy strong’ (53 per cent).
So, while both sides emphasise their support for emissions reduction targets – the base being our national commitments made in Paris to cut emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030 (although the ALP has set a higher target) – both also support new coal mines and neither have been prepared to formally rule out new coal-fired power stations.
Obviously, and cynically, both sides see advantage in running these mixed messages, directed to different constituencies, in different seats. Equally, they also see some advantage in minimizing climate, overall, as an issue, to avoid having to debate and defend the detail of the inconsistencies in their positions.
Interestingly, the ALP had a very real opportunity to wedge the Government on the climate issue, given their higher emissions reduction targets, their commitment to more CEFC/ARENA type funding, and having set a renewable energy target (RET) of 50 per cent for 2030.
Yet, given their union base and the extent of union influence, they couldn’t afford to offend key mining unions by taking a hard-line rejection of new coal mines, and they still fear something of another carbon tax scare campaign, given their longer-term commitment to an emissions trading scheme.
When they are finally released, I am also sure that the campaign funding reports will identify some sizeable donations to both sides from mining and energy interests, and there are many “personal” links with several significant ex-politicians and staffers being employed by such interests.
So, with the exception of the Windsor campaign that is focused, to a significant extent, on wedging Joyce in their battle for the seat of New England, climate change has been the “elephant in the room” in this campaign.
Yet, globally, coal is in terminal decline. Some 75 per cent of known coal reserves can never be mined if the world is to have any hope of containing global warming to the Paris objectives, let alone net zero emissions by 2050.
It has been estimated that the coal from the proposed mines in Queensland’s Galilee Basin (where Adani has one of the largest deposits, and its proposed mine has the support by both major parties), if exported for burning in power generation, would alone use up about 30 per cent of the essential 2050 carbon budget.
Arguments that the export of this “higher grade” coal to India, would work to achieve lower emissions than would be the case if India were to have to burn its “lower grade”, dirtier, coal, and that this would lead to a significant reduction in Indian poverty, are without foundation, as there are viable cost effective renewable alternatives.
The bottom line is that both major parties are simply ignoring the mounting electoral mood, for perceived short-term electoral advantage. They are working to kick the climate challenge further down the road, as, indeed, they have also both done with the challenge of budget repair.

Links

• Tackling Australian policy’s ‘trauma zone’
• Lagging behind
• Great Barrier grief

Australian Attitudes To Climate Change As Captured In The Lead Up To The 2016 Federal Election

The Climate Institute

Concern about climate change among Australians has surged since the lows of 2012 and the last Federal election.
Australian business and the voting public have tapped into international trends about the economic and environmental benefits of climate action.
Now our main political parties urgently need to catch up.
The 2016 Federal Election, and its immediate aftermath, presents opportunities for political parties to work with community and business.

The Climate Institute pre-election polling was conducted on 2-6 June 2016. It shows that concern about climate change, its impacts and the politics around it have been rising and are high across all party lines. This is particularly the case among the 35 per cent of voters who were uncertain regarding their vote.
It also indicates that Australians overwhelmingly wish to see our country take an international leadership role in tackling climate change. This sentiment has continued to rebound since 2012 and has almost returned to the 2008 peak level (see Figure 1).
Australians clearly agree that there is economic opportunity in tackling climate change policies, a view shared by over two thirds of Coalition and 81 per cent of Labor voters.

Concern about climate change has surged
Concern about climate change is significantly higher than in 2013 at 72 per cent (27 per cent very concerned, 45 per cent fairly concerned and just 7 per cent not concerned at all). In 2013, just 53 per cent were concerned (15 per cent very concerned, 38 per cent fairly concerned). Concern from Coalition, Green and Labor supporters was, respectively: In 2016, 62, 96 and 79 per cent; and in 2013: 41, 84 and 63 per cent (see Figure 2). The Coalition jump is notable.

Uncommitted voters have strongest views
Throughout the polling, responses from uncommitted voters were more strongly aligned with positive action on climate change than those who were 'certain' or 'quite certain' about whom they would vote for. For example 76 per cent of those who were 'not certain at all' were concerned about climate change (30 per cent very concerned and 46 per cent fairly concerned).

Is climate change occurring and why?
Three quarters of Australians now think climate change is taking place, up from 70 per cent last year, 66 per cent in 2013 and 64 per cent in 2012. This view is held equally across age groups, gender and location (highest at 80 per cent of people in Victoria, 75 per cent in Queensland and lowest in NSW on 70 per cent). This view is held by Coalition, Green and Labor supporters at 67, 97 and 79 per cent respectively.
Further, when those who think climate change is taking place consider the main cause of climate change, 91 per cent think humans are a cause: 50 per cent, attribute climate change to a mixture of human causes and natural cycles, while 41 per cent think human activity is the main cause.

Leadership, action and the economy
Two thirds (65 per cent) of Australians think that Australia should be a world leader in finding solutions to climate change. This is up from 59 per cent in 2015 and has been on an upward trajectory from a low of 52 per cent in 2012, just before the start of the carbon pricing mechanism. In 2008, the figure was 76 per cent. Uncommitted voters again are more likely to agree with 67 per cent support (see Figure 1).
More than three quarters of Australians (76 per cent) think ignoring climate change is not an answer for our country – up from 69 per cent last year. This sentiment is strongest among millennials (ages 18-34), 80 per cent of whom hold this view. Only 8 per cent of Australians think we should do nothing.
At the same time, 74 per cent of Australians think that tackling climate change will create opportunities for new jobs and investment, up from 71 per cent both last year and in 2013, and from 62 per cent in 2012. This view is held across the political spectrum: Coalition supporters 67 per cent, Greens 87 per cent and Labor 81 per cent.
60 per cent of Australians think that delaying, or implementing half measures, on climate action will increase the likelihood of future shocks to jobs, electricity prices and energy supplies. And more than two thirds (68 per cent) think that extreme weather events will cause cost of living increases – a view held strongly across party lines (60 per cent of Coalition supporters, Greens 79 per cent, Labor 76 per cent and uncommitted 71 per cent).

Figure 1: Australians who want their nation to be a world leader in finding solutions to climate change.

Political solutions in Australia
60 per cent of Australians think the Turnbull government should take climate change more seriously, a slight "improvement" over the 63 per cent who thought this about the Abbott government a year ago but more than the 57 per cent in 2014. Half (49 per cent) of Coalition supporters think this, along with 83 and 75 per cent of green and Labor supporters.
Only 17 per cent of Australians think the Coalition has an effective plan to tackle climate change. This view is held across gender, age groups and location, as well as party lines – Coalition supporters 31 per cent, Greens 6 per cent and Labor 13 per cent, uncommitted on 5 per cent.
The situation is not much different for Labor with only 20 per cent of Australians thinking the party have an effective plan, again consistently reflected across gender, age group and location, but slightly less so among party supporters – Coalition supporters 9 per cent, Greens 25 per cent, Labor 40 per cent and uncommitted 9 per cent.

Labor policy and the "carbon tax"
Much is made of the "carbon tax" as a negative factor in voter decision-making. Our 2013 election exit polling revealed that just 3 per cent of voters saw repealing the carbon tax as the most important reason voters supported the Coalition. In a head to head question, 40 per cent supported emissions reduction versus 28 per cent supporting repeal. In an indicator of diluted effectiveness of the ongoing scare campaign around the carbon tax, only 28 per cent of Australians say they would not vote for Labor because they would reimplement the carbon tax – down from 36 per cent in 2015. Older Australians (38 per cent) and Coalition supporters (48 per cent) are more likely to have this view as opposed to 9, 14 and 17 per cent of Green, Labor and uncommitted voters.
While still significant, our results show that only 42 per cent of Australians hold the view that Labor's carbon policies will only result in increased electricity prices while doing little about pollution – down from 47 per cent in 2015. Two thirds (64 per cent) of Coalition voters hold this view – substantially higher than the 26 per cent of Greens, 29 per cent of Labor supporters and just 32 per cent of uncommitted voters.

Figure 2: Australians concern about climate change.

Should Australia wait for other countries before it takes stronger action?
Only 23 per cent of Australians think we should wait for other countries before we strengthen our post-2020 emissions reduction target, with 55 per cent disagreeing with the notion. 40 per cent Coalition supporters disagree (37 per cent agree), along with 85 per cent of Green, 61 per cent Labor and 63 per cent of uncommitted voters. 18 per cent were neutral and just 13 per cent agree.
63 per cent of Western Australians don't think we should wait compared to 60 per cent of Victorians, 55 per cent in Queensland and 47 per cent in NSW.
Only 24 per cent of Australians think we should wait for China and the USA to act on climate change before we do, with 57 per cent disagreeing. 64 per cent of uncommitted voters disagree with this statement. In 2013, 49 per cent disagreed and 28 per cent agreed.

Political spread of sample
Respondents to this survey identified themselves as 38 per cent supporting the Coalition (35 per cent Liberal, 3 per cent Nationals), 32 per cent Labor, 9 per cent Green, 6 per cent another party and 16 per cent said they did not know. This primary vote break-up was reflective of a federal poll conducted on the same weekend.
Despite their stated voting alignment, 35 per cent of people surveyed said they were uncertain who they would vote for in the election on 2 July 2016. Among these uncommitted voters 27 per cent were current Coalition supporters, 24 per cent were Labor supporters and 12 per cent current Greens supporters.

Methodology
Research underpinning this Factsheet was conducted online by Galaxy Research from 2-6 June with 1,100 Australians nationally, aged 18 years and over. The dataset was weighted and projected to the population based on the latest ABS population estimates.

Links

• The Coalition Climate Policy Credibility Assessment
• Labor Climate Policy Credibility Assessment
• The Greens Climate Policy Credibility Assessment
• Nick Xenophon Team Climate Policy Credibility Assessment
• Glenn Lazarus Team Climate Policy Credibility Assessment
• Jacqui Lambie Network Climate Policy Credibility Assessment

Our Political Parties Have A Climate Policy Credibility Gap

Renew Economy - John Connor*

While the Coalition, Labor, Greens and Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) now support emissions trading and renewable energy, albeit to varying degrees, a gap is opening between their policies and the views held by the Australian community and business.
Both major parties have committed to significant post-election policy reviews. Such a review will be crucial, both to avoid the social and economic instability of this gap, and if our country is to begin to take credible climate action.
The reality is that all the policies of each of the federal parties need work to become credible, scalable and durable. Policies are “Credible” if they explicitly link to shared, meaningful, climate outcomes with transparent review processes. “Scalable” means they address large parts of the economy and can be ramped up, or down, as needed. “Durable” means they are informed by principles that maintain Australia’s economic competitiveness and enhance equity – that is, they are capable of maintaining political support and investor confidence over coming decades.
Both major parties have supported the Paris climate agreement’s goals of keeping global warming “well below” 2°C and to “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. With massive reef bleaching, severe storms and unprecedented bushfire weather, it is abundantly clear that Australia is already experiencing significant human, economic and environmental costs …and we only have approximately 1°C of warming already recorded.
It is sobering to realise that if other nations were to have similar emission reduction targets to those that the Coalition currently has, the result would be 3-4°C of global warming, with devastating impacts for Australia. If countries had similar targets to those currently supported by Labor, the world would warm by 2-3°C, also with huge threats for Australians, our economy and environment. Only the Greens and the Glenn Lazarus Team (GLT) have targets aligned to the 1.5-2°C goal, which itself still carries predictable and dangerous impacts. Initial commitments made by countries before Paris would lead to around 3°C of warming. It is clear that Australia and other countries need to do more.
The Paris agreement also includes the goal of attaining net zero emissions. Both the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader have acknowledged this goal. They join investors, central bankers, and global and Australian businesses in doing so. Even multinational oil company, Shell, acknowledges that the 1.5°C goal requires the achievement of net zero emissions by 2050. We are now seeing more and more companies, states and nations setting similar or stronger goals. The carbon emissions intensity of an economy has become a key competitiveness test in the 21st century.
Yet the Coalition’s current 2030 emission reduction targets would put Australia’s per person pollution at 18th among G20 nations, ahead only of Russia and Saudi Arabia. Labor’s current targets would place Australia 15th, and NXT 10th. The Greens and GLT targets would place us 8th.
In addition to these indicators, The Climate Institute tested current policies against three key policy tests: Can they help limit dangerous global warming? Can they help build a modern and net zero emissions economy? Do they integrate assessment of climate risks and opportunities into decision-making?
The Climate Institute engaged with the parties about its policy priorities. In doing so, we found the largest climate policy credibility gaps are with the Jacqui Lambie Network and the Coalition. The Greens, the GLT and Labor respectively have stronger policies. The Nick Xenophon Team has strengths, but requires more detail.
Despite the growing human, economic and environmental costs of climate change to Australia, no party has sufficient policy detail about building greater resilience. Labor and the Greens have agreed to integrate climate risk assessments into core decision-making, and the Greens have led resilience policy development, but all need to improve or follow through with urgency.
Today, we released our Climate Policy Credibility Assessment which recommends three critical steps that all parties should pursue in order for Australia to achieve credible climate policies that are also durable and scalable:

1. Set pre-2050 net zero emission objectives, credible emission reduction pathways and regular independent processes of review 
2. Implement economic and community strategies to manage the transition to decarbonisation, and 
3. Integrate assessments of climate risks and opportunities into core decision making.

As part of this research, we also conducted national polling which has shown that the concern Australians have about climate change has surged since the lows of 2012 and the last election. Support for Australian climate leadership is returning to 2008 levels and an overwhelming majority see the economic opportunities in taking action. Mainstream business and investor groups are also increasingly frustrated by ongoing policy disputes and are calling for the integration of climate and energy policies.
Australia has some big choices to make, both at this election and in the policy reviews that the Coalition or Labor will run over the next 12 months. We can continue to back inadequate emission reduction targets and policy uncertainty that leave us at the back of the pack of comparable countries. This will simply intensify employment and economic risks alongside an increasingly disruptive catch-up job that becomes more and more unavoidable as time and inaction pass.
Or we can integrate comprehensive climate action into plans to build a modern, innovative, safer and net emissions free economy before 2050. Only this approach will allow us to work with other nations that are leading in providing climate change solutions. Only this approach will also help us prevent current climate risks from becoming significantly more dangerous and costly.

*John Conner is head of The Climate Institute

Links

• The anti-wind and anti-solar garbage fit to print in Murdoch media
• Australia's big energy switch: from coal and gas to wind and solar
• The RET is a high cost way to procure renewable energy
• Barnaby Joyce sitting uncomfortably on renewable energy boom
• The cost issue this election ignored: the doubling of electricity prices