This Government Is Not Even Pretending To Act On Climate Change Any More

The Guardian - Greg Jericho*

We have gone from at least trying to look like aiming to reduce emissions to apparently deciding to do nothing

Prime Minister Scott Morrison (right) and energy minister Angus Taylor at Government House in Canberra. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP 

With the appointment of Angus Taylor as minister for energy, Scott Morrison has clearly signalled that he has no care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So utterly bereft of reason on the issue and so completely consumed by climate change denial the government is now at the point where even the pretence of doing something to reduce emissions is viewed with distrust.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly I have a degree of sympathy for members of the public who are climate change deniers. I have this sympathy because I was once one of them.
I don’t mean I was a climate change denier in the sense of believing it all was some gigantic hoax perpetrated by the deep state and the UN. I mean denying in the sense of doing my level best to deny it was happening.
Because it scared the bejeezus out of me.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s when I was finishing high school and studying at university I was of course well aware of climate change. As a politically engaged, super-serious youth who listened to Midnight Oil and U2 and read every newspaper and news magazine I could afford, I was across all the news about the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.
And it didn’t sound good.
So subconsciously I wanted to ignore it. I would read articles spelling out the dire future ahead and would spend the rest of the day in a depressed funk, because the problem with facing up to the reality of climate change is to face up to the fact that your life thus far has played a role. Your preference for driving a car, the aerosol sprays you used, the food you consumed, or heck, the generation of the electricity you depend upon had all contributed to producing greenhouse gases.

It is real, it is happening, it is getting worse and we need to act

It brought with it a level of guilt my 18-year-old self could do without, and even worse, a fear of having to change my lifestyle that I didn’t want to face.
And so I would hold on to anything that would suggest it was not so bad. I would cling to those who suggested that each individual couldn’t really make much of a difference (so I can keep those lights switched on). I would inwardly cheer when a friend would (wrongly) suggest he’d read that it was all due to natural factors and things would balance out; or when another would (wrongly) say he’d heard that ironically the hole in the ozone layer apparently cancelled out the impact of global warming, or yet another who would (also wrongly) assert that the changes would in reality be so small that we wouldn’t notice it.
And if all else failed I just sighed and thought, well, the impact was likely to happen only by around 2050 or so, and in 1990 to an 18-year-old that meant there was ample time and opportunity for something to get done. Surely a fix would occur – we always end up finding a fix.
And yet ... and yet. I knew I was burying my head in the sand. I was not so much denying the science as wanting to deny reality. The more I read the less able I was to do so. But even now I still get a faint glimmer of hope when I read some dumb article suggesting some research has found evidence that it’s all fine.
Because I don’t want climate change to be a real thing. I would love it to all be a hoax.
But it is not.
And so I understand why people choose to believe those who say climate change is not the issue, that the issue is power prices and thus we need to fire up the coal furnaces.
Denial is a very easy way out of guilt that your lifestyle is leaving your children and grandchildren an awful legacy. Denial is a good way to throw away concerns that you might have to actually wear a cost – either through lifestyle changes or monetary loss.
It is a scary thing to hear talk of the impacts of climate change and the suggestions that it might be too late to do anything. It is so much easier to live in denial, especially when you have charlatans in the media and politics who have seen this fear and have sought to profit from it.
So I have some sympathy for those who feel overwhelmed by it all.
But I have none for those in the media and politics who seek to profit from this fear.
There is no excuse for those trying to lull people into believing it is all a great scam, that there is nothing to worry about, or no need for concern, or that little can or should be done.
According to NASA, of the 1,663 months since January 1880, the top 100 for temperature anomaly have all occurred since 1990, and every month since December 2014 is in the top 100.
2018 is on track to be the third-hottest year behind 2016 and 2017; fourth is 2015.
It is real, it is happening, it is getting worse and we need to act.
And yet this week Taylor gave a speech that made zero mention of wind power – the main renewable energy in Australia – and in which he declared he wasn’t sceptical of climate change, just of subsidies for renewable energy, the Gillard government’s emissions trading scheme and of “excessive renewable energy targets.” This is despite that fact that renewable energy not only reduces our emissions, it also provides cheaper electricity.
It’s a bit like the health minister saying she is not an anti-vaxxer, she is just sceptical of the merits of the National Immunisation Program.
But don’t worry, it’s unlikely the Morrison government will withdraw from the Paris agreement, because, why bother? It just won’t do anything to actually ensure our emissions targets are achieved. Rather than risk offending those lunatics in his party who would rather destroy a prime ministership than have a policy with even a slight reference to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Morrison appears to have decided to do nothing.
The costs of responding to climate change increase, the longer it is put off by those whose wilful ignorance sees them continue to proffer policy based on the premise that climate change is fake.
We have gone from a government under Malcolm Turnbull that at least tried to look like it was aiming to reduce emissions (even if it wasn’t) to one under Scott Morrison that is making no pretence about the fact it is beholden to the charlatans in the party who want to scam votes by lying about the facts of climate change.
And a political party that refuses to act on climate change is not fit to govern.

*Greg Jericho is a Guardian Australia columnist

Links

• Renewables forecast to halve wholesale energy prices over four years
• Power companies hit back at minister, saying policy vacuum led to steep bills
• If you’re talking about drought but not climate change, you’re not doing your job, PM
• Options On Energy Policy Leave Coalition In A Sticky Situation
• 'Mad' And 'Morally Irresponsible': Liberal Moderates Roast New Emissions Stance
• Issue Has Proved Too Big For Run Of Australian Leaders
• Angus Taylor Signals Further Taxpayer Investment In Existing Coal And Gas
• Climate Change Making Drought Worse, Farmers' Federation Chief Says
• Climate Change Brought Down Another Prime Minister In Australia. Here’s What Happened.
• The Global Rightward Shift On Climate Change
• 'No Real Appetite': Former Farmers Chief Lashes Ministers Over Climate Link To Drought

Climate Change Is Real. We Must Not Offer Credibility To Those Who Deny It

The Guardian - Letters

If ‘balance’ means giving voice to those who deny the reality of human-triggered climate change, we will not take part in the debate, say Jonathan Porritt, Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewis and 57 other writers, politicians and academics

A dry cornfield in Ahlen, Germany, where harvests have suffered as a result of this year’s extreme drought. Photograph: Martin Meissner/AP

We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real. It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic. In the interests of “balance”, the media often feels the need to include those who outright deny the reality of human-triggered climate change.
Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge – but with better science, not with spin and nonsense. We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change – because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.
Fringe voices will protest about “free speech”. No one should prevent them from expressing their views, whether held cynically or misguidedly. However, no one is obliged to provide them with a platform, much less to appear alongside them to give the misleading impression that there is something substantive to debate. When there is an article on smoking, newspapers and broadcasters no longer include lobbyists claiming there are no links to cancer. When there’s a round-the-world yacht race we don’t hear flat-earthers given airtime: “This is madness; they’ll sail off the edge!”
There’s a workable model for covering fringe views – which is to treat them as such. They don’t need to be ridiculed, just expected to challenge the evidence with better evidence, and otherwise ignored. As campaigners and thinkers who are led by science and the precautionary principle, and who wish to debate the real and vital issues arising from human-triggered climate change, we will not assist in creating the impression that climate denial should be taken seriously by lending credence to its proponents, by entertaining ideas that lack any basis in fact. Therefore we will no longer debate those who deny that human-caused climate change is real. There are plenty of vital debates to be had around climate chaos and what to do about it; this is simply no longer one of them. We urge broadcasters to move on, as we are doing.

Jonathon Porritt Chair 2000-11 Sustainable Development Commission	John Sauven Executive director Greenpeace
Prof Richard Murphy Director Tax Research UK	Jeremy Leggett Founder Solar Century
Prof Andrea Sella Michael Faraday prize winner	Prof Robert Ayres Author
Dr Rupert Read Chair Green House thinktank	Dr Doug Parr Chief scientist Greenpeace
Chris Rose Former programme director Greenpeace	Mayer Hillman Senior fellow Policy Studies Institute
Ed Gillespie Co-founder Futerra	Prof Hugh Montgomery Co-founder UK Climate and Health Council
Mark Lynas Author	Dr James Garvey Author
Oliver Tickell Author	Chris Goodall Author
Prof Clive Spash Author	Prof Mark Maslin Author
Prof Anthony Ryan Director Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures	David Wasdell Director Apollo-Gaia Project
Dr Sian Foch-Gatrell Green Ocean Project	Dr Erik Buitenhuis Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Prof Paul Ekins UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources	Carne Ross Former UK and UN diplomat
Dr Nick Brooks Climatic Research Unit UEA	Dr Simon Boxley Centre for Climate Change Education University of Winchester
Prof Jem Bendell Sustainability Leadership Institute University of Cumbria	Cllr Jonathan Bartley Co-Leader Green party
Dr Ian Gibson Former chair House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee	Peter Tatchell
	Caroline Lucas MP
	Clive Lewis MP
Neal Lawson Director Compass	Ben Chacko Editor Morning Star
Deepak Rughani Co-director Biofuelwatch	Prof Molly Scott Cato MEP
	Bea Campbell
Patrick Barkham Author	George Monbiot Author
Prof Gary Francione	Prof Sarah Churchwell
Dr Christine Cornea	Dr Richard House
Dr Abby Innes	Dr Pierre Bocquillon
Prof Del Loewenthal	Prof Andrew Samuels
Dr Jo Veltman	Prof Peter Belton
Dr Andrew Boswell	Dr Katherine Kite
Mark Crutchley	Karen Whiterod
Anne Dismorr	Jonathan Kent

'Is This A Red Line For Us?' $15b European Trade Deal Doomed If Australia Dodges Paris Pledge

Fairfax - Nicole Hasham

The Coalition's internal climate war risks damaging the economy after Europe declared it would reject a $15 billion trade deal with Australia unless the Morrison government keeps its pledge to cut pollution under the Paris accord.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison this week reset his government’s course on energy policy, declaring a focus on lowering electricity bills and increasing reliability, while relegating efforts to cut dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.



He has reaffirmed his government’s commitment to the Paris accord despite persistent calls by conservative Coalition MPs, led by Tony Abbott, to quit the agreement.
However there is deep uncertainty over how Australia will meet the Paris goal of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 given the government does not have a national strategy to meet the target.
The policy ructions did not go unnoticed at a meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade in Brussels, where the EU’s chief negotiator on the deal, Helena König, faced angry questions from the floor over Australia’s commitment to climate action.
Australia and the EU will in November enter a second round of negotiations over the deal that would end restrictions on Australian exports and collectively add $15 billion to both economies.
In a video of this week's proceedings, Ms König told the committee that “it’s the [European] Commission’s position ... that we are talking about respect and full implementation of the Paris agreement [as part of the trade deal]”.
“No doubt we will see what comes out in the text [of the deal agreement] but that I expect to be the minimum in the text, for sure.”
Her assertion is a clear signal that any failure by Australia to meet its international climate obligations would have serious economic consequences.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor says he is not "skeptical about climate science ... but I am and have been for many years deeply skeptical of the economics of so many of the emissions reduction programs dreamed up by politicians.

Ms König fired off the warning after a question by Klaus Buchner, a German Greens member of the Parliament who said “the intention of the new Australian regime to withdraw from the Paris Agreement unsettles not only Australians”.
“Australia is by far the biggest exporter of coal in the world ... what will the commission do when Australia does indeed withdraw from the Paris agreement? Is this a red line for us in these discussions or do we just accept it?
“I believe as the largest trading block in the world we have a responsibility to go beyond pure profits.”
Australia’s ambassador to the EU, Justin Brown, hosed down suggestions the Morrison government would exit the Paris deal.
“Australia is a country that stands by its international commitments. We’ve made commitments in the Paris agreement context. We are committed to those as we are committed to global action to address this global challenge,” he said at the meeting.
Committee chair Bernd Lange pointed to a resolution adopted by the European Parliament in July to never conclude a trade agreement "without a reference to the Paris climate agreement and the implementation [of emissions reduction].”
The EU bloc is Australia's second largest trading partner, third largest export destination and second largest services market. The EU was also Australia's largest source of foreign investment in 2017.
The government says a free trade deal would benefit Australian consumers and businesses through better access to goods and services at lower prices, while enabling Australian producers to tap a market of half a billion people and a GDP of US$17.3 trillion.
Mr Morrison, who is in Jakarta for trade talks, declined to comment on the European Parliament's position.
Environment Minister Melissa Price said Australia "stands by the international commitments it makes" and has a strong track record of meeting emissions reduction targets.
"Australia is on track to beat our 2020 Kyoto target by 294 million tonnes and we are confident Australia will also meet its 2030 target," she said.
The Paris climate accord is deeply unpopular with conservative MPs, including Nationals MPs whose electorates would benefit from an EU trade deal. Keith Pitt resigned as an assistant minister last week in protest at the Paris treaty.
"I will always put reducing power prices before Paris," he said.
A 2017 report by the United Nations environment program that found Australia’s emissions were set to far exceed its Paris pledge and government data released in January showed Australia's annual emissions had risen for the fourth year running.
Labor’s climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler said the government had no emissions reduction plan and would fail to meet its Paris goal.
“The Prime Minister might think he can get away with [failing to cut emissions] domestically, but it is clear it will not be accepted by our international trading partners, who rightly have an expectation the Australian government will act to deliver on our international obligations,” he said.
European Australian Business Council chief executive Jason Collins, whose organisation has lobbied for the trade deal, said Europe’s commitment to the Paris agreement was "fundamental".
"The fact that Australia and Europe share similar values and have made joint commitments to trade liberalisation, combating terror, and addressing climate change, among other things, has been the starting point for launching these negotiations," he said.
Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O’Shanassy said the European Union's stance on the trade deal showed the Coalition's climate policy division "has real-world consequences for our country”.

Links

• The EU pursues $15b free trade talks with Australia, but there's a catch
• A trade deal with Europe carries real political risk
• Josh Frydenberg concedes Australia's carbon emissions rose in 2017
• Pacific nations push Morrison government to pledge support for Paris climate accord
• 'I am not sceptical about climate science': Energy Minister Angus Taylor hits back in new price pledge
• Issue has proved too big for run of Australian leaders
• Scott Morrison faces test on Paris climate deal
• What matters for business in the climate policy debate
• What next now the NEG has collapsed in a festering heap?
• Liberal leadership 'shockwaves' put pressure on Malcolm Turnbull
• NEG won't give certainty to climate policy
• The energy dispute that counts most
• It's about time super funds came clean on climate

Options On Energy Policy Leave Coalition In A Sticky Situation

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy

The government finds itself in a mess after the national energy guarantee was used as a catalyst to evict Turnbull

The imperative of emissions reduction now hangs over Liberal leaders like the sword of Damocles. Photograph: David Gray/Reuters 

We’ve lost another prime minister in the front bar brawl that is Australian politics, but we’ve lost something else as well, something that’s a bit harder to see.
For the last decade or more, a group of people in the political system have been trying to land a bipartisan consensus on energy policy and climate change, persevering through all the dispiriting cycles of trying to achieve that end, hoping that a corner could be turned.
That animating current in politics, and it’s been a significant one, now seems to have hit a dead end. That’s the feeling. We’ve reached a point of no return.
If that supposition proves to be correct, this a profound problem for the country, more profound than the revolving door at the Lodge, which is deeply disconcerting, but just one symptom of a deeper malaise.
The Coalition is in a terrible mess on this issue. The national energy guarantee, the last roll of the dice for consensus, was used as a catalyst to blow up a prime minister, just as emissions trading was deployed for the same end, removing the same party leader, in 2009.

As a consequence of that rancid history, the imperative of emissions reduction now hangs over Liberal leaders like the sword of Damocles. Any leader wanting to do something knows they will have to run the gauntlet of the conservatives, and the brains trust of the conservative faction has proven itself so resistant to facts and evidence that it can’t even count numbers for a leadership spill.
Unless Scott Morrison can neutralise the naysayers, and construct a nifty suspension bridge over a lava pit to push this issue forward, the practical consequence of what we’ve just witnessed is a deep paralysis inside a party of government. That paralysis works against the national interest.

It feels like the Titanic is about to hit the iceberg.

This is all the more depressing because in Australia, we’ve been good at this stuff. We’ve been highly effective at managing economic transformation over the past three decades largely because our institutions are solid, and our parties of government have, by-and-large, risen to the occasion.
We are standing on the threshold of another, critically important, transformation – one where an economy with high per capita emissions evolves to one built on the necessity of carbon constraint – but, unfortunately for all of us, one of the major parties has checked out of the conversation.
Let’s clear the wreckage of the fortnight and look with clear eyes at the situation as it now stands.
The Morrison government is in a position where it is a signatory to the Paris agreement, yet there are no policies to deliver the outcome. There is a talking point doing the rounds that Australia will meet its Paris commitments “in a canter” – but this is complete nonsense.

Scott Morrison looks at a piece of coal in Parliament House in Canberra. His government has no policies to deliver on Paris agreement commitments. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP 

It is possible (although the Energy Security Board says otherwise) that we could reduce emissions by 26% in the electricity sector without a settled policy to get us there because emissions in the sector are already falling (because ageing coal is leaving the system and the renewable energy target has pulled forward investment).
But what about the rest of the economy? Emissions are rising elsewhere, and there is no plan or roadmap to curb them.
This government has dithered for years about the imposition of new emissions standards for vehicles. Ministers have not been brave enough to bring forward a concrete proposal because the Coalition party room would limber up for another implosion.
Then there’s agriculture. Many Nationals take it as a personal affront if someone suggests anything be done in agriculture. The fact that their own constituents are now being battered by horrendous drought and hanging on grimly in areas gradually being rendered unviable by inexorable climatic change is an irony that seems lost of many of our elected representatives.
So that’s the outlook on emissions. Now let’s ponder the concept of certainty.
The national energy guarantee was proposed to create policy certainty to help drive the correct mix of investment in Australia’s electricity generation assets. That was its purpose. That policy is now on the back burner.
What isn’t on the back burner is the new Morrison government’s need to deliver a fix on power prices once the prime minister has concluded the healing and stability tour. That’s on the front burner. But this is a problem with no easy fix.
The government slapped together a package of measures in the dying days of the Turnbull regime designed to lower power prices – work that would have normally taken months of careful deliberation in a cabinet subcommittee.
So now we have no over-arching mechanism for investment certainty, and a bunch of expedited measures proposed on the fly, including heavy handed market interventions, such as breaking up power companies if they don’t play ball with the government and lower prices.
Call me crazy, but that doesn’t sound like the building blocks of a stable investment climate. This is a market where people have to make decisions about investing in generation assets with a shelf life of 30 or 40 years, so they need to be able to assess risks and forecast the future with a reasonable degree of certainty.
As a consequence of things being patched together in political extremis, and not really making sense if you think about them for longer than five seconds, we’ve already entered a stand off that would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.
The government is saying to the power companies give us what we want or we’ll whack you with our big stick, and the power companies are saying if you want lower prices, you’d better give us the rules of the road, because we’ve been waiting for that patiently for a decade, and ending price volatility doesn’t happen just because you are facing an election and it feels like the Titanic is about to hit the iceberg.
So all this is pretty tough. Tougher still will be the short-term politics if Labor decides to return to the parliament in September supporting the national energy guarantee, which the opposition can then try to deploy as both a shield and a sword as the federal election closes in.
Labor hasn’t yet decided what it will do yet but there are a couple of obvious options. It could say there’s no point in trying to find a bipartisan solution anymore, so we’ll just seek a mandate for our own ideas, see you at the election boys.
Option two would be grab the national energy guarantee and come back at the Coalition by supporting a policy the government itself designed, but can’t seem to support without plunging into civil war.
Option two is sticky for the Coalition. Part of the reason conservatives campaigned against the national energy guarantee is because they want a partisan fight with Labor on climate change and energy. But how do you fight, compellingly and coherently, against a policy the government designed?
What are you going to say? Imagine the talking points. After careful consideration, we have reached the sorry conclusion that our own policy (that we spent months telling you was critically important) is stupid? It sounds beyond parody.
The Coalition can construct a fight about the fact that Labor will propose a higher emissions reduction target. But even this contest is now more cluttered. What was meant to be a sharp and simple contrast – Labor has a radical target, we have a sensible one – is complicated by the fact the Coalition is currently too unstable and riven to settle on any emissions reduction target at all.
“Hello, we are the Liberal party, and we have nothing to say on emissions reduction, because when we do, things inside our show go crazy” might work in some parts of the country. It’s certainly possible. Stranger things have happened.
But imagine being a Liberal trying to defend that position in inner metropolitan seats in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane – or in a seat such as Wentworth, where there will shortly be a byelection, because the Turnbull era ended on Friday.
Good luck.

Links

• Issue Has Proved Too Big For Run Of Australian Leaders
• Angus Taylor Signals Further Taxpayer Investment In Existing Coal And Gas
• Climate Change Making Drought Worse, Farmers' Federation Chief Says
• Climate Change Brought Down Another Prime Minister In Australia. Here’s What Happened.
• The Global Rightward Shift On Climate Change
• 'No Real Appetite': Former Farmers Chief Lashes Ministers Over Climate Link To Drought
• A “Middle Finger” To Climate And Renewables: Morrison Draws Fire – And Dismay
• At Last, Maybe A Real Choice On Climate Change
• 'He Will Fail Farmers': Morrison Pressured To Tackle Climate Change As Part Of Drought Pledge
• Gas boom fuels Australia's third straight year of rising emissions

'Mad' And 'Morally Irresponsible': Liberal Moderates Roast New Emissions Stance

Fairfax - Nicole Hasham

Senior Liberal figures have labelled the Morrison government’s stance on climate change as "mad" and "morally irresponsible" as the party’s moderate wing reels at the ultra-conservative takeover of Australia’s energy policy.
In his first speech as Energy Minister in Melbourne on Thursday, Angus Taylor reiterated the Morrison government’s intention to curb electricity prices, but made no mention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions created by burning fossil fuels for energy.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor says he is not "skeptical about climate science ... but I am and have been for many years deeply skeptical of the economics of so many of the emissions reduction programs dreamed up by politicians.

“There will be no ideology in what I do ... my goal, the goal of my department and the goal of the electricity sector must be simple and unambiguous - get prices down while keeping the lights on,” he said.
Mr Taylor did not take questions after the speech at the Council of Small Business of Australia summit in Melbourne, reportedly avoiding waiting media by retreating to a meeting room then leaving via a back door.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Thursday confirmed that responsibilities for meeting Australia’s emissions reduction targets under the Paris treaty will now fall to new Environment Minister Melissa Price.
The Coalition’s plans to legislate emissions reduction as part of its energy plan were shelved in the final days of Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership following a backlash from conservative backbenchers who threatened to cross the floor.

Liberal Party moderates have expressed concern at the direction of energy policy under new minister Angus Taylor. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Fairfax Media spoke to several moderate senior Liberal Party figures dismayed at the direction of the Morrison administration’s energy policy and concerned at the appointment of Mr Taylor, who has campaigned against wind farms and renewable energy subsidies.
A senior NSW government source said the federal Coalition’s avoidance of emissions reduction was “just putting off the inevitable”.
“[They] are going to have to deal with it because that’s what the Australian public wants. Kicking it down the road is unhelpful,” the source said.

Liberal Party veteran Oliver Yates described the government's energy policy position as "economically irrational". Photo: Paul Jones

“It’s been 10 years now and we are still no closer to getting this issue resolved. Nobody in Canberra can hold their heads up high in regards to this.”
A senior NSW Liberal MP said any politician who acknowledged the science of climate change was “morally obliged to do something about it”.
Government MPs who denied the science were "stupid" while those who believed the science but didn't act "have a moral failing", the source said.
The MP described as “not promising” the appointment of Mr Taylor and Ms Price, who has worked as a lawyer for the mining industry.
Oliver Yates, a Victorian Liberal Party veteran and former head of the federal government's Clean Energy Finance Corporation, said divorcing electricity from emissions reduction was “economically irrational” and "mad".
It was also “a question of morality”, he said.
“If [we] can, without a lot of cost, avoid damaging the environment or avoid inflicting damage on other individuals, do I have a moral responsibility to do that? The answer is yes,” he said.
“I don’t understand how a leader could set in process motions that knowingly create long-term environmental damage and ... irreparably damage other human beings .”
Former Liberal leader John Hewson said the government had “no overarching emissions reduction strategy at all. It’s a big failing”.
“If you don’t start working on it and instead kick it down the road to your children and grandchildren, that’s morally irresponsible,” he said.
Alex Turnbull, son of former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and a Singapore-based fund manager, told Fairfax Media there was “no conflict between cutting emissions and reducing prices” given the cheap cost of renewables.
“This change in tack [by the Morrison government] has other motivations and drivers and they are not consumer welfare,” he said, describing the position as “lunacy”.
However conservative Liberal backbencher Eric Abetz, a key critic of energy policy under Malcolm Turnbull, on Thursday threw his full support behind Mr Taylor, describing his speech as “a game-changer”.
“He has announced clearly and plainly that the federal government will prioritise price and reliability above all else – this is an enormous and positive step forward” he said.

Links

• Issue Has Proved Too Big For Run Of Australian Leaders
• Angus Taylor Signals Further Taxpayer Investment In Existing Coal And Gas
• Climate Change Making Drought Worse, Farmers' Federation Chief Says
• Climate Change Brought Down Another Prime Minister In Australia. Here’s What Happened.
• The Global Rightward Shift On Climate Change
• 'No Real Appetite': Former Farmers Chief Lashes Ministers Over Climate Link To Drought
• A “Middle Finger” To Climate And Renewables: Morrison Draws Fire – And Dismay
• At Last, Maybe A Real Choice On Climate Change
• 'He Will Fail Farmers': Morrison Pressured To Tackle Climate Change As Part Of Drought Pledge

World Leaders Who Deny Climate Change Should Go To Mental Hospital – Samoan PM

The Guardian - Kate Lyons

Tuilaepa Sailele berates leaders who fail to take issue seriously, singling out Australia, India, China and the US

Climate change denial is ‘utterly stupid’, said Samoa’s PM. Photograph: chameleonseye/Getty Images 

The prime minister of Samoa has called climate change an “existential threat ... for all our Pacific family” and said that any world leader who denied climate change’s existence should be taken to a mental hospital.
In a searing speech delivered on Thursday night during a visit to Sydney, Tuilaepa Sailele berated leaders who fail to take climate change seriously, singling out Australia, as well as India, China and the US, which he said were the “three countries that are responsible for all this disaster”.
“Any leader of those countries who believes that there is no climate change I think he ought to be taken to mental confinement, he is utter[ly] stupid and I say the same thing for any leader here who says there is no climate change.”
Speaking at the Lowy Institute, just days before the beginning of the Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru, the Samoan prime minister seemed to take a swipe at Australia’s commitment to minimising the impact of climate change, which he called the “single greatest threat to the livelihood, security and wellbeing peoples of the Pacific”.
“While climate change may be considered a slow onset threat by some in our region, its adverse impacts are already felt by our Pacific islands peoples and communities,” said Sailele. “Greater ambition is necessary to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade and Pacific island countries continue to urge faster action by all countries.”
Sailele said addressing climate change required “political guts” from leaders. “We all know the problem, we all know the causes, we all know the solutions. All that is left would be some political courage, some political guts to get out and tell the people of your country, ‘Do this, this, this, or there is any certainty of disaster.’”
Sailele’s speech comes as leaders of Pacific nations are preparing to meet at the Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru next week, where Australia is expected to face questions about its emissions targets.
Australia’s new prime minister, Scott Morrison, is under pressure from some members of his party to abandon Australia’s commitment to reducing emissions under the Paris agreement.
His immediate predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, was due to attend the forum, but Morrison has announced he is sending his new foreign minister, Marisa Payne, a move the opposition Labor party condemned as “an insult to our neighbours” as well as “a serious strategic mistake”.
Saliele’s speech also touched on China’s rising influence in the Pacific, saying the region had become “an increasingly contested space”. “The big powers are doggedly pursuing strategies to widen and extend their reach, inculcating a far-reaching sense of insecurity.”

Links

• More Than 20 Nations Seek Lead In Setting Tougher Climate Goals
• Interview: Climate Change And The Disappearing Islands Of Kiribati
• Climate Change To Drive Migration From Island Homes Sooner Than Thought
• Tokelau's First Newspaper Aims Keep Islanders Informed About Climate Change
• 'We Share The Same Backyard': The Islands Disappearing Off Australia
• Panacea for the Pacific? Evaluating Community-Based Climate Change Adaptation
• A Poison In Our Island

Issue Has Proved Too Big For Run Of Australian Leaders

Fairfax - John Hewson*

Climate policy has now proved a defining element in the demise of a run of Australian political leaders, from John Howard through to Malcolm Turnbull.

Illustration: John Shakespeare

Each of the fallen increasingly played short-term, opportunistic politics, mostly for personal political advantage, on an issue upon which most Australians agree - the need to address climate change. How can it be that voters don’t get heard by our politicians, who claim to listen to and be in touch with their constituencies?
While in all this, we have come close to putting a price on carbon, and developing a deliverable transition pathway, we are really no closer today than we were a decade ago - indeed, in many respects we are further away. As leaders fail and fall - Howard, Brendan Nelson, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and Turnbull - we have squandered a host of growth opportunities, investment, and jobs.
Climate change policy has proved just too big an issue for our politicians and our political system to handle. It is reasonable to doubt the new Scott Morrison government will do any better - indeed, we may slide even further backwards.
For Howard, it was that he, stubbornly, wouldn’t ratify Kyoto, despite his support for an emissions trading scheme and a renewable energy target.
Then Brendan Nelson ran hot and cold on an ETS.
Tony Abbott has held most positions, switching from his initial support for an ETS to an undermining of Turnbull because he was prepared to negotiate with Rudd on an ETS. He opposed Julia Gillard’s carbon tax and the RET, then opposed an emissions intensity scheme, Chief Scientist Alan Finkel’s Clean Energy Target and, most recently, the National Energy Guarantee. While he did initially commit to the Paris emissions reduction targets, he has recently wanted to exit that agreement as well.

Malcolm Turnbull announces he will challenge Tony Abbott for the leadership in 2015. Photo: Andrew Meares

Rudd failed to deliver his promised ETS, baulking, post Copenhagen, to call the promised double dissolution election on the issue, thereby laying the basis for his initial demise.
Gillard switched from total opposition to a carbon price, to an awkward attempt to introduce one, ultimately losing to Rudd, and he, in turn, losing to Abbott on that attempt.
But, perhaps the hardest to understand and accept, was Turnbull. Having introduced an ETS in the Howard days, and then attempting to support Rudd’s efforts before being rolled by Abbott for doing so, he seized the prime ministership with the strong expectation that he would finally deliver.
The expectation was that he would clearly state a climate policy and transition strategy, and then go out and fight for them, both within the government and throughout the community. The electorate would have cut him a lot of slack if he had done so.

John Howard and Kevin Rudd at The Lodge in 2007, after Howard lost the election. Photo: Glen McCurtayne

Electoral support for decisive climate action has fluctuated over the past couple of decades but the majority of voters have consistently been in favour of it, well ahead of our politicians.
In the most recent Lowy poll, almost 60 per cent of voters thought "global warming is a serious and pressing problem" and that "we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs". About 84 per cent supported renewables, with only 14 per cent believing we should continue to rely on coal and gas.
Inexplicably, while Turnbull did boldly put energy and the environment together under one minister for the first time, he never used that to match those electoral expectations. Indeed, he compounded that weakness with support for the NEG, the fourth best solution, only to finally weaken even that position by attempting to "appease" the Abbott forces, as his leadership became more untenable.
This was further compounded by his leather-jacketed helicopter flights in pursuit of the "dream", rather than the commercial reality, of Snowy Hydro 2.0, and the continuing hint that he would find a way to support a new coal-fired power plant.

New Energy Minister Angus Taylor with Prime Minister Scott Morrison at Government House on Tuesday. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Now, enter Morrison, who carries little or no voter expectations on climate, especially given the entrenched image of him bringing a lump of coal into the Parliament and his warning that "we shouldn’t be afraid".
His first act has been to undo the Turnbull innovation, by splitting the environment and energy portfolios, and ranking them second last, and last, respectively, in his list of new ministers, a clear attempt to downplay the significance of both.
While Morrison has said that he won’t abandon the Paris commitments, he has gone out of his way to try to keep the focus on electricity prices, labelling Energy Minister Angus Taylor as "minister for getting electricity prices down".
Taylor has been a long-term opponent of the RET and wind farms in particular - so it is not sure how he will deliver his assigned task.

Bridget McKenzie and Scott Morrison join Stephen and Annabel Tully to see how the drought has affected their property in Quilpie, south-west Queensland on Monday. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

On his trip this week to drought-stricken regions, Morrison refused to comment on climate, or any link between climate and the severity of the drought, attempting to simplify matters by insisting on an exclusive focus on drought impacts and assistance.
I doubt Morrison will be able to sustain this dichotomy, although they will try to do so through to the next election, simply arguing, essentially by way of a slogan, that a Morrison government will get electricity prices down, while Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s renewable energy targets and strategy will put them up.
In these terms, there will be some reluctance to keep the NEG, because of its linking of energy and emissions reductions, even though it could easily be accepted as simply a framework, that addresses both, with the benefit that it can depoliticise the issue, with this framework being managed by an independent National Security Board.


From a single-father household to journalist, barrister, businessman and politician, it seemed Malcolm Turnbull had his eyes on the PM's office for a long time. 

To keep it, they will make much of the ACCC’s recommendations to toughen up on the "gentailers", default price "guarantees" etc - pretty much where Turnbull left off - but still with a nod in favour of new coal-fired power. Hardly a responsible climate policy.

*John Hewson is a professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, and a former Liberal opposition leader.

Links

• 'I am not sceptical about climate science': Energy Minister Angus Taylor hits back in new price pledge
• Angus Taylor Signals Further Taxpayer Investment In Existing Coal And Gas
• Climate Change Making Drought Worse, Farmers' Federation Chief Says
• Climate Change Brought Down Another Prime Minister In Australia. Here’s What Happened.
• The Global Rightward Shift On Climate Change
• 'No Real Appetite': Former Farmers Chief Lashes Ministers Over Climate Link To Drought
• A “Middle Finger” To Climate And Renewables: Morrison Draws Fire – And Dismay
• At Last, Maybe A Real Choice On Climate Change
• 'He Will Fail Farmers': Morrison Pressured To Tackle Climate Change As Part Of Drought Pledge
• Australia's Recent Climate Change Policy: A Brief History Of Seven Killings