The Guardian - Adam Morton
With the global and local environment at crisis point, Australians
have a clear choice at Saturday’s election. Here are the parties’ key
policies
 |
| Drought is affecting large swathes of Australia, including western New South Wales.
Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP/Getty Images
|
This has been called the climate change election, and with good
reason: concern about the climate and environment has never been
greater.
A Lowy Institute poll found nearly two out of three adults believe
climate change is the most serious threat to Australia’s national
interests,
an 18-point-increase in five years. It was taken before a
landmark UN global assessment
defined the extent of the unprecedented biodiversity crisis facing the
planet, with a million species at risk of extinction and potentially
dire consequences for human society.
Australia has a big stake in these issues. It is one of the world’s
top greenhouse gas emitters on a per-capita basis and in the top 20 for
total pollution, with a footprint
greater than Britain or France. It is already experiencing the effects of climate change, including increased
heatwaves and
mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, and is the
global leader in
mammal extinction.
There are clear choices between the parties on these issues at this
election. Guardian Australia looks at how the policies of the
Coalition, Labor and the Greens line up.
• EMISSIONS
Carbon pollution in Australia
has been rising since the Coalition
repealed carbon price laws in 2014. The country is on track to meet its modest Kyoto protocol target – that emissions be 5% lower in 2020 than in 2000 –
but not 2030 targets.
– Coalition
Under the Paris climate deal, the Coalition says it will cut
emissions to 26% less than they were in 2005 by 2030. It is
significantly less than what scientists advising the government say is
necessary for Australia to play its part in meeting the goals of the
Paris deal (
a 45%-63% cut by 2030 compared with 2005).
Scott Morrison
explained in February how he
planned to meet this goal.
About eight points of the cut would come from using what are known as
Kyoto carry-over credits. Unlike international and domestic carbon
credits created through offset projects, Kyoto carry-over credits do not
represent an actual reduction in carbon dioxide. They are bonus credits
that Australia wants to award itself for beating the low 2020 target it
set itself. It would just mean counting the same emissions cut twice.
It is unclear if they will be allowed under the Paris deal;
almost all other developed countries have said they
will not use them. Developing countries do not have the option.
 |
| Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull at the Paris
climate talks in 2015. Australia is still using credits carried over
from beating its feeble Kyoto targets to meet commitments made in Paris.
Photograph: Francois Mori/AP |
The Coalition
nominates
two other significant sources of emissions reduction. One is the direct
action emissions reduction fund, now rebadged as the climate solutions
fund, under which farmers and businesses bid for cash from taxpayers to
cut pollution. The government
announced in February it would spend an extra $2bn on it over 10 years, but that was
stretched to 15 years
in the April budget, including just $189m over the next four. While
some projects backed by the fund are widely considered worthwhile,
an investigation by Guardian Australia has
found questions over
its design and uncertainty over
what taxpayers were getting for their money.
The biggest flaw is in the administration of the other half of the direct action program, known as
the safeguard mechanism.
It was supposed to put a limit on industrial emissions to ensure they
did not just wipe out the cuts taxpayers are buying through the
emissions reduction fund, but in practice industrial emitters have
mostly been allowed to increase pollution without penalty. The Coalition has
criticised Labor for planning to use the safeguard mechanism to do
what government frontbencher Greg Hunt designed it to do: reduce emissions.
The other major measure on the Coalition’s carbon budget chart (
see p8) is “technological improvements”, which have not been explained.
An
analysis by scientists from Climate Analytics
released on Friday found the Coalition’s target was insufficient to
deal with the climate challenge and said there was no evidence the
government planned to release further policies.
– Labor
Labor has a more ambitious emissions target: a 45% cut by 2030, which
Climate Analytics says falls just within what is necessary for
Australia to play its part in limiting global warming to 1.5C, and
net zero emissions by 2050. Rather than an across-the-board carbon price similar to
what it introduced in 2011, it is promising
different policies for different parts of the economy.
 |
| Labor leader Bill Shorten launches Labor’s electric vehicles policy. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/EPA |
On electricity, it wants to bring in a
national energy guarantee,
a policy devised and abandoned by the Coalition. Similarly, for heavy
industry, it plans to toughen up the government’s safeguard mechanism to
set limits and reduce them over time. It is yet to say what the limits
would be and the trajectory – how fast they would be cut – but it
says both the electricity and industrial sectors will have to meet the 45% target.
It wants
50% of new cars to be electric by 2030 and has pledged vehicle emissions standards to limit transport pollution, building on
work done under the Coalition
but not adopted. It would boost the use of carbon offsets from
Australia, allow business to buy an undefined amount from offsets from
overseas and has
suggested it would limit land clearing.
Despite some
scary headlines about costs,
Labor’s ambition and direction has been praised by policy analysts and
scientists. But unanswered questions remain. It has not released a
carbon budget explaining how it would hit the 45% target. And it has
been accused of hypocrisy for a
promise to spend $1.5bn to boost natural gas supply
in Queensland and to connect the Northern Territory’s Beetaloo
sub-basin to the east coast. Green groups say the emissions that result
could dwarf those from Adani’s proposed Carmichael coalmine.
Speaking of which: Labor has
struggled to articulate a position on the mine. Shorten has expressed personal reservations but not committed to either blocking or supporting it.
– Greens
The Greens want
emissions cut by between 63% and 82% by 2030 compared with 2005, and
zero emissions by 2040. Their policies include ending fossil fuel
subsidies, phasing out fossil fuel mining and electricity generation by
2030, vehicle emissions standards that become a ban on new petrol-fueled
cars by 2030 and an economy-wide carbon price to reflect the true cost
of pollution. A new public authority, Renew Australia, would lead the
transition to low emissions.
Climate Analytics says the Greens’ goals sit well within what the scientific literature says would be Australia’s fair share of emissions cuts.
• RENEWABLE ENERGY
– Coalition
The government does not have a renewable energy policy for beyond 2020. It stresses there was significant investment –
about $20bn – on large-scale clean energy last year. Most of this has come from the national renewable energy target, which it
considered abolishing under Tony Abbott
but ultimately reduced under a deal with Labor. The target won’t fund
new generation after next year but existing support is maintained
through to 2030. While the industry is surging, and the Australia Energy
Market Operator has found there was likely to be
about 46% clean energy by 2030 on the current trajectory, analysts expect new investment
to fall if the target is not replaced.
 |
| The Coalition is betting heavily on pumped hydro. Scott
Morrison poses in front of the Tumut 3 power station at the Snowy Hydro
scheme. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP |
The Coalition’s big clean energy play is hydro. It is putting
$1.4bn into Snowy Hydro 2.0, which is not expected to be operational until 2024, and supporting the “
battery of the nation” project in Tasmania. Both promise “pumped hydro” – energy storage that can be called when needed. These projects have been
found to make economic sense only if more coal plants close, but Morrison denies this is the plan.
The government has indicated it would underwrite some new energy projects, having released a shortlist of 12. The list
includes one coal upgrade project in New South Wales.
– Labor
Bill Shorten has
promised 50% of electricity from renewable sources
by 2030. He says he will aim to win support in parliament for the
national energy guarantee, which would force energy companies to reduce
emissions and meet reliability obligations. If unsuccessful, he would
tip $10bn into the government’s green bank, the Clean Energy Finance
Corporation, and create a $5bn fund to modernise the power grid. Other
promises include $200m over the next four years for a
household battery program, with a goal of 1m homes having batteries by 2025.
– Greens
The Greens want the electricity grid to be
100% renewable energy by 2030.
They would extend and boost the renewable energy target and back public
investment, feed-in tariffs and regulations for clean generation,
storage and energy conservation.
• ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND THREATENED SPECIES
Green groups, academics and lawyers
have been campaigning for changes to the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act,
the national environment law introduced by the Howard government 20
years ago. They say the law is designed to maintain the minimum viable
population of a species or habitat
while developments are approved,
that the environment minister of the day has too much discretion over
decisions and that Australia’s natural estate is declining rapidly on
its watch.
 |
| The endangered growling grass frog. Photograph: Kristian Bell/Getty Images/RooM RF |
– Coalition
The government rejects claims the EPBC Act is not fit for purpose. It
would review it, as required under the legislation, but not replace it.
It promises a
$100m environment restoration fund
to clean up coasts and waterways, protect threatened species, boost
recycling and reduce waste. Up to $10m of this would be dedicated to
creating safe havens for threatened species.
Scientific assessments of the policy range from not adequate to poor, especially in light of a
38% cut to the federal environment department budget.
Fewer than 40% of threatened species had recovery plans last year to prevent their extinction, and the department
has admitted it does not know
if the recovery plans that are in place are being implemented. The
Coalition does not have a policy to limit land clearing, one of the
major threats to biodiversity. Morrison’s response to the shocking
picture painted by the UN biodiversity report was to warn about the
impact of
“green tape” on business and to
claim the government had passed legislation that does not actually exist.
– Labor
Shorten
says he would introduce new environment laws and a
federal environment protection authority to oversee them, meeting
a call from the Labor environment action network.
There has been little detail on what the laws would do and what powers
the authority would have. Its environment spokesman, Tony Burke, has
said
not to expect the changes in the first year of a Shorten government. The ALP promises
a $100m native species protection fund,
$200m over five years to double the number of Indigenous rangers
managing the land and $200m for urban rivers and corridors. It would
reverse the Coalition’s reduction in
marine protected areas.
Scientists said Labor’s plan appeared to be a positive initial step towards
addressing the disaster highlighted by the UN but many questions
remained unanswered. They stressed the need not just to protect
threatened species, but to save and restore ecosystems to prevent
further decline, and said more funding would be required.
– Greens
The minor party also backs new environmental laws and a federal environmental protection authority but
stresses it must be independent of politicians and have real teeth. It has proposed
a $2bn nature fund
to tackle invasive species, create new safe havens for threatened
mammals, fund recovery plans for at-risk species, pay for 10,000
environment managers and boost the number of Indigenous rangers. It
promises an expanded, science-based network of marine parks and an end
to native forest logging.
Scientists consider their policies the most thorough, though it has
been noted that – as with the major parties – they are not making
explicit the impact biodiversity loss would have on the economy.
• WASTE AND RECYCLING
With
China shutting down its market for Australia’s recycling
and growing community desire to cut rubbish, all parties have made
commitments to reduce plastic and deal with other waste. The
commonwealth, the states and the territories have
a goal of 100% of Australia’s packaging being reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025 at the latest.
 |
| Recycled paper at the northern Adelaide waste management
authority’s recycling site. Photograph: Brenton Edwards/AFP/Getty Images |
– Coalition
The government promises
$100m for a recycling investment fund,
$20m to accelerate recycling of batteries, electrical goods and plastic
oil containers and wants to halve food waste by 2030. It would spend
$20m researching new ways to deal with plastics, including using
recycled material in manufacturing and construction.
Green group
WWF has criticised the government for not promising to ban single-use
plastic. It says the European Union, which is targeting 10 types of
single-use plastics, should be the benchmark.
– Labor
The ALP says
it will ban lightweight, single-use plastic bags and micro-beads by
2021 and create a national container deposit scheme that would pay
people for recycling drink vessels. Other commitments include a $60m
national recycling fund and targets for federal government purchasing of
recycled products.
– Greens
In addition to phasing out single-use plastics, the Greens would
bring in a national container deposit scheme and similar programs for
electronic waste, tyres and mattresses. They want an extra $500m over
five years for infrastructure and a plastics research centre. Their
headline goal is zero waste.
• GREAT BARRIER REEF
The world’s biggest living structure
suffered mass coral death due to increased ocean temperatures in 2016 and 2017, a disaster that has drawn attention across the globe.
 |
| Aerial surveys have revealed the extent of bleaching on
the Great Barrier Reef. Photograph: Ed Roberts/ARC Centre of Excellence
for Coral Reef Studies |
– Coalition
The government’s
2050 reef plan is designed to reduce local pressures and increase resilience to climate change, but not deal with climate change itself,
the biggest threat facing the reef. Last year it gave
$444m to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation,
a charity set up by business leaders that at the time of the
announcement had only six full-time staff. The money is to be spent on
improving water quality, crown-of-thorns starfish control and research.
The Coalition has not explained why the foundation was chosen over
government agencies.
– Labor
The ALP says it would strip the foundation of most funding and
reinvest it with public agencies dedicated to reef protection. It promises to
work internationally to improve the response to climate change and to protect biodiversity and oceans.
– Greens
The Greens say they would
commit $2bn to improve water quality and stress the need for substantial action on climate change.
Links
