Australian news, and some related international items

Scott Morrison’s lump of coal not enough: he needs a fairy tale on climate change

Scott Morrison needs a plan to cut emissions but all he has is a fairytale

Finkel did conduct that review at the behest of Malcolm Turnbull and the states when the objective was to fix the problems that have cascaded through the energy market since Tony Abbott opposed Labor’s carbon price to win an election.

The chief scientist proposed a clean energy target as the fix. Abbott and the deep feelings brigade inside the Coalition didn’t like it. It wouldn’t fly, so Turnbull and the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, retreated and regrouped. They then got officials to produce the national energy guarantee, hoping that would work, given the Neg mechanism dealt with both reliability and emissions reduction, and that might subdue some of the conservative opposition…………

It really is dire.

Because of the civil war inside the Coalition that has delivered three party leaders in two terms, the Morrison government has parked the medium-term approach to solving the problems, which a sector such as energy, with generation assets with 30-year operating lives, requires.

Morrison and the new energy minister, Angus Taylor, are currently fixated on conjuring up a short-term fix they can offer voters before the election – a noticeable reduction in power prices – never mind the obvious point that having a medium term roadmap would help deliver your short-term objective.

Then there’s the climate imperative. The government can’t talk about emissions reduction except to offer a talking point that Australia will meet its Paris climate commitments “in a canter”.

This is nonsense, because there are no policies to deliver the commitment. As the conservative MP Craig Kelly asked in a meeting of the backbench energy committee this week – what am I supposed to say when people ask me how we’ll meet the Paris target? Good question Craig. Very acute.

The government is being hit with precisely that question, because it’s the obvious question to ask, and the answer appears to be “technology” (not clear what technology or why anyone would invest in it, given the cluster cuss); “the emissions reduction fund” (which is a creaking vestige of Abbott-era pretend climate action policies that the government chose not to top up in last year’s budget, and Josh Frydenberg, the new treasurer, is giving no commitment to funding in the future); and the vibe.

Right at the moment, the Morrison government has nothing to say to voters on emissions reduction. Unless this changes, this will be the first time in my reporting lifetime where a party of government goes to an election minus a concrete emissions reduction policy. Even Abbott, who campaigned on revoking Labor’s policy, coughed up a fig leaf called Direct Action.

Perhaps the new environment minister, Melissa Price, will have the wit to conjure up an emissions reduction policy that doesn’t actually reduce emissions, to give Morrison something to say when he has to face the voters, but I’m not hopeful, because the Neg was a policy that in practice would have reduced emissions in the electricity sector by 2% between 2012 and 2030, and the feelings brigade couldn’t even stomach that……..

The country is in the grip of a crippling drought. When the country was last in the grip of a crippling drought, and the Coalition was in a weak political position, on the brink of losing an election, John Howard (that would be the same prime minister who refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol) supported an emissions trading scheme because it became politically impossible to do anything else.

The data tells us emissions are rising, and basic logic tells you they will go on rising as long as there’s no plan to curb them. Some long-term survey research released this week also suggests two things: Australians are more worried about climate change than they were 12 months ago, and regional voters – the ones the Morrison government is currently most worried about leaking to populist political disrupters or community-minded independents – are less inclined than they once were to consider climate science a hoax.

Call me crazy, but I think the government might need a plan.


September 16, 2018 - Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: