2020-06-30
Australian politics has totally failed in its duty of care to the younger generations through its failure to meaningfully address the looming climate catastrophe
By Chris Johansen, GI Co-editor
It is recognized that the political process concentrates on issues of immediate concern, of perceived direct relevance to voters at the next election. Thus issues of a longer term nature, even if they foreshadow major problems arising in the future if not immediately addressed, tend to get sidelined – ignored, denied, shelved, etc. This has been the fate of climate change, in Australia and the USA in particular.
The consequences of climate change will inevitably worsen as time goes on, and be increasingly devastating for those who are now young, unless major government-led efforts to mitigate and adapt are entered into in earnest now. It is very difficult to mount a rational, data-based argument otherwise, especially with increasing manifestation of climate change, such as melting glaciers and arctic ice, bushfires, etc.
Most parents, wherever they sit on the political spectrum, want the best for their offspring’s future. It thus emerges as a conundrum as to why parents/grandparents who sincerely wish their children/grandchildren well would condemn them to live in an ever-deteriorating global climate by opposing, or at least being ambivalent to, effective action on climate change.
To gain insight into this conundrum It is necessary to be aware of the recent history of climate policy in Australia. This was nicely presented by an ABC Four Corners program screened on 18th May, but which can now be seen on ABC iview. A summary of this history follows.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988. The manifestation of climate change was well understood then by scientists whose studies related to the topic, even if at that time they underestimated its rate of onset. It was also realized by politicians around the globe who gave any credence to scientific advice. So, by the turn of the century, policy makers around the world could not credibly claim ignorance of the problem.
The sad history of the attempts of the Australian Government to address climate change in this century is as follows:
2004. Ken Henry, Secretary, Dept. of the Treasury, 2001-11, proposed an emissions trading scheme (ETS) to the Howard Government, but no interest was shown.
2006. Public opinion for climate action was growing (e.g. influenced by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth film), so Henry tried again. This time Howard bought it as he recognized that his government’s popularity was slipping and that this was an increasingly popular issue.
2007. Howard took the ETS (cap and trade) proposal to cabinet and cabinet endorsed it. Rudd declared that “climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our generation”.
End 2007. There was consensus across political parties, business organizations and environmental groups that climate action was necessary (the brightest climate moment of this century!). Labor won the election.
2007-8. Under the guidance of Penny Wong and Greg Combet, Labor designed a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) but then the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) struck, causing internationally exposed businesses to change their minds about climate action. Their representatives in parliament, the Coalition, similarly changed their minds, despite continued efforts and compromises by Labor to retain bipartisanship. The Greens were unimpressed with the resulting version of the CPRS due to it being too weak and it would entrench fossil fuel industries indefinitely.
2009. The Coalition and The Greens block the CPRS in the Senate.
Late 2009. Tony Abbott (climate sceptic) replaces Malcom Turnbull (favours climate action) as Coalition Leader.
2010. Rudd defers any further climate action, and is replaced by Julia Gillard, who infamously states “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”
2010. The Gillard Labor Government is re-elected but is reliant on support of The Greens in the Senate.
2011. A price is put on carbon and various investments in renewable energy (ARENA, CEFC) made with the insistence of The Greens. This resulted in a clear decline in emissions during 2012-14, without the severe economic consequences predicted by the Coalition.
2011-13. Relentless attacks by the Coalition and the right wing media with regard to climate policy (“ditch the witch”, “axe the tax”, etc.)
2013. Abbott elected PM and promptly dismantles the carbon price. In a pretence to address climate change institutes “Direct Action” (ineffective tree planting), which Turnbull describes as a “fig leaf”. Emissions resume their upward course.
2015. Turnbull returns as Coalition Leader and in trying to do something about emissions while keeping the climate sceptics in the party onside proposes a National Energy Guarantee, but fails to get party endorsement.
2018. Another Coalition showdown re climate change and Turnbull backs down to save party unity and is replaced by Scott Morrison. Introduces a Climate Solutions Fund (revived Direct Action) in pretence of meeting Australia’s inadequate Paris agreement of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Despite the rapid uptake of renewable energy in Australia in recent years, because it is the cheaper energy alternative, the Federal Government remains intent on protecting fossil fuel industries, breaking all rules of economic rationalism.
2020. (but didn’t get into this Four Corners program) COVID-19 strikes and the Coalition’s strategy to recover from it is unashamedly stated as “gas-led”, stacking their National COVID-19 Coordination Commission with fossil fuel executives.
Yes the ABC program documented the sad history of climate policy in Australia – a “slow moving train wreck” according to former Chief Scientist Penny Sackett – but did not explore in any depth the reasons why this should be so.
The main reasons are of course the revolving door between politics and fossil fuel industries, intensive professional lobbying, generous donations to political parties (above and below the counter) and the influence of the conservative media.
Among politicians there are those who represent electorates where fossil fuel industries predominate, and those who had previously worked for, or otherwise had affiliations with, fossil fuel companies. They thus remain inclined to do the bidding of fossil fuel enterprises. There are many politicians who, on leaving politics quickly find themselves in lucrative roles in fossil fuel enterprises or affiliated lobby groups. However, there are many more individuals who gravitate between fossil fuel industries and either public service positions or as staffers of politicians, cementing links between political policy and aspirations of the fossil fuel industry. This Conversation report documents some of these. The most recent example is the stacking of the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission with fossil fuel executives.
Fossil fuel organizations make extensive use of professional lobbying firms, whose lobbyists can regularly be seen walking the corridors of parliament (as related by various Greens MPs). It is widely agreed that political donations policy in Australia is far from transparent, allowing money wielding corporations to have an undue money-inspired influence.
These reasons apply both to the conservative parties as well as Labor. Not only for the sake of developing credible climate policies, but also for the sake of democracy itself, there is a crying need for a federal anti-corruption body, to at least ensure compliance with existing laws. But these laws relating to political influence, such as donations and lobbying, need to be considerably tightened if there is to be a reasonably level playing field for the game of democracy.
Aiding and abetting reluctance to act on climate are the conservative commercial media in Australia. After all, their basic motivation is profit, through advertising revenue, rather than public service. They are thus a ubiquitous mouthpiece for raw capitalism, which is what the fossil fuel industry is all about. Thus, particularly in Australia and the USA, the conservative commercial media have been very successful in disseminating to the public the fossil fuel industry message of climate denial and all manner of argument against action on climate change.
So, the profit motive ‒ specifically the short- to medium-term profits to be derived by maintaining the fossil fuel industries – largely explains the continued lack of effective action of Australian Governments on climate change.
But, we are left with the conundrum of how do conservative politicians reconcile lack of action on climate change with their probable desire for a comfortable future for their offspring. Without claiming to be able to interpret the thinking of conservative politicians, some explanations can be suggested. Perhaps they have been successful in ignoring, denying or shelving the threat of climate change. This is indicated in some who have an obvious reluctance to utter the words “climate change”, “renewable energy”, “carbon dioxide”, “greenhouse gas emissions”, etc. But for anyone who graduated from Class 10 in high school in the last 50 years, it seems implausible that they would be unaware of the scientific assessments and prognoses of climate change.
A more plausible explanation probably relates to the very fundamental premise of conservative thinking – that accumulation of wealth is the underlying objective of life’s journey. This is the clearly ultimate life objective of most conservative politicians. With that wealth most of life’s needs can be catered for – housing, health, education, travel, entertainment, etc. Thus, passing on of that wealth to their offspring should insulate them from all of life’s future challenges, including a changing climate. They would have enough money to build a mansion well above existing sea level, robust enough to resist the most extreme of storms, fully air conditioned, surrounded with a high wall and security guards (to keep out desperate people unable to isolate themselves against climate change), etc. But really, when you think it through, a wealth divide exacerbated by climate change is not actually going to make for a comfortable existence for their direct descendants some 50 years hence.
I feel that climate activists have fallen short in posing the question to policy makers reluctant to act on climate change: how can you ensure a comfortable life for your descendants, some 20-50 years hence, if we allow the trajectory of climate change to continue on its present path? They would either have to say “well, that’s their problem” or try to dispute the existence of that trajectory. If a rational argument is to follow then they would have a tough task in doing the latter, or otherwise resorting to obfuscation, at which politicians are well practiced.
Header photo: Greta Thunberg and young friends at a press conference about a US Supreme Court hearing on climate change, 2019. Credit: Victoria Pickering
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]