Get Up! going nowhere on climate
|
Has GetUp! lost the plot? Yesterday, the grassroots activist organisation launched a campaign calling on its members to send their energy-saving light-bulbs to the Prime Minister as a protest against the failure of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) to account for emission reduction measures by well-meaning households. This supposed flaw in the scheme is trifling compared to the real problem with the CPRS, the manifestly inadequate cap that would reduce emissions by only 5% on 2000 levels. Household electricity is responsible for less than 10% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. If 10% of households — a generous estimate of the proportion that might be willing to take voluntary action — cut their emissions in half through voluntary measures such as installing solar panels, Australia’s emissions would fall by 0.5%. All of that selfless effort would have virtually no effect. Yet a demand to increase the CPRS cap from 5% to the 25% or more required by the science would cut emissions by an additional 20%. With a more stringent target, the price effects of emissions trading would render voluntary action even less relevant. Most Australians would be taking action at home, not for altruistic reasons but to lower their energy bills. Given this, why is GetUp! not asking members to send their light bulbs back demanding a decent emissions cap instead of pandering to green consumerism? GetUp! thrives on the commitment of its members, many of whom believe that climate change can be solved if everyone just does the right thing. The fact is the emphasis on voluntary measures by well-meaning individuals is a huge distraction from the main objective — to get an effective policy that will mandate deep cuts. The impression of GetUp!’s political naivety is reinforced by the ringing endorsement of Malcolm Turnbull’s latest greenhouse plan by its national director Simon Sheik. Turnbull’s focus on biochar is just another diversionary tactic in the Coalition’s long-running avoidance strategy. But Sheik was sucked in, writing a paean of praise for Turnbull in The Canberra Times. “Finally, the Opposition has a climate policy,” he gushed. “Or at least the start of one. And what a start it is. While we can squabble over the lack of detail, costings, or the mistaken focus on so-called clean coal, one thing is clear: Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has announced the Coalition’s target for emissions reductions [by] 27 per cent by 2020.” Only someone with no understanding of climate politics or its history could fall for Turnbull’s trickery. You can be sure the cynical political strategists in Turnbull’s office won’t be letting on that:
Perhaps GetUp! is playing a cunning game designed to wedge the Government. But the effect is to entrench a contest between a weak response and an even weaker one, narrowing the political space for decisive action on climate rather than widening it. In the same way, focusing attention on a minor flaw in the CPRS instead of campaigning on its gaping holes suggests that GetUp! is more intent on cultivating its membership base by appealing to green symbolism than forcing the Government to get serious about global warming. Clive Hamilton is the author of Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change (Black Inc., 2007) |
|
|
|
9 Comments
Thank you Clive Hamilton. It is comforting to see that it’s not only me who thinks that GetUp is increasingly losing the plot.
Jonathan Green’s concerns about the credibility and indeed the lack of integrity of journalists, commentators and bloggers are personified in Clive Hamilton. But I suppose it really does take some intelligence to write such garbage.
Agree…I find their approach a bit confusing and counter-productive.
They need to work out what they are about. I’ve cancelled my monthly donation to them.
I think Richard is right. Getup can always refine their message, but as Clive would know they have already been campaigning on the weakness of the target and as I recall their add also mentioned that. I think Clive is underestimating the fury that people feel that their small individual efforts will just be making it easier for big polluters to ease off while keeping their hand out for the gravy the govt is ladelling to them. Keeping political motivation high and public by rewarding voluntary effort can be done at the same time as focussing on policy and collective action politics. Getup is better positioned to do this than many-refine the message? Sure- but I don’t see it as some kind of epic mistake the way Clive puts it. And the Canberra point is well made-because of the barriers to voluntary or outside strict ETS constraints effort progressive moves by any state simply reward the bludgers-and that can include very significant cuts-eg potentially around landclearing which represents millions of tonnes per annum. Nice spray Clive but point your hose toward the government not Getup.
If Get-Up are wanting their ‘members’ to do more than send an email they are in trouble - I recall they could only get 5-6 people out to Bennelong for the last election - how many thousands of ‘members’ do they claim?
Nice one Graemel. I have a piece coming out in today’s Crikey just for you.
It is surprising how determined some are to keep the climate change debate as simple as possible. The targets are obviously too low, and I don’t remember GetUp suggesting otherwise. The fact that they have helped draw attention to another of the scheme’s flaws is hardly evidence that they don’t understand climate change.
There are a number of good reasons to highlight the fact that, once the CPRS comes in, individual efforts to reduce emissions will have no impact on Australia’s emissions.
1) It is true. The Climate Change Minister has raised obfuscation to a high art. If the Minister is proud of this ‘design feature’ of the scheme she should just admit that’s how it works. If she isn’t proud, she should fix it. But she should stop asking well meaning families to spend tens of thousands of dollars on rooftop solar systems that the Government knows won’t reduce emissions.
2) Voluntary effort does not just mean individual effort. The ACT Government has proposed a 30% emission reduction target by 2020. Unless the CPRS is modified the result of achieving this target would simply be a transfer of permits to other states. Similarly, any subsequnt investments in Sydney or Melbourne’s public transport system will have no effect on emissions.
3) Motivation matters. For those interested solely in the marginal abatement cost the worst thing that could happen is for households to lose their current desire to reduce emissions. The idea that price alone is what discourages people to leave their airconditioners off is not based on empirical evidence.
The problem with this sort of attack on GetUp is the attempt to create a false distinction between pursuing strong targets and ensuring that those targets become more ambitious if individuals, or governments, demonstrate a willingness to go further.
Surely we should pursue the best of both worlds. And surely Clive should be spending more time attacking the government rather than the tactics of like minded groups.
Spot on.
Looks as if “Get-Up” is transforming into a “Let-Down” organization, but then the entire race between those who propose to do little and those who propose to do nothing is as meaningless as administering 5% of the required dose of antibiotic to a pneumonia patient, if not aspirin to a cancer patient.