The Australian climate movement needs to take a good, hard look at itself
|
Kevin Rudd, to his credit, is now seriously challenging climate denialism. His Lowy speech set strong performance benchmarks against which Labor itself will be held to account in 2010. There is widespread public disillusionment now with the ETS weak-target approach. It is over-complex and opaque, a feeding trough for consultants and rent-seekers, and as it stands incapable of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions. This ETS will pass, but is worth little unless Rudd moves to real 25% - 40% targets and supports them with an active government-led decarbonisation strategy: starting with serious and unbiased R&D into how the different forms of alternative energy might be rapidly integrated into a dependable, emissions-free national grid, using all available off-the-shelf technologies. To drive such a decarbonisation process, the government could give coal-power owners an economic stake in renewable energy by giving them government-funded alternative energy grid bonds, as compensation for asset values of closed-down coal-power stations. The measure of success at Copenhagen is changing. Most commentators now forecast that a ‘grand global bargain’ for sharing and trading the costs of global climate change mitigation and adaptation is beyond the reach of negotiators. Some are preparing to pronounce Copenhagen a diplomatic failure. But this is incorrect. Copenhagen will produce a set of loosely linked national commitments to pursue meaningful carbon emissions reduction strategies, expressed in quantitative measures of nations’ own choosing, which will collectively add up to a serious global commitment. If world leaders can move away from the market-rationalist mindset of striving for international deals in which one’s nation cannot be cheated by others into paying more than its ‘fair share’, they may bring more useful shared values into play, such as constructive emulation. One sees this already in the different – but mutually supportive – pre-Copenhagen emissions reduction commitments now being announced by the United States, China, India, Japan, Korea, and the EU. After Copenhagen it would be reasonable for Kevin Rudd to report back: “We have not achieved a grand global bargain, but there is now a basis for Australia to go forward with our own rapid national decarbonisation program.” If he does not, Rudd will be increasingly out of step internationally: Australia, Canada and Russia are already seen as the climate dinosaurs in G20. Quite apart from the political problems created in 2009 by denialists and coal lobby status quo defenders, the environmental movement is weakened by its present confused and factionalised state, and losing sight of the supreme policy goal which environmentalists share: safe, rapid decarbonisation. It was a sorry scene in 2009: like directionless wild geese circling aimlessly, waiting for a flight leader to emerge. Purist climate scientists seemed to resent ‘non-experts’ putting forward independent perspectives. Greens Party ideologues demanded that their whole political agenda be pursued along with their climate message, thereby alienating non-Greens. ‘Pragmatic’ environmental groups continued to try to work with the Labor Government, no matter how phoney and unproductive its policies became. For market rationalist ideologues, no solution was acceptable unless it worked through market mechanisms (and there was a sub-argument here too, between carbon traders and taxers). Renewable energy advocates argued with nuclear energy advocates, and many of the former could not see far beyond their own particular preferred form of renewable energy (or gas). Following Copenhagen, the Australian climate movement needs to take a hard collective look at itself, with the aim of achieving unity and inclusivity around the crucial goal to reduce Australian greenhouse house gas emissions to zero by 2030. Based on latest climate science, there is no alternative to this, if Australia wants to play its part in achieving 350 ppm CO2 - which is needed to hold global average temperature rise to two degrees. In this search for inclusivity, Al Gore and James Hansen are inspirational leaders. They know the importance of working with nuclear energy adherents. They are even courteous to clean coal fantasists, while knowing that this vain quest will quietly be abandoned. They know the task is to build a politically strong mainstream climate policy coalition, which major party leaders will have to heed. A clear-headed united message from the Australian climate movement would compel Kevin Rudd’s attention, and move the present ineffectual political debates on climate change to a serious level. Australia’s major climate change organisations and interest groups should organise an emergency joint national policy summit very soon after Copenhagen. Such a meeting should be genuinely inclusive, and free to come to an agreed, not predetermined, outcome. It should not be dominated in advance by any political party or interest group. We currently have an elective federal dictatorship in Australia. If this strong Prime Minister could resolve to act now and act effectively, Australia’s progress to real energy decarbonisation could be extraordinarily rapid. The opportunity is waiting for Rudd, but it is also up to the Australian environmental movement to get its act together. Only then will Rudd listen: if not, he will just go on wedging, as in 2009. We have met the enemy: it is us. Former diplomat Tony Kevin is the author of ‘Crunch Time; Using and abusing Keynes to fight the twin crises of our era’, (Scribe, September 2009) a thought-provoking exploration of Australia’s climate crisis policy challenges. |
|
|
|
9 Comments
Yes - an incisive analysis that really hits the spot. As long as the Rudd/Wong team keeps wedging and spinning, the battle will be lost. There is much that can and must be done, whether climate change is real or not, and whether it is caused by humans or not.
It’s no good “blaming” the so-called “deniers.” Our elected leaders should just get on with addressing the things that can be done, just as this writer advocates.
The reality is that solutions like nuclear, that should be under discussion are just blindly thrown out by Rudd and his lot, and there they destroy any credibility that they might have in this debate.
Even Ross Garnaut has described Rudd’s CPRS/ETS as bad policy. Maybe he should be PM!!
I don’t believe it, somebody just said something intelligent.
Thank you Mr Kevin. You are the light at the end of the insane asylum. And now I shall go down to the bookshop and find a copy of your book (PIR and all).
Tony, the coal companies currently have substantial economic moats (resource-based) which they stand to lose in a non-mineral energy industry. That’s what they stand to lose, no matter how much cash compensation they get in the short-medium term.
You suggest offering “coal-power owners an economic stake in renewable energy by giving them government-funded alternative energy grid bonds”. Would that give them enough of a stake in the future to satisfy them? They’d have a head start, but still be open to much more competition in the future than they currently face.
Suppose some sort of huge R&D subsidy could offer them control over a big pile of sustainable-energy patents. Would that satisfy them, do you think, enough to suddenly become environmental cheerleaders?
I have read your book - couldn’t pout it down until I had finshed it. You wrote sense then and now talk sense with this piece. As an active environmentalist of sorts I want to support a climate group that aims at 350 and holds that out as a the goal for Australia. NO matter what path is taken if it does not lead to 350 we have been wasting our time.
Well put Kevin. I too am thoroughly sick of the deniers like Bolt et al who peddle selective opinions of so called qualified scientists like Plimer. Of course there is no proof yet but there is plenty of evidence. To me, a 65 year old, ex military person etc the sheer logic is there. It is just plain common sense that we should all be trying to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we generate. Arguing about how much CO2 there was in the atmosphere a squillion years ago is irrelevant. Even if CO2 does fluctuate, surely it makes sense not to exacerbate global warming which is happening, whatever the cause. We take out insurance on our property even though we believe we won’t need it - but there is no second chance with global warming. If we get it wrong our grand children are probably doomed. What a legacy to leave behind. Alex
My copy of the book should arrive by post this week and I am looking forward to it.
Thanks for efforts to turn the spotlight onto action and away from energy-sapping point scoring.
Thanks for these comments, all. Please know that my controversial book on climate change ”Crunch Time” is experiencing difficulty gaining critical attention in the marketplace of ideas on Australian climate change policy. Despite two months of Scribe and I vigorously promoting it, it is still almost entirely unnoticed in major print media. Reviews have been mostly short and non-specialist (except for a substantial analysis in Eureka Street). At five book events I spoke at so far around Australian capital cities, with good and well-known co-speakers, total attendance would not have exceeded 200 people. Sales are slowly building but from a low base.
Perhaps ”Crunch Time”s radical forensic analysis offends the prevailing convention of ”don’t frighten the punters too much’. Australian writers and scientists seem prepared to go out on public limbs over threats to polar bears, inhabitants of lowlying atolls, and the Great Barrier Reef (and of course I care about all these values). But people seem less disposed to engage with the clear and present danger to our own children”s climate security, which comes unavoidably out of the Copenhagen Climate Congress March 2009 science. My book confronts this science, unflinchingly. This is about us stealing our own children’s climate security if we persist in business-as-usual energy policy. These are the real stakes.
I invite interested people to listen to my panel appearance on Late Night Live with Phillip Adams and Irish economist David McWilliams, last night 18 November ( it will be on the ABC web) ; or the much more detailed discussion event (about 90 minutes) at Avid Reader Bookshop, Brisbane on 18 November also, with ‘Australia Talks’ host Paul Barclay. We had an excellent interactive discussion with vigorous audience Q and A afterwards. It will go up on the ABC Radio Forum website next Wednesday 25 November. Look for it.
Them on Monday 23 November I will be in Adelaide with Catherine Zengerer and friends and colleagues, speaking at the launch of their new inclusive website safeclimatesa.com.au .
Come along if you live in Adelaide.
It’s time for fresh, more radical policies on climate change - policies really responsive to our moral obligation to try to protect our children;’s climate security.There is too much tired old thinking around. Copenhagen’s anticipated ”failure” marks a watershed moment. It’s time for Australia to move on to real decarbonisation policies at home.
Tony, if you’re still monitoring the thread - you say:
“To drive such a decarbonisation process, the government could give coal-power owners an economic stake in renewable energy by giving them government-funded alternative energy grid bonds, as compensation for asset values of closed-down coal-power stations.”
This is the missing piece from the policy discussion — how to wean the coal-dependent companies off coal without destroying their business. Many of the left wing believe it is necessary to simply destroy the coal interests. They are living in La-La Land, and there is an increasingly wide gulf between them and those who retain some economic realism. The gulf appears to be an uncrossable no-man’s-land between warring trenches.
Can you suggest in more detail how coal companies could be effectively penalised for bringing coal up from the ground (the stick) whilst enabling them to benefit from non-fossil-fuel development and still retain a competitive advantage (the carrot)? Such incentive would need to meet two requirements:
1. It must offer them a substantial leveragable asset during the development period when it’s not earning operational revenue
2. It must offer a good chance of retaining a competitive advantage in a post-coal energy industry
… or else it will be worthless to them. If it’s worthless to them, they will fight against any substantial changes in the energy industry, and they will win.
late reply too, james.
the answer - detailed in my book ”crunch time’, see index ’ - is to give the coal power asset owners compensation as their coal power stations are closed down in the form not of money, but of free allocations of Australian Government Renewable Energy Bonds - which the rest of us would have to buy. this is a combination of keynesian deficit finance, fair compensation for asset holders whose assets are becomind environmentally unwanted, and governmemt-driven decarbonisation technological change. it is obvious - so why aren’t the experts picking up on the idea? probably because none of them thought of it first.
a refinement not in my book - if there was a worry the new owners might rush to cash out all their bonds, thus destabilising the market for this new asset, they could be in a special category of staggered-date deferred sale bonds.