Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane’s energy green paper is probably already hitting dustbins around the country — just like that of his predecessor, Martin Ferguson — because it cannot provide answers to the chronic uncertainty surrounding energy policy.
In Macfarlane’s case, that is because it is no longer possible to make energy policy without a climate policy, and on that score the government’s got nothing but smoking ruins: a half-baked, de-funded Direct Action plan boondoggle that has yet to be legislated and a stalled review of the popular Renewable Energy Target that has landed the Coalition at the feet of the opposition, begging for bipartisanship after five years of the most toxic partisanship on climate we have ever seen.
As Energy Supply Association of Australia chief Matthew Warren told an industry conference in Sydney last week, what’s needed is a policy framework that can support something like $230 billion of investment required in the new, low-emission electricity infrastructure that will undoubtedly be needed in coming decades. There is no sign of such a framework in the green paper, which is why the ESAA expects we are in for another repeat of the carbon price debate.
But with the Commonwealth bogged in climate denial, everyone else will just go around them. State and territory governments haven’t imposed their own price on carbon (perhaps they should!), but they are going hard on renewable energy, putting federal policy torpor in the shade. The ACT is shooting for 90% renewables by 2020. South Australia this week has announced 50% by 2025. New South Wales wants to be Australia’s California (although it hasn’t backed it up with a RET or other firm policies yet), and what’s the bet that, if Labor is elected in Victoria as seems likely, the irrational anti-wind laws introduced by former premier Ted Baillieu will be one of the first things to go, finally ushering in a wind boom given the state’s fantastic resource.
Business isn’t waiting, either. Overnight came news that the world’s biggest company, Apple, has signed onto the CERES climate declaration, and the likes of IKEA have pledged to go zero carbon.
The tally of companies worldwide that have backed the World Bank’s carbon price movement now stands at 1042, including institutional investors managing more than $24 trillion in assets. Big business in Australia is conspicuous by its absence on that list, but BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Westpac have all signed up.
It may no longer be politically convenient in this country but BHP has committed to “voice support for carbon pricing”, which is “the most efficient and cost-effective means of reducing emissions” and is “inevitable if we are to produce a package of effective and cost-efficient policies to support scaled up mitigation”.
BHP has pledged to “work with governments towards the long-term objective of a carbon price applied throughout the global economy” by:
- Strengthening carbon pricing policies to redirect investment commensurate with the scale of the climate challenge;
- Bringing forward and strengthening the implementation of existing carbon pricing policies to better manage investment risks and opportunities; and
- Enhancing co-operation to share information, expertise and lessons learned on developing and implementing carbon pricing through various “readiness” platforms.
Stop laughing, it’s true! Rio Tinto and Westpac have joined the World Bank’s Caring for Climate Initiative, agreeing to:
- Set an internal carbon price high enough to materially affect investment decisions to drive down greenhouse gas emissions;
- Publicly advocate the importance of carbon pricing through policy mechanisms that take into account country specific economies and policy contexts; and
- Communicate on progress over time on the two criteria above in public corporate reports.
A surprising list of multinationals with significant fossil fuel business in Australia are on the list, including Anglo American, BP, Shell, and GDF Suez, and more Australian companies will join. It’s easy to be cynical about these corporate pledges, and they are often honoured only in the breach, but it is a clear sign big business can see which way consumers are heading — even if the Australian government can’t.

13 thoughts on “Energy policy not worth the (green) paper it’s written on”
Tamas Calderwood
September 24, 2014 at 3:26 pm“But with the Commonwealth bogged in climate denial…”
Denial about what? The world hasn’t warmed for 17 years despite record CO2 emissions.
Doesn’t that fact concern you Paddy? Does it ever factor into your thinking about global warming? And if not, why not?
Duncan Gilbey
September 24, 2014 at 4:43 pm@Tamas
The person that disproves the anthropomorphic nature of climate change has a very bright future ahead of them. Yet no-one has done it yet.
Why do you reckon that might be?
graybul
September 24, 2014 at 6:13 pmBig Business’ embracement of Climate Change will sweep away Abbott Govt OR, Abbott will confess to another lie.
GF50
September 24, 2014 at 6:17 pmYou left out the Rothschilds, divesting coal for renewables, only because they can make the same sized fortune from renewables, pity that it won, be Australian that reap that fortune.
GF50
September 24, 2014 at 6:18 pmMake that “won’t” not won.
zut alors
September 24, 2014 at 6:48 pmTamas, ten out of ten for persistence in toeing a line unrelentingly
Despite all odds.
And despite science.
Tamas Calderwood
September 24, 2014 at 8:28 pmYeah – and the 17 year ‘pause’? Care to address why that is? When are you wrong? 20 years? 25 years without any warming? What falsifies the theory???
Liamj
September 24, 2014 at 9:30 pmTamas – all of the 17 years you label as a pause were warmer than the long term average. Provide evidence that they were cooler than the average or take your trolling elsewhere.
Liamj
September 24, 2014 at 9:37 pmhttp://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies_running.gif
http://www.csiro.au/~/media/CSIROau/Images/Maps%20%20Graphs/GlobalTempRecords_CAF_ind/Main.ashx
AR
September 25, 2014 at 7:04 amTamas – have you sought treatment for your monomanaical OCD?