In the end, it was Tony Abbott who got shirt-fronted, and not by the kleptocrat thug who runs Russia, but by Barack Obama — a leader with whom, pundits have assured us, Abbott is developing an increasingly close relationship. Evidently not close enough for the American President to give Abbott the heads-up on his pending climate action deal with Chinese autocrat Xi Jinping.
Then again, why would he? Abbott takes pride in his dismantling of a working carbon pricing scheme and his efforts to wreck investment in renewables, using his ever-shrinking Direct Action policy as a cover for climate denialism and a reflexive support for transnational resource companies. Abbott has nothing to offer countries genuinely interested in preventing the huge economic cost of climate change in coming decades, beyond a clear example of what not to do and asinine platitudes about how wonderful coal is.
The impact of the announcement could be understood through the reaction to it. The Minerals Council bravely declared that it was good news for Australian coal because our coal is so clean — just ask the residents of Morwell — and would be cleaner still with carbon capture. That’s the Alice in Wonderland technology that requires years of massive R&D investment before it’s clear whether it will even work outside a lab (and remember, spending taxpayer money on carbon capture research is “innovative R&D”; public investment in proven renewables technologies is “wasteful subsidisation”). But at denialism’s in-house newsletter, The Australian, Greg Sheridan was desperately insisting the climate deal “won’t change a thing” and it’s only “climate hysterics” who think otherwise.
With Abbott desperate to keep climate off the G20 agenda (because it’s not an economic issue … an even more bizarre form of denialism than claiming climate change doesn’t exist), the announcement couldn’t have come at a worse time for him. The Coalition’s entire post-Malcolm Turnbull strategy on climate action has been based on an assumption that there would be no concerted international action on the issue, especially by the biggest economies. That would allow Australia, with its risible bipartisan target of a 5% emissions reduction by 2020, to escape serious scrutiny (indeed, our emissions have now started rising again after a period of decline). As Treasury stated in 2010, the government’s Direct Action policy won’t even achieve that 5% at its then-budgeted allocation — which has since shrunk considerably. But Abbott has said there won’t be any more money allocated to it even if it falls short.
Whatever implausible hopes the government has that Direct Action will be enough turn to pure fantasy given that Australia now has no excuse not to lift its emissions reduction target from 5% to 15% or higher in the wake of international action. That’s why the Obama-Xi agreement is so damaging: it leaves the Coalition with no place to hide on an issue where it has long wanted to have it both ways — to behave like the denialists and resource company advocates they are but pretend to want to address climate change so as not to lose mainstream voters.
Coming after Abbott so visibly failed to follow through with his rhetoric of aggression toward Putin — he “shirked the shirt-front”, as one TV news bulletin put it — the deal means the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit has been a wretched experience for Abbott. Former prime minister John Howard famously had a terrible APEC in Sydney in 2007, for different reasons; maybe it’s political karma for all those years in the early 1990s when the Coalition bagged APEC as one of Labor’s grand follies.
The government will now attempt to switch attention to its own deal with China, the free trade agreement it is desperate to finalise for Xi’s visit to Canberra on Monday, with the fallback option of signing an agreement on the finalised areas while negotiations on the harder issues continue. These bilateral free trade agreements have been proven to add little to the economy and if anything merely delay much-needed liberalisation here so it can be used as a bargaining chip by the economic illiterates of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Still, the governments like to make a big deal of them and after this week, it will take anything it can to appear internationally credible.
51 thoughts on “Xi-Obama deal leaves Abbott with nowhere to hide on climate”
drsmithy
November 14, 2014 at 11:03 pmWell Dr Trenberth – leading climate scientist of the warmist variety thinks there is….do you want a quote?
Are you going to say anything that isn’t covered here ?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
drsmithy
November 14, 2014 at 11:14 pmWe are all worrying about 1.5% of the planet’s CO2 emissions from little Oz…not even enough to cover a couple of Chinese cities.
No, we’re worried about trying to get a head start on the inevitable “decarbonisation” of (amongst other things) energy production.
Change is less disruptive when it isn’t forced upon you.
Since that era our scientists have been captured by the soft left Green agenda and scare industry, which has left us dependent on low tech coal, red dirt extraction, gas; all BS, Eureka and no long term plan.
Breathtaking. In your second paragraph, you state nothing will change until the big emitters get on board, but barely a few sentences later you try to blame our inaction on the “soft left Green agenda” (despite that clearly being the only political faction looking any further ahead than the next election).
It must be quite a challenge writing that with a straight face.
Ken Lambert
November 16, 2014 at 12:20 amdrsmithy
And elsewhere. I seem to recall Dr Trenberth using the word ‘stasis’ in context.
Ken Lambert
November 16, 2014 at 12:28 amWell my point is that low tech coal makes sense as long as it is the cheapest energy source.
Nuclear 40 years ago would probably not have been as cheap, but the far sighted would have got us started with the technology, and no doubt we would have made great strides with large and small plant designs…possibly thorium and something similar to pebble bed.
That was all made impossible by Gough’s and later Govts and the 3 mile island scare blown up by ratbags like Caldicott.
Geoff Thomas
November 16, 2014 at 9:52 amKen, yes the big emitters will pass on their increased cost of production, including the cost of carbon emitted. Downstream consumers will respond. We hope this will display a modicum of rationality substituting lower emitting sources of energy.
LNG will be an important transitional energy source but there is a range of true renewable sources of energy beyond wind and solar. Unfortunately these energy need a storage technology to meet base load demand. This technology is expensive now, but decreasing in cost.
The same is not the case with wind, wave and geothermic. All of these are in early stages of development but have significant potential.
My problem with nuclear is that waste management and processing, and the de commissioning of obsolete generators must be carried by the consumer, not subsidised by government or the taxpayer.
The safety of the nuclear fuel cycle depends very much on the competence of operators and the effectiveness of industry regulation. For me this is another question mark.
David Hand
November 17, 2014 at 8:52 amGeoff,
Your latest post simply backs Tony Abbott’s policy position.
In opposing nuclear, pointing out the base load weakness of renewables, you are left with gas or coal. The Greens have successfully shut the farm gate on gas so that just leaves good old trusty coal.
Thank you Greens for your superb vision. Or are we waiting for someone to invent the hemp bicycle?
Honest Johnny
November 17, 2014 at 10:48 amI can’t let David’s stupid remark go uncontested. David, the Greens have not shut the farm gate on coal-seam gas, its the farmers and rural communities who own and live off the land, and who who are quite rightly concerned for the well-being of the aquifers and food production, and the livelihoods of their families and future generations, who are shutting their gates to the mining companies. These people have sought support from all parties especially the Nationals, but so far it has only been the Greens who have listened to them and supported them. The blockades and protests out in the rural communities do not get much media coverage so the big Party politicians do their best to ignore them. Only the Greens are there supporting the farmers and rural communities. If the LNP want to keep supporting big business and the mining companies over these communities, they will lose their constituency.
Geoff Thomas
November 17, 2014 at 11:12 amNo David, I believe strongly in an Emissions Trading Scheme. It is no more than a cost of production per ton of carbon emitted.
Stern and Garnaut are all about how we transition away from reliance on fossil based sources of fuel. The issue is how we do this with the least cost to the economy. Over time there will be fossil fuel reserves that are unsaleable, and investments in fossil fuel industries that will be written off. These are part of the costs that will need to be balanced by investment in, and production of, renewable energy
May I commend an article in the AFR of 15 – 16 November by Geoff Winestock. He draws attention to our current commitment to reduce our emissions by 0.2% over the period 2000 to 2025. The Obama commitment implies that the US will cut emissions by 2.5% over the same period. We don’t look real good do we.
As for China, they are now looking at shifting between 800 and 1000 gigawatt hour of generating capacity from fossil fuel to renewables. By renewables they include nuclear and hydro. But this shift is equivalent to 2000 individual power generators of 500 megawatts each. The Wallerawang Power Station near Lithgow (shut down in April this year) has two 500 megawatt generator. So the Chinese intentions are significant too.
I do not agree with you that we are “left with gas or coal.
Wave and tidal power resources are vast and they a base load resource. However they are undeveloped at present There are geothermic reserves in the Cooper Basin alone sufficient to meet Australia’s 2012 base load demand for 2600 years.
We cannot ignore the fact that we must start to adjust our energy and commodity markets so that our transition from fossil to renewable energy use is as disruptive as possible and incurs the minimum economic and social cost. This does not mean blindly committing to protect the coal, oil and gas industries as they are as our foolish government has.
Finally David your suggestion that I back Tony Abbotts’ position ” is deeply offensive to me personally. The man is a liar, unfit to be a national leader. He demonstrated this again with his G20 performance.
David Hand
November 18, 2014 at 10:25 amWell Mr. Honest,
You must have missed the warm and soft edition of Australian Story where Drew Hutton claimed credit for going from farm to farm activating and mobilising farmers to resist coal seam gas exploration on their land.
Your comment is classic Green propaganda. The Greens began the movement and the PR like your post recasts them as sympathetic supporters.
Honest Johnny
November 18, 2014 at 10:42 amNo David you are wrong, Lock the Gate was not begun by the Greens, if it was, then one of its biggest supporters, Alan Jones would have nothing to do with it. Sure, Drew Hutton is involved, but saying the Greens began the movement because Drew Hutton is involved is like saying the Liberal Party began the Republican Movement because Malcolm Turnbull is involved. You just don’t get it. Its the farmers and local communities who own the gates, the Greens support them and Drew Hutton’s efforts. Why don’t you go check it out at one of the barricades? Attitudes like yours will help the LNP lose that constituency even quicker.