Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Politics

Oct 9, 2015

For all the hype, Turnbull still has a major problem on climate

Malcolm Turnbull is stuck with a major problem on climate change: the policy he inherited won't even achieve its own goals, let along the bigger emissions targets the government committed to.

Share

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw.

The many Liberal Party figures who observed Greg Hunt’s abandonment of his commitment to serious action on climate change in order to keep his job after the ascension of Tony Abbott in 2009 — some with amusement, some with mockery, many with both — can only have been impressed with the now-Environment Minister’s on-a-dime about-face on climate action following the restoration of Turnbull.

Hunt, who alternately co-operated with or was rolled continually by the right under Abbott, is suddenly an enthusiast for renewable energy, which was the subject of a hatred of almost religious intensity on the part of Abbott and then-Treasurer Joe Hockey. In just a couple of weeks under his recycled leader, Hunt has hinted at government support for storage technology, talked up bigger roles of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency despite retaining the “formal position” that both be abolished and even said Tony Abbott’s ambition to further slash the RET had been abandoned.

Lots of words from Hunt, but the government’s “formal position” is still pathetically weak emissions targets to be achieved, we’re told, by the “direct action” policy that Turnbull cruelly and forensically tore apart in 2010 — and with no additional funding for that policy. That is, the Coalition’s current position is that funding for “direct action”, which was aimed at achieving a 5% reduction in 2000-level emissions by 2020 (no one outside the government seriously believed that, but let’s ignore that for now), doesn’t have to increase a cent in order to achieve an emissions reduction of at least 26% on 2005 emissions by 2030.

In fact, the cost of doing that via “direct action” is estimated to be between $100 and $250 billion — an estimate not from the Greens or environmental groups, but from the hardheads at Australian Industry Group. There’s also the laughable “safeguards” mechanism, which by Hunt’s own admission is explicitly designed to make sure no polluter ever has to pay a fine for pumping out emissions above their previous levels after getting taxpayer money not to do so.

Labor plans an emissions trading scheme and a dramatic ramp-up in investment in renewable energy. The fact that it was prepared to commit to a carbon pricing mechanism even while Abbott was prime minister demonstrated an unexpected assurance on the issue for the party that Abbott had relentlessly pursued over Julia Gillard’s carbon pricing scheme. But there is no detail of any kind so far from Labor about its policies, so we have no clue as to how they would work or their budgetary and industry implications.

Labor is still further ahead on the issue than the Coalition, however, because Turnbull knows perfectly well that he has a significant problem: “direct action” won’t even achieve the 5% goal, let alone higher ones. Indeed, thanks to the abolition of Labor’s emissions trading scheme, Turnbull has inherited an economy in which emissions intensity is actually surging in electricity generation. Moreover his joint partyroom continues to contain large numbers of climate denialists, such as Australia’s next Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, who appears to genuinely believe a cool day is evidence that climate change is a myth, as well mining industry representatives like Josh Frydenberg, who is eager to inherit Tony Abbott’s mantle as Australia’s most dogged coal spruiker.

Turnbull either has to pump a lot more money into “direct action” — bearing in mind that each subsequent round of abatement purchases pushes the price up and reduces the abatement obtained per taxpayer dollar spent — or allow the Australian economy to remain one of the world’s most emissions intensive and let big polluters buy emissions reductions from overseas via the dodgy international carbon trading markets that Abbott used to rail against. Although, of course, that might look an awful lot like an emissions trading scheme of the kind the denialists won’t let Turnbull implement. The only alternative is massive government investment in renewable energy to dramatically accelerate the demise of coal-fired power, or a tightening of regulations around renewables — to in effect reverse Abbott and Hunt’s slashing of the RET and then some.

Heavy-handed government intervention or massive government spending — all from “a thoroughly Liberal government committed to freedom, the individual and the market”. Still, no matter what option Turnbull goes for, he can at least be assured his Environment Minister will enthusiastically spruik it.

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

17 comments

Leave a comment

17 thoughts on “For all the hype, Turnbull still has a major problem on climate

  1. klewso

    Surely Turnbull is bound by that deal – and as for that swivel-headed dummy “Stark” Hunt, his patter depends on whose lap he’s sat, with their hand up his “operating” parts?

  2. Jaybuoy

    “an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing”.was Turnbulls description of the direct action policy along with “fiscal recklessness on a grand scale”…I wonder how much agility the great explainer is going to require to extricate himself from a policy that he crossed the floor to vote against..?

  3. Laura

    Hmm I don’t think it’s as dire as that. Lenore Taylor has written about the potential of the ‘safeguard mechanism’ to be significantly dialled up by introducing more stringent emissions caps, which are reduced over the years. Not as tidy as an ETS but might help get the job done. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/15/with-a-nip-and-a-bit-of-tuck-turnbull-can-bring-a-touch-of-green-to-direct-action

  4. AR

    The best that can be said of ghunt is that he is the epitome of a meretricious mediocrity, willing to do, say or be anything for advancement.
    If the Abbotrocious government was a Conferderacy of Dunces then that of Silver Ming II could best be described as a Rule by Meretrix – available to the highest bidder.

  5. bushby jane

    I thought that Turnbull has said that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will still not finance wind power, he’s not entirely our saviour Bernard.

  6. Venise Alstergren

    Greg Hunt is a poisonous little toad. Be warned!

  7. Roger Clifton

    It is misleading the innocent reader to say, “the only alternative is massive government investment in renewable energy”. On the contrary, nuclear electricity is indeed an alternative to carbon-based power. When it comes to baseload, it is nuclear that is “the only alternative”.

    And let’s not pretend that 50-year commitments to increased gas installations, even backing up wind or solar, are going to halve our emissions every 15 years. Turnbull’s representatives will have to go to Paris with something better than that.

  8. AR

    Dodger – and of course nukes don’t require “massive government investment” nor total government immunity from tort. But you know that.

  9. MJPC

    “Weather vane” Hunt. Wait till he gets to Paris, good grief!
    If Hunt is suddenly a convert to alternate energy, he needs to speak with his mates on the front bench. Frydenburg was putting his ignorance on show recently:
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/frydenberg-coal-comments-signal-no-change-to-coalition-fossil-fuel-plans-86998 floating the old chestnut that coal will be the saviour of the third world, particularly sub-saharan Africa. What, some country in that area is going to invest in major electricity distribution networks based on coal fueled power stations like the first world?
    Turnbull and Hunt might be singing a different tune than Abbott, but they are using the same song sheet in the end.

  10. Aethelstan

    Despite the fact that Direct Action is an incoherent and ineffective strategy to ameliorate the effects of climate change … costing billions of taxpayer dollars and yet not penalising big polluters … a smiling Greg Hunt pops up every now and then like a grinning Mad Hatter telling us all everything about Direct Action is wonderful … it’s pathetic, really pathetic …

  11. Ken Lambert

    Hunt is a lukewarmer which means his policy is a sensible one. What the climateers never seem to get is that marvellous Malcolms ETS and carbon tax schemes are inventions of the finance spivs like Goldman Sachs which will be clipping a chit as your dollars flow to some Soviet forest or Columbian crop grower.

    The reality is that the dirtiest coal plants like Hazelwood are the cheapest to fuel so a carbon tax will close them last.

  12. Liamj

    Turnbull might act after the next election, but only if he can make real money for his fellow plutocrats and still have enough to buy off the AGW-denier crazies in the LNP.

    Ken, only in duh’stralia are 80 year old coal burners like Hazelwood cheapest, in Germany, Spain, New Zealand and even Texas renewables undercut fossil fuels. If we costed coal health impacts it would never be cheaper, but LNP calculators don’t even count proles.

  13. Roger Clifton

    Liamj, renewables cannot undercut fossil baseload, not at any price. If wind and solar are to supply gigawatts of power through all weather patterns, a means of storage must be invented to supply a thousand times the power for a thousand times longer than the best chemical battery available today.

  14. AR

    DodgerC – the baseload/back-up B/S is soooo last century, just like nukes.
    I personally are not holding my breath for the miracle battery promised by ,…Elon(?) thePayPay bloke but, if it is possible he’s the boyo if one is hoping for storing electricity.
    However energy storage could not be simpler for dark, still, sunless periods – pumped water as the Snowy hydro has been using for decades.
    It’s simple, low tek and thoroughly repairable by anyone with a spanner.
    Unlike your beloved nukes.

  15. Ken Lambert

    AR

    Pumped storage is a very good idea…..its just you need DAMS near loads to do the trick……just got to get the green deniers to build DAMS…

  16. AR

    KenL – certainly dams make it easier but they are by no means essential. The sheer volume within a closed system is the closest we’ll ever be to perpetual motion but even little Tazzy manages with small lakes and vast amounts within the pipes at any given time.
    The basic problem is the centralisation of production/usage – the sole advantage of nukes.
    If you think I am advocating decentralisation in general then you spot on.
    If we insist on clinging by our fingernails to the edge of this vast continent then tidal as well as wave (not the same beast) are the way to go.

  17. Ken Lambert

    AR

    Well a dam in a pipe then…..sounds like Bradfield-lite. I would like to see your numbers on that. And little Tassie has a whole population one tenth the size of greater Sydney.

    Solar with batteries will be a game changer if the batteries get cheap enough within 5 years for low intensity domestic and commerce situations.

    Nuclear for heavy base load maybe pebble bed or thorium. Package plants or my favourite – power ships. Its not a new idea, but I heard a new twist recently — power submarines….if anything goes wrong they re already underwater.

    Guess where I heard it…..Ockam’s Razor (my spelling) controlled by that climate nutter Robin Williams.

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/10/09/for-all-the-hype-turnbull-still-has-a-major-problem-on-climate/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.